Government policymakers rarely consult with academic experts before formulating policy positions. When policymakers do seek out academics, they are often attempting to justify a position they already hold, not searching for objective analysis. Academics could add much to the policy debate if they were more meaningfully engaged in the discussion.

Rick Farmer's article focuses on ways in which academic political scientists can influence policymakers. At the Toronto meeting of the Working Group on Practicing Politics, government political scientists also recognized that academics often are frustrated by the process of getting information from the government and cooperation from officials.

Anniversaries, for good or ill, are often hard to ignore. The finiteness and roundness of a century proves almost too irresistible for us to not stop and try to derive some sense of accomplishment and meaning from our individual and collective efforts. The recent 100th anniversary of the American Political Science Review in 2006, for example, proved too much to ignore and, as a result, provided us with just such a reckoning (see, e.g., Sigelman 2006). As alluring as the end of a century is for such reminiscing, this impulse is even more forceful at the end of a millennium. Such a closing represents a chance for letting go of the past, gaining some sense of forgiveness, and with the hope of constructing a new future, taking a chance to begin again. This notion of renewal and change was very much on the mind of the individual behind the original “Perestroika” e-mail, circulated in the fall of 2000. In the e-mail, Mr. Perestroika called into question the relevance of the APSA and the American Political Science Review (APSR), questioned the narrowness of our methods, and bemoaned the whiteness and maleness of most of the leadership positions within the discipline. The new millennium seemingly called for a new approach to the study and practice of political science that would move us away from the “coterie” of “East Coast Brahmins” who dominated the APSA and APSR. The tenth anniversary of Mr. Perestroika's e-mail offers us a chance to reflect on and revisit the millennial promise of the Perestroika movement, examine its impact upon the discipline, and assess the nature of its future.

Ten years ago this October, the members of the political science community might have heard a short, but quite fascinating, cri de coeur about the prevailing practices of the discipline in the United States at the turn of the century. Circulating as an e-mail message shortly after the 2000 APSA Annual Meeting, it popped up in the inboxes of a few political scientists and graduate students throughout the academy, who then quickly redirected its message to hundreds and then thousands of their colleagues. Signed “Mr. Perestroika,” the e-mail's short passages bemoaned the profession of political science as it was unfolding under the allegedly misguided aegis of an “Orwellian system” of methodological formalism. Portraying the discipline as trapped in this intellectual cul de sac, Mr. Perestroika depicted an essentially degraded social science discipline that favored the political views of a “coterie” of “East Coast Brahmins” by ratifying their narrow methodological practices (cited in Monroe 2005, 9–11). Such practices, based mostly on “statistics or game theory,” wrongly promoted a simplistic and, for far too many students of the state and society, discredited economic understanding of politics. This unenviable methodological parochialism in turn favored a style of “professional correctness” that froze out other political perspectives and analytical approaches (Luke 1999, 345–63) in the discipline's key journals, major organizations, and scholarly practices. For Mr. Perestroika, these distorted academic norms were also compromising the relevance, utility, and validity of political science as an applied social science.

It is fitting to measure Perestroika's impact through the contents of the leading political science association journals. The original Perestroika manifesto railed at the American Political Science Review (APSR), and many subsequent Perestroika protests condemned the skewed contents of the APSR, the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), and the Journal of Politics. Large national and regional associations publish and pay for these journals. The position of Perestroika has been that their contents should represent the many types of research that political scientists are doing, which was not the case when the movement began.

The emergence of the Perestroika movement in U.S. political science was an important moment in the contemporary history of our discipline, and as we approach the 10-year anniversary of this movement, it is fitting that PS should publish a retrospective symposium on its origins and significance.

The purpose of the present symposium was to evaluate Perestroika's impact. Since the American Political Science Review (APSR), the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), and the Journal of Politics (JOP) were all targets of criticism in the movement, whereas other national and regional association journals such as Perspectives on Politics and Political Research Quarterly were not, I looked for change in the former. Comparable data on the past contents of the APSR and AJPS had already been published, so I focused my recent surveys on those two. This focus implies no judgment as to the relative prestige of these journals. They pretend to represent the discipline as a whole and are paid for by all association members, and these are sufficient reasons to address their editorial biases.

One of the primary concerns driving Perestroika was the hegemony of quantitative methods in American political science research, curricula, journals, and positions, to the exclusion of qualitative and interpretive approaches. In this article, we assess the contemporary methodological diversity of U.S. political science, at the APSA in particular, to see what, if anything, has changed over the last 10 years. This is an admittedly rough assessment, as the deadline for this symposium did not allow time to repeat the research projects that started Perestroika's and our own solo and joint efforts, the latter preceding and then intersecting with the former. We therefore give a broad overview of methods-directed activities, although we cannot help but see events through the lens of our own involvement in them, and that view is perforce partial.

