Surveys, experiments, large-N datasets and formal models are common instruments in the political scientist's toolkit. In-depth interviews and focus groups play a critical role in helping scholars answer important political questions. In contrast, participant observation techniques are an underused methodological approach. In this article, we argue that participant observation techniques have played and should continue to play a key role in advancing our understanding of political science. After demonstrating the use of these techniques, we offer readers advice for embarking upon participant observation research and explain how this approach should fit into a scholar's long-term career plans.

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.

How polarized are American political parties? Recently, Kidd used an automated content analysis program to demonstrate that American party platforms reveal only minor policy differences. In contrast to his conclusions, this analysis produces three main findings. First, at the state level, state party platforms reveal considerable ideological differences between the parties. Second, differences in state public opinion do not account for these differences; rather, they are more closely correlated with activist opinions and increases in state party competition. Finally, the conflict is not simply ideological but applies to specific issues in the platforms. As such, American state parties are highly polarized on different measures. Automated content analysis programs clearly represent an important methodological advance in coding political texts, but the results here call attention to the importance of policy and agenda content in party platforms. Moreover, studies of American politics, particularly research focusing on parties and ideological polarization, need to take into account the diversity of agendas that is inherent in a federal party system.

The 1992 conventions of the Democratic and Republican Parties saw the culmination of trends that have been developing for 20 years. The two major political parties have now completely polarized around feminism and the reaction to it. Each party's position has become institutionalized to the point where it is not seriously questioned within the national party and where the differences are clearly evident to the voting public. On feminist issues and concerns the parties are not following the traditional pattern of presenting different versions of the same thing, or following each other's lead into new territory. They are presenting two different and conflicting visions of how Americans should engage in everyday life.

Although the party platforms and the speeches at the conventions devoted many words to many issues, each party's vision can be summed up in a slogan. The Republicans articulated theirs clearly in the phrase “family values.” While their platform does not define this slogan, both the document and the speeches indicate that it stands for programs and policies that strengthen the traditional two-parent, patriarchal family in which the husband is the bread-winner, the wife is the caretaker, and children are completely subject to parental authority. The Democrats attempted their usual strategy of pre-emption and co-optation by borrowing the Republican's phrase to use in a different context, but their very use of it belied its content. In reality the Democrats have incorporated the feminist demand that “the personal is political” and have put on the public agenda issues that were once deemed to be purely personal.

Student resistance to learning about race and racism is pervasive and well-documented. Scholars have noted an array of direct and indirect resistance tactics. These range from withdrawal from class discussion or course withdrawal; questioning professorial authority in classrooms; and verbal and physical harassment and assault (Painter 2000; Tatum 2001; Tusmith and Reddy 2002; Lee and Johnson-Bailey 2004). In response, scholars have developed a variety of pedagogical approaches and techniques for confronting student resistance and/or providing the optimal context for teaching on race and other sensitive subjects. These responses to resistance to learning about race and racism include, but are not limited to: “frontloading” (i.e., providing a substantial amount of data establishing the reality of social inequality at the beginning of the course, and telling students ahead of time that they will be engaging in difficult subjects, and to expect discomfort) (Samuels, Fervber, and Herrera 2003); setting ground rules for discussion to ensure respect in the classroom (Allen, Floyd-Thomas, and Gillman 2001); assigning privilege inventories and/or other exercises, such as journaling, that encourage self-examination (Allen, Floyd-Thomas, and Gillman 2001; Sue 2003); and creating opportunities for self-generated knowledge (e.g., assigning interviews on racial topics) (Tatum 2001).Thanks to my two anonymous reviewers, Gena Chandler, and Emily Satterwhite for their helpful comments on the manuscript. Also, this work was presented as a faculty development workshop in 2004 sponsored by Virginia Tech's Center for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching and at a panel on teaching and learning at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the APSA.

As of January 2008, more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than 2.5 million people have been displaced in the regions of Darfur and Chad. This event has not gone unnoticed in the United States, as the 109th United States Congress (2005–2006) considered several measures in the House of Representatives to provide funding and peacekeeping forces to quell the violence in Darfur. The goal of this article is to explain individual members' of Congress (MCs') support for Darfur legislation by examining the influence of their individual, district, and institutional characteristics. The Darfur case provides the opportunity to analyze factors critical to congressional behavior in a context where there is reason to expect an MC's usual set of incentives—e.g., reelection and adherence to party—to be less prominent. In all, we contribute to congressional and foreign policy research by parceling out the determinants of congressional support for foreign policy in comparison to domestic policy.

Americans are engaged in a heated, sometimes violent, debate over the fate of Confederate monuments. As communities decide whether to remove these monuments, elected and appointed officials typically have had the final say. What if instead of allowing elected officials to make such decisions, voters had the power? Would this affect how the public feels about the outcome, win or lose? We used a survey experiment to examine whether the mode of decision making affects public attitudes, testing the effects of a decision made by public referendum versus by a city council. We found that respondents view decisions made by referendum to be fairer and more legitimate and allow multiple perspectives to be heard. These results hold even for respondents who oppose the referendum’s outcome. Our results speak to the potential of direct democracy to enhance public acceptance of decisions, particularly when the public is divided.

This paper represents a broad survey study of assessment models used in political science programs at 50 universities and colleges across the country. We examine the most frequently used assessment activities and then investigate whether differences between institutions is a function of institutional characteristics. What are the techniques currently employed by departments across the country?

Reconciliation forces Congress to consider issues in redistributive terms and alters traditional roles and relationships, but this legislative technique may be short-lived.

