The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments worldwide—many that previously prioritized austerity—to approve large relief packages. Political economy tells us that politicians will try to profit from this electorally, but much remains unknown about precisely how pandemic relief might influence voting intentions. Then-President Donald Trump foregrounded this question early in the pandemic by becoming the first US president to physically place his name on Internal Revenue Service relief checks mailed to citizens. By leveraging a nationally representative survey whose timing achieved quasi-experimental variation in the receipt of payments both with and without Trump’s name physically on them, this study asks: Can a president successfully win support through physical personalization of the payments? Yes, the study finds. Receiving a physically personalized check in the mail is associated with a much greater self-reported likelihood of voting for the president, with gains mainly from partisan outgroups. No clear effect is found for unpersonalized electronic transfers. These findings withstand multiple robustness checks.

The 2016 Trump campaign held more than 300 rallies. Our research examines whether these rallies and Trump’s rhetoric served as opportunities for the spread of hate. We measured the number of reported white-supremacist propaganda, anti-Semitic incidents, and extremist behaviors that occurred both leading up to and directly following these campaign events. We contend that Trump’s rhetoric and rallies increased the perceived threat facing white Americans, heightening their white identity, all while justifying violence and extralegal methods to address their grievances and thereby increasing reported bias incidents. We find that counties that hosted a Trump rally experienced an increase in hate-motivated events. We systematically show that Trump political rallies were associated with a limited size but significant rise in the likelihood of reported hate and bias incidents.

Although much of the United States undoubtedly was aware of the impeachment hearings and trial for President Donald Trump in 2019–2020, the extent to which information about those events influenced the public remains unknown. Building on scholarship about public opinion and democratic governance, we attempted to fill this knowledge gap through a unique survey. We asked half of our sample to answer three factual questions pertaining to Trump’s first impeachment trial. We ran a quasi-experiment on the other half, trying to influence their view of the trial by informing them of the same three facts that we asked the first group. The quasi-experiment demonstrates that support for acquittal was largely static and that partisanship strongly influences whether the public accepts the veracity and importance of political information. Consequently, civic knowledge today appears to have a limited—perhaps even nonexistent—effect on public attitudes about American politics.

Although the importance of networking often is emphasized to graduate students, straightforward guidance on how to approach this task is typically reliant on individual advisors who both know and can demystify the discipline’s hidden and informal practices. This article provides concrete, point-by-point tips for both junior scholars and their supporters, building on our experiences in creating an online communication forum for early-career scholars on the job market. Specifically, we suggest a model of community networking focused on robust, cross-rank engagement along dimensions of similar experiences and similar interests. Community networking moves beyond individuals angling to obtain a seat at the table and instead builds a bigger, more inclusive table. Although junior scholars must focus primarily on their research rather than expansive service commitments, community networking is ultimately both a service to the discipline and a fruitful strategy for raising a scholar’s profile and finding coauthors, colleagues, friends, and allies.

Submitting grant proposals is becoming an increasingly common expectation—and, in some cases, a requirement—in the discipline of political science as well as other social sciences and the humanities. However, writing a grant with a good chance of success at getting funded is not part of standard mentorship or pedagogy in our discipline. It is a part of the hidden curriculum, where grant-writing skills often are taught informally in working with a principal investigator. This article describes the process and structure of writing a grant to provide a roadmap for scholars to follow in submitting externally funded projects. The article describes an Institutional Review Board–approved survey about mentorship and grant writing and discusses the importance of socialization, professionalization, and administration in supporting scholars in writing and obtaining grants.

The “hidden curriculum” in academia represents a set of informal norms and rules, expectations, and skills that inform our “ways of doing” academic practice (Calarco 2020). This article suggests that relying on informal networks to provide access to instruction in these skills can reinforce preexisting inequalities in the discipline. Drawing on a pilot program that we developed and implemented in our own department, we provide a model for formalizing instruction and equalizing access to training in these professionalizing skills. Drawing on the literature on inclusive pedagogy, as well as our own implementation experience, we advance four recommendations for scaling and transporting instruction in the “hidden curriculum” to other departments.

Political scientists have recently taken great strides to expose and address sexual harassment and assault in our academic departments and professional conferences. Little has been said, however, of the sexual violence and discrimination that political scientists confront during field research. Female field researchers may encounter a number of power disparities that put them at acute risk for sexual violence during fieldwork, and evidence suggests that experiences of sexual misconduct in the field are both pervasive and professionally devastating. This article challenges the discipline to break its silence on sexual violence during fieldwork, remove the stigma of incompetency assigned to survivors, and support field researchers in confronting sexual harassment and assault in the field.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently replaced its long-standing Political Science Program with two new programs: the Security and Preparedness Program and the Accountable Institutions and Behavior Program. This article evaluates the likely impact of the reform by way of original survey data. The NSF Program Change Survey asked past recipients of the Political Science Program Standard Grant to evaluate their own previously funded proposals according to the new NSF program descriptions. Respondents were asked whether they would apply for the same research project under the new thematic programs and, if they would, whether they believed it would be necessary to change the framing or substance of their proposal. Data from the survey suggest that the new NSF program themes are likely to discourage some political scientists from applying, while encouraging many more applicants to shift the framing or substance of their research to accommodate the new call for proposals. In particular, the new Security and Preparedness Program carries significant consequences for new knowledge production.