What evidence can be found of political science scholarship on teaching and learning? What questions are being asked and what methodologies are being used by political scientists engaged in this work? This article identifies and discusses six transformative trends in STL, specific to the discipline of political science. The most prominent trends are the dramatic increases in:

1. democratic and civic education

2. the use of technology in the classroom

3. curriculum development and innovation in teaching strategies.

This research examines the effect of disgruntlement among primary and caucus voters who supported U.S. presidential nomination losers—a potentially divisive nomination process. I analyze the general election voting behavior of primary and caucus voters in the 2008 presidential election to determine if differences exist between supporters of the winning nominee in each party and backers of other candidates who also sought the nomination. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of “loyal party vote” suggests that Clinton and Edwards supporters showed a significantly higher degree of defection in the general election, although this behavior did not occur among people who voted for Romney or Huckabee in their state's primary or caucus.

The 2008 presidential election has been widely touted as historic because a woman and an African American became viable candidates for a major party, thereby thrusting gender and race into the spotlight. Of course, gender and race have always been present as informal criteria for U.S. presidential candidates. At the constitutional founding, only white propertied men with sufficient affluence to be gentlemen of leisure were deemed suitable for national office (Wood 1991). Following the traditions of kings and military leaders, the executive was assumed to be an elite man and the institution itself became associated with men and fashioned in the preferences of its founders (March and Olsen 1989). For the presidency, founding fathers sought a heroic man, capable of leading in the extra-legal realm that they recognized could not be fully anticipated in law (Kann 1998). Since then, presidential campaigns have always been about what kind of man should hold an office predicated upon masculinity. While certainly presidential candidates' characters have been most discussed, the quality of each candidate's masculinity has been embedded in the sizing up of presidential timber, character, and the person.

Jonathan Shapiro, better known as Zapiro, is South Africa's most influential and widely published political cartoonist. His work is featured in several national daily and weekly newspapers. His cartoons have also appeared in international publications and he or his work has been featured in everything from highbrow newspapers to the front page of real estate advertisement magazines. A member of the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s, he exhibits a bias toward a progressive, Left-liberal conception of what political life ought to be that sits uncomfortably with the increasingly Africanist tonality pulsating through the veins of South African political life. His work touches upon the history of oppression, the reactions of those in and now out of power, and, in more recent years, on the issues that arise from the “underbelly” of the liberation movement. He has brutally caricatured the foibles of liberation movements leaders, be it their AIDS denial, individuals' cases of corruption, or the hypocrisy of ethnic or racial mobilization in the context of the new, non-racial dispensation. His particular wrath is reserved for African National Congress (ANC) figures who have, in his view, defiled the principles of the liberation movement. In the last two years, Zapiro has busied himself with a series of cartoons about the trials and tribulations of the former deputy president and leader of the ANC, Jacob Zuma.

Scores of studies have measured the quality of political science departments. Generally speaking, these studies have taken two forms. Many have relied on scholars' survey responses to construct rankings of the major departments. For example, almost 50 years ago Keniston (1957) interviewed 25 department chairpersons and asked them to assess the quality of various programs, and, much more recently, the National Research Council (NRC 1995) asked 100 political scientists to rate the “scholarly quality of program faculty” in the nation's political science doctoral departments. In response to these opinion-based rankings, a number of researchers have developed what they claim to be more objective measures of department quality based on the research productivity of the faculty (Ballard and Mitchell 1998; Miller, Tien, and Peebler 1996; Robey 1979). While department rankings using these two methods are often similar, there are always noteworthy differences and these have generated an additional literature that explores the relationship between the rating systems (Garand and Graddy 1999; Jackman and Siverson 1996; Katz and Eagles 1996; Miller, Tien, and Peebler 1996).

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.

Having been a political scientist since the mid-1960s, I have seen calls for disciplinary change come and go. The latest “revolution” is particularly disappointing. Dubbed the “Perestroika movement,” after the nom de plume of the “revolt's” conjurer, supporters of this latest “protest” often make sweeping claims, couched in apocalyptic imagery. Ultimately, Perestroikans alienate some who favor disciplinary changes. Those who rail against the profession's political irrelevance are themselves bad politicians.

