Our experience in podcasting has had a profound impact leaving us convinced that there is much to be gained for the field of political science and for political scientists in particular. We launched our podcast, Barstool Politics, in the fall of 2016 during the final months of the presidential campaign. Our goal was to offer insight and reflection on the dramatic social and political upheaval taking place. We watched as our political system was catapulted into a fundamentally new era, and it felt as if the field of political science had been left on the sidelines. Essentially, we had ceded the role of “public intellectual” to pundits and others who may not have the same academically based understanding of political institutions, behaviors, and policy outcomes. We thought podcasting, in a small way, could help to fill that gap. Since then, we have realized the tremendous potential that podcasting can offer political scientists as a medium to provide evidence-based and theoretically grounded analysis to a broader nonacademic audience. In particular, political scientists can take the empirical and theoretical knowledge that our field has generated and use it to make sense of day-to-day political developments. This is, in essence, exactly what we do as teachers in the classroom: we take complex research and make it accessible to our students. Podcasting simply expands our reach to a wider audience.

We broadcast weekly, organizing each episode around the major political developments of the week. Prior to taping, we review what we perceive as the most important news stories and then develop an outline with introductory comments for each topic. The podcast is divided into two segments. We open with a deep dive into one topic for 30 minutes of discussion. The second half of the episode follows a “speed-round” format in which we briefly examine five additional topics for roughly five minutes each. Our intent is to offer a fun, lively, and engaging podcast that bridges the gap between punditry and political science by bringing the insights of our field to the general public. As a result, we often find ourselves touching on relevant political science literature as a way to provide context and structure to a current political issue. For instance, in 2019, we discussed President Trump’s difficulty in passing his legislative agenda through Congress by referencing Skowronek’s (Reference Skowronek2011) concept of disjunctive presidencies. Utilizing this framework makes sense of a fragmented Republican Party and allows us to think about what might be next for American politics. In another episode, we discussed the growing elements of isolationism in contemporary US foreign policy. We found ourselves turning to Roskin’s (Reference Roskin1974) “generational paradigms” as a way to talk about gradual shifts in US policy in response to previous failures in interventionism. More recently, we referenced hegemonic stability theory to provide perspectives on growing economic tensions with China and Just War Doctrine to explain political violence in Game of Thrones. These references to the literature generally are not preplanned but rather arise organically and conversationally. We try to avoid anything that feels like a typical lecture, instead attempting to show how our field is useful, illuminating, and approachable. In addition, we regularly feature disciplinary subfield experts to push past overly simplistic partisan interpretations and to provide deeper context about political campaigns, election results, foreign policy, and Supreme Court decisions. In our perspective, this is markedly different from the approach that a pundit might take. Our purpose is not to argue for argument’s sake but instead to wrestle with and better understand the key issues and dilemmas in the world today. Our listeners provide regular feedback noting how the podcast has helped them to appreciate the complexity of a political question and to move past conventional partisan explanations.

At a deeper level, we believe podcasting can help political scientists deliver on one of their core responsibilities: civic education. In Robert Putnam’s Reference Putnam2003 presidential address to the American Political Science Association, he argued that political science has two mutually important and reinforcing obligations: “attending to the concerns of our fellow citizens” and “pursuit of scientific truth” (Putnam Reference Putnam2003, 250). He did not argue that we are “philosopher–kings” or even problem solvers but rather experts who have a responsibility to “shed light” on public problems (Putnam Reference Putnam2003, 252). In 2011, Smith noted that our discipline has failed to become more relevant since Putnam’s call to action. He argued for political science research to be “presented in ways that at least have the potential to be understood, assessed, and perhaps even utilized productively in the public sphere” (Smith Reference Smith2011, 17). This debate continues: Desch (Reference Desch2019) outlined the push–pull between rigor and relevance in the Chronicle of Higher Education, defining relevance as “whether scholarship contributes to the making of policy decisions.” Although certainly important, we do not believe that peer-reviewed publications directed at policy makers should be the only measuring stick for relevance. As we all know, political scientists are not regularly contacted by practitioners, public officials, or the media. This is a loss for the public because our expertise is overlooked and ideas—especially bad ideas—are spread unchallenged. Podcasting stands as an ideal medium for filling that gap and, in the process, fostering civic engagement and education.

In his explanation for why political science has been unable to fully break into the ideas industry, Drezner (Reference Drezner2017) asserted that the current marketplace of ideas is flooded with thought leaders, or what Berlin (2013, 8–10) called hedgehogs, as opposed to public intellectuals or foxes. The fox (i.e., public intellectual) is an expert who knows much about many things, whereas a hedgehog (i.e., thought leader), by contrast, knows one big thing and it is value-laden. Drezner’s characterization of public intellectuals as critical, skeptical, and deductive thinkers speaks to the very core of what political scientists can offer and what our political discourse so desperately needs. Victor (Reference Victor2016) called political scientists to action with a list of responsibilities, particularly when we were at the beginning stages of a Trump presidency. She wrote: “Political scientists may also have common values on which we can agree. It would be appropriate to make observations and express judgment when it appears political actors or institutions are violating those values” (Victor Reference Victor2016). This is how we remain “foxes” while also breaking into the marketplace of ideas—and podcasting provides the platform.

In the current political climate, it is more important than ever for political scientists to embrace the role of public intellectual and find venues to share our disciplinary knowledge and expertise. Our growing audience, positive podcast reviews, and social media feedback indicate that there is genuine public interest in the type of deeper political analysis that political scientists can provide. Listeners describe the podcast as “thoughtful and entertaining without being overly partisan,” and they emphasize the way in which we are able to bring political science concepts to a discussion of current events, leaving the listener more informed and engaged. In addition, local media outlets have reached out to us for commentary on political events as a direct result of the podcast, thereby further expanding the impact that it has on a broader audience. Our academic institutions also have been supportive and encouraging of our podcasting endeavor. All told, our experience of podcasting has pushed us out of our comfort zone and empowered us to fully embrace the