The 1981 battle of the budget might leave a deeper imprint on legislative behavior than on federal programs and expenditures. The process that produced the omnibus reconciliation bill was extraordinary in its scope and in its integration of diverse legislative activities. More than 30 House and Senate committees were drawn into the reconciliation process and more than half of the Members of Congress participated in the conferences that resulted in the reconciliation decision. The outcome was not a perfectly consistent set of budget decisions, but for a legislature that thrives on the dispersion of power, reconciliation demanded much more cohesion and coordination than Congress normally achieves.

It is too early to determine whether reconciliation will become a permanent feature of the congressional budget process or whether it will be applied as extensively in the future as it was in 1981. If it were confined to a few committees and only changed the budget at the margins, reconciliation might not affect basic legislative roles and relationships. But if it continues to demand the active cooperation of numerous committees and tries to change major parts of the budget, reconciliation would certainly lead to a redistribution of legislative power.

Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham resigns after pleading guilty to bribery. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is indicted and forced to relinquish his leadership position, and later resigns from Congress. House Democrat William Jefferson is stripped of his position on the Ways and Means Committee after an FBI raid of his congressional office and amid reports that he hid $90,000 in alleged bribes in a freezer at his home. Stories of wrongdoing in government surface almost daily as members of Congress come under a microscope for close ties to lobbyists. As the 2006 congressional elections approach, Democrats have made corruption a central theme in their campaigns, arguing that a series of scandals adds up to a full-blown culture of corruption. In response, Republicans have rejected this characterization and attempted to point the finger back at Democrats, suggesting that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.We thank Rosie Clawson and Bert Rockman for helpful comments.

In an effort to teach strategic thinking, the Center for International Security Studies at Princeton University designed an adaptable model for crisis simulation that could be used in a variety of institutional contexts and with diverse content matter. Moreover, the simulation helped students to develop an understanding of several other important abstract concepts in political science: notably, information uncertainty, friction or “the fog of war,” and bureaucratic stove piping. This article describes the design, content, and implementation of our original simulation. It is based on a “loose-nukes” scenario resulting from the hypothetical collapse of the Pakistani state. We conclude by evaluating the benefits and limitations of the simulation and by suggesting ways in which it could be implemented in other institutional contexts.

The question “What is political science?” is nearly as old as the discipline itself. Political science continually self-examines the discipline to evaluate who we are and how we have changed. In addition, there are numerous studies of groups within political science, including political science in the U.S. South and women in political science. There are also reviews of the development and state of subfields, e.g., urban politics , international relations, comparative politics, and political theory. Each of these histories provides an image of what political science is or what it should be. These self-reviews provide images of the discipline that shape our identities as political scientists and advance the progress of political science. Even if the images do not affect future directions in political science, they are “an important dimension of identity and critical reflection on the theory and practice of political science”. Developing and critiquing these images are important academic exercises.J. Tobin Grant is assistant professor, department of political science, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. He is coauthor (with Thomas Rudolph) of Expression vs. Equality: The Politics of Campaign Finance Reform (Ohio State University Press, 2004).I thank Badredine Arfi, Gregory Kasza, Scott McClurg, Thomas Rudolph, Edward Schatz, and Herbert Weisberg for their comments and suggestions on this article.

In this article, we present a forecast of the 2010 midterm House election based on information available in early July 2010. We combine this forecast with a note of caution, explaining why electoral circumstances might lead our forecast to err. Finally, we present guidance regarding how to update the electoral forecast for 2010 based on new information that will become available leading up to Election Day.

Our symposium offers a variety of perspectives, such as on self-perpetuation of inequality in the international system, or on the consequences of inequality for economic growth or for social and political conflicts. This contribution discusses the determinants of domestic policy choices that affect inequality and the consequences of these policy choices. The empirical focus is on Latin American countries, which collectively are characterized by the highest regional levels of inequality in the world, but individually show considerable variation. Different analyses have emphasized different causes of income inequality and of the variation in inequality, such as historical structural roots in land distribution and natural-resource endowments, geography, ethnic divisions, the economic context, demographics, and state action or lack thereof. The role of the state has not received much systematic attention until rather recently, though, despite its essential role in the allocation of resources.

We examine the role and potential impact of gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) voters in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. We look at trend data from 1990 to 2010 to assess the fluctuations in support for the Democratic Party by GLB voters, specifically a substantial decrease in support during the 2010 midterm elections. We use data from the 2008 election to assess the estimated contribution the GLB vote made toward President Obama's margin of victory in key battleground states. Looking at the Obama administration's record on gay rights, specifically the failure to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), we argue that the Democratic Party could be held accountable in the 2012 election for their failure to provide protection from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Potentially the 2012 election will be closer than the 2008 race, highlighting the importance of the GLB vote to President Obama's reelection in key states. We argue that if President Obama incorporates strong support for ENDA into his reelection platform, the Democratic Party has the chance to recapture the GLB votes it lost in 2010 and maintain enough of the 2008 electoral votes that led to President Obama's victory.

Many scholars argue that retrospective voting is a powerful information shortcut that offsets widespread voter ignorance. Even deeply ignorant voters, it is claimed, can effectively punish incumbents for bad performance and reward them if things go well. But if voters' understanding of which officials are responsible for which outcomes is systematically biased, retrospective voting becomes an independent source of political failure rather than a cure for it. We design and administer a new survey of the general public and political experts to test for such biases. Our analysis reveals frequent, large, robust biases in voter attributions of responsibility for a variety of political actors and outcomes with a tendency for the public to overestimate influence, although important examples of underestimation also exist.