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.

Political satire has become increasingly prominent in recent years, leading some political science instructors to use satire in their courses. Yet, recent work suggests that political satire may encourage cynicism and decrease political efficacy. In this article, the author develops and tests an approach to teaching effectively with satire. Frequent use, source diversity, and critical evaluation engage students while allaying satire’s potential detrimental effects. The author evaluates this pedagogical approach through a classroom experiment using both in-person and online classes (student N = 163). Qualitative and quantitative data offer suggestive evidence that refutes the warning that satire fundamentally depresses political efficacy and indicates that students enjoy satire and endorse its use. By deliberately using diverse satirical sources, instructors can maximize the benefits of satire while minimizing potential drawbacks. For interested instructors, the author’s website contains a searchable catalog of satirical articles, video clips, and cartoons that can be used to teach specific political science concepts.

During the past decade, analyses drawing on several democracy measures have shown a global trend of democratic retrenchment. While these democracy measures use radically different methodologies, most partially or fully rely on subjective judgments to produce estimates of the level of democracy within states. Such projects continuously grapple with balancing conceptual coverage with the potential for bias (Munck and Verkuilen 2002; Przeworski et al. 2000). Little and Meng (L&M) (2023) reintroduce this debate, arguing that “objective” measures of democracy show little evidence of recent global democratic backsliding.1 By extension, they posit that time-varying expert bias drives the appearance of democratic retrenchment in measures that incorporate expert judgments. In this article, we engage with (1) broader debates on democracy measurement and democratic backsliding, and (2) L&M’s specific data and conclusions.

Why does the war on drugs continue after 40 years? This article combines theories of policy termination and prospect theory to explain the drug war's persistence. After reviewing the case for termination, the article turns to policy termination theory. As previous case studies have demonstrated, rationality and economic reasoning alone fail to persuade politicians to end existing policies. In the case of the drug war, specific characteristics of the drug policy and the current political environment, as well as typical institutional and bureaucratic constraints, create substantial obstacles to end the drug war. Perceptions of the risks and benefits of drug war termination also create difficulties. The article concludes that a number of factors need to shift before drug war policy termination can take place.

One of the concerns that has plagued research on the biological and genetic underpinnings of social behaviors and individual differences is the fear that such information can be used for ill. This fear rests on a foundation of good reason. Early abuses involving the use of selective phrenology and other purportedly “scientific” methods to establish moral hierarchies among races or between sexes have exerted profound and lasting damage on society, as well as affecting later attempts to more productively examine the biological bases of individual difference. And yet, many policies that have focused exclusively on social factors have created equal pain and suffering, although these approaches have rarely fostered as much discussion. However, despite these negative outcomes, biological research can also attack diseases, alleviate suffering, and dispel social myths that wrongfully assign blame to the victim or otherwise oversimplify behavior. Here, we argue for a similar positive valuation of such an approach in political and social research. We concentrate not on the ethics of conducting this research, but rather the ethical need for this research to be conducted.

This article helps fill the void in U.S. political science's approach to Latin American political science and its institutionalization. One example of that void is that PS: Political Science & Politics has recently published several pieces on the state of the discipline in diverse regions of the world but, despite its relative importance, none on the state of the discipline in Latin America (see, for example, Bogaç and Turan 2004; Rizayev 2004; and Sharapova 2005). This omission is remarkable because this continent has both nourished U.S. political science by providing several outstanding colleagues, many of whom have generated controversial and important arguments against the dominant paradigms in the discipline, and because, for better or worse, Latin America has been considered the “backyard” of the United States. Arguably, because of its economic, social, and political ties with the U.S., any major change in Latin America would have greater and more immediate implications for the U.S. than similar events elsewhere in the world. These topics are particularly pertinent with the upcoming conference of the International Political Science Association (IPSA) being held in Santiago, Chile, in 2009, and the APSA's new efforts to recruit members from overseas, especially from not-so privileged countries.