Not long ago, many political scientists suffered from economics envy. Some still do. They view economics as the queen of the social sciences, claiming that it is “scientific,” like physics. Physicists and other natural scientists spend most of their time trying to explain phenomena, but non-behavioral micro-economists spend most of their time on mathematical proofs and econometric tests of a priori theories based on intuitive plausibility or principles of “rational action.” Being “scientific” it was alleged, meant that economics could access objective knowledge, knowledge that was said to be true independent of time, place, and circumstance. Robert Bates called on political scientists to do the same by arguing that they should be in search of “lawful regularities which … must not be context bound” (Bates 1997b).

In this article, we speak to two of the Perestroika movement's contributions to political science: heightened awareness of (1) the need for a more catholic approach to methods and (2) the increased sensitivity to the special demands of international cross-cultural research. We make several suggestions here that address each of these topics.

A decade ago, we were among the scholars in political science who proudly associated ourselves with the Perestroika movement and its calls for greater respect for a range of productive methods, more substantively significant political research, and a more internally democratic profession. We retain those commitments. But Perestroikans have failed to focus on some broader trends in political science and the modern American academy that pose threats that are arguably still deeper, still more unjust, and still harder to overcome. In regard to what political scientists do that this society values most—teaching—we have a significant and growing equity deficit in the discipline.

In 10 years, Perestroika has gone from a “raucous” forum discussing a wide range of issues to a largely moribund list that posts occasional jobs and attacks those who dare to bring up controversial topics. A good example of the decline of the list was illustrated by one participant's recent attempt to raise the issue of Glenn Beck's slander of Frances Fox Piven and the late Richard Cloward. The poster was attacked by some group members for “politicizing” Perestroika. These members claimed that the list was a no-politics zone for debating methodological issues. Since Glenn Beck did not hold a tenured position in the discipline, others felt that his ideas were not rational enough to warrant a response. Some on the list (perhaps with scant knowledge of left-wing media) proposed approaching Rachel Maddow, and while a few media outlets did take up this case, it never reached the main talkies. In the end, however, Perestroikans failed to stand up for the integrity of the free and wide-ranging discourse they claim to champion.

While there is nothing new about academic dishonesty, how it is committed, prevented, and detected has been dramatically transformed by the advent of online technologies. This article briefly describes the concurrent emergence of online writing assistance services and Web-based plagiarism detection tools and examines the implications of both for student-faculty relations, faculty workload, and student learning. Finally, we provide three alternative strategies for deterring, detecting, and documenting all forms of plagiarism.

Information and communication technology (ICT) programs like Microsoft PowerPoint and Apple Keynote have become the norm for large university lecture classes, but their record in terms of student engagement and active learning is mixed at best. Here, the author presents the merits of a “populist” lecture style that takes full advantage of the variety of features available from the latest generation of ICT programs. Based on visual variety, audio and visual sound bites, and the incorporation of humor and pop-cultural references, this populist approach not only facilitates greater student attention and engagement with the class materials, but also offers unmatched opportunities for extending student learning beyond the confines of the large lecture hall.

This article uses a case study to illustrate how science fair projects—which traditionally focus on “hard science” topics—can contribute to political science education. One of the authors, a high school student, conducted an experimental study of politics for her science fair project. The other author, a faculty member, was asked to advise the student on the project to allay initial skepticism about its focus on a “soft science” topic. The results of the experiment indicated that exposure to a televised comedy sketch about the 2008 presidential campaign yielded learning effects and fostered political interest among high school students. The authors recommend political science fair projects as tools for introducing precollegiate students to the political science research process and offering political scientists opportunities to educate students beyond the university setting.

The process of transforming students from novices into experts relies on active learning and the development of an appreciation for the links among topics. Since rote or stimulus-response learning is preferred by a majority of students who are beginning their programs of study but does not optimize learning and understanding, the first step in the process is changing students' preference to active learning. As students progress from 100- to 400-level courses, this outcome can be accomplished by reducing the amount of class time that instructors dedicate to lectures that introduce new material and increasing the amount of time dedicated to active learning strategies. Because of PowerPoint's linear structure, teachers can foster learning by supplementing traditional slides with tables, charts, graphs, and concept maps that explicate the links among topics. Concept maps also lend themselves to assessing students' mastery of concepts and the value added by class discussions. Both measures enable instructors to enhance their teaching effectiveness and, over time, use class sessions more efficiently.

Fourth grade students at a public elementary school in Houston, Texas, participated in a one-week exercise intended to mimic the process of creating a public good through a democratic process. The exercise involved students in four separate classes designing a class party with different characteristics (theme, music, and food) through a voluntary but personally costly voting procedure. The students then held the party that they had created. A formal assessment of learning objectives and a debriefing were also part of the exercise. Some ideas investigated include the disconnection between the actual party's characteristics and the revealed preferences of the students during the debriefing—a lesson of collective action—and the satisfaction and learning outcomes experienced by a minority of students as the result of being political activists and having their preferences realized in the makeup of their class party.

APSA is pleased to recognize the recipients of campuswide and departmental awards for teaching excellence during the 2009–10 academic year. Pi Sigma Alpha hosts these recipients each year at the Reception Honoring Teaching at the APSA Annual Meeting.