Recent events have led to a renewed conversation surrounding the relevance and potential removal of Confederate monuments around the country, and several monuments have already been removed. However, we have little insight to explain why some monuments have been removed while others remain. This article seeks to understand the social and political determinants that can better explain the recent removal of Confederate monuments throughout the United States. Analyzing results from an original dataset of Confederate monuments, we identify which local government structures and racial and civic characteristics best predict the removal of these monuments. Ultimately, although we find that other factors contribute to monument removal, the size of the black population, the presence of a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People chapter, and the percentage of Democrats in a county in which a monument exists—as well as whether the monument exists in a state that constrains removal by legislative decree—best predict whether a Confederate monument will be taken down. This project elucidates the interplay of race, partisanship, and local and statewide politics as it relates to the dismantling of Confederate monuments.

This article explicates the intertwined economic and political goals behind the imposition of countersanctions through an analysis of their premises and outcomes for Russia’s domestic economy. The evidence supports the argument that retaliation was designed to benefit the Russian domestic food industry, reorient trade relations, and bolster domestic public support for this sector while politically penalizing sanctioning countries. An important contribution of this article is to demonstrate how sanctions imposed on nondemocratic target countries, which play an important role in international affairs, is like a tit-for-tat game, which may have additional effects and also unintended political, economic, and social consequences not yet observed.

In the 2016 election, foreign policy may have played a critically important role in swinging an important constituency to Donald Trump: voters in high-casualty communities that had abandoned Republican candidates in the mid-2000s. Trump’s iconoclastic campaign rhetoric promised a foreign policy that would simultaneously be more muscular and restrained. He promised to rebuild and refocus the military while avoiding the “stupid wars” and costly entanglements of his predecessors. At both the state and county levels, we find significant and substantively meaningful relationships between local casualty rates and support for Trump. Trump made significant electoral gains among constituencies that were exhausted and politically alienated by 18 years of fighting. Trump’s foreign policy shows a president beset by competing militaristic and isolationist impulses. Our results suggest that giving into the former may come at a significant electoral cost.

Political scientists increasingly enlist the work of historians but they often treat this work in a nonchalant or superficial way, which makes their evidentiary record questionable. It follows that we need to check the validity of the interpretation of historians’ work in review processes. This article argues that enlisting historians as reviewers is not the answer. Instead, it proposes four simple criteria that can be used to flag situations in which the use of historians’ work as empirical evidence is unconvincing. The general purpose of the article is to increase awareness about what is at stake when political scientists base empirical analysis on evidence gathered by historians.

Most political scientists conduct and publish qualitative research, but what training in qualitative methods do political science doctoral programs offer? Do scholarly views converge on the proper content of such training? Analysis of methods curricula and syllabi from 25 leading US political science doctoral programs reveals a troubling gap: only 60% of top departments offer any dedicated graduate training in qualitative methods. Departments can remedy this disjuncture between scholarship and training by enhancing their basic qualitative methods curricula. Our research shows that scholars agree broadly on the content of such training, effective pedagogical practices, major alternatives for curriculum design, and a menu of focused topics. Graduate programs that aspire to train professionally competent qualitative and multi-method researchers now can orient their reform efforts on shared disciplinary standards for qualitative methods training.

Researchers and practitioners increasingly want to learn from one another and work together to solve problems. This article presents results from a new evidence-based approach for connecting them, called Research Impact Through Matchmaking (RITM). This method leverages research on organizational diversity to initiate new relationships between diverse people. The article describes the method and presents data from 37 new connections between practitioners working at nonprofits and social scientists. To my knowledge, this is the first dataset describing reasons why a large variety of nonprofit practitioners value social science research. I also document the impact of these matches. Overall, this article provides actionable guidance for those who want to initiate their own new connections (i.e., match themselves) and/or to broker new connections between others.

Research continues to accumulate showing that in instructor evaluations students are biased against women. This article extends these analyses by examining the dynamics between evaluations and gender and race/ethnicity. In a quasi-experimental design, faculty members teaching identical online courses recorded welcome videos that were presented to students at the course onset, constituting the sole exposure to perceived gender and race/ethnicity. This enables exploration of whether and to what degree the instructors’ characteristics influenced student evaluations, even after holding all other course factors constant. Findings show that instructors who are female and persons of color receive lower scores on ordinal student evaluations than those who are white males. Overall, we add further evidence to a growing literature calling for student evaluations of teaching (SETs) reform and extend it to encompass the effects on racial/ethnic minorities in addition to women.

Our research on bias in family formation is rooted in the extant literature of gender and academia but moves beyond discussion of the “leaky-pipeline” metaphor to explore less frequently addressed issues including pregnancy loss, illness, lactation, and challenges faced by academic parents who are the partners of those who have given birth. We explore the lower-order processes that inform the gap in professional achievement between men and women in political science specifically and in academia more broadly. In turn, these lower-order processes manifest as more observable higher-order outcomes such as the disparate rates of tenure and promotion. We conducted a 100-question survey from November 2017 through July 2019 involving more than 300 respondents. Through analysis of open-ended survey responses, we identified a common theme uniting faculty experiences at a range of universities: family formation and parenting can be isolating processes for academics, and there often is a gross lack of both formal and informal support within universities, which creates the potential for setbacks in both personal and professional life. We highlight the challenges confronting academic parents—especially women—and suggest potential avenues to a more inclusive and balanced approach to academia.

As more universities view students as customers and as more critics accuse universities of political bias, it is important to learn how students respond to professors’ politics. Does a politically active professor make a course more or less appealing? In this experiment, I randomly presented descriptions of course instructors to current university students and asked them to describe their appeal. Subjects expressed greater interest in professors who were politically ambiguous or whose politics matched their own. Conservative professors were more polarizing than liberal professors, and liberal students rejected conservative professors more than they preferred liberal professors. Based on these results, political neutrality is the safest bet for attracting a broad set of students, especially when a professor is conservative.

Conflict, postconflict settings, and other risky research sites are important with wide-ranging policy implications. Microlevel, field-based research lends critical insights to how conflicts work and the mechanisms behind macrolevel correlations that underpin quantitative political science. This article identifies how the risks associated with conflict and postconflict contexts influence researchers’ choices by theorizing the existence of distinct adaptive strategies. Specifically, researchers facing elevated risk generally manage it through three main strategies: outsourcing risk, avoiding risk, and internalizing risk. We argue that these strategies systematically shape and circumscribe outputs. We conclude by discussing how the relationship between risky fieldwork and what we know about conflict is poorly acknowledged. Thinking about how we manage risk should play a larger role in both our preparation for and interpretation of research, particularly in conflict and postconflict contexts.

The realization that policy and law are tightly intertwined dates at least to de Tocqueville’s observation that, in the United States, political questions often become judicial questions. Scholars have shown consistently that courts, both federal and state, play a role in public policy decision making. This is observed in social policy (e.g., same-sex marriage and abortion), environmental policy (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency regulations), economic policy (e.g., New Deal Era decisions), and more. Too often, however, graduate programs in public policy fail to prepare students for the role of the courts in the policy process. This study examines the requirements and core competencies from Masters of Public Policy programs to determine to what extent, if any, judicial policy making is taught. We find that there is a significant gap between the theory about the role of courts in the public policy process and what public policy programs teach their students. We conclude with recommendations for possible changes to curricula to close this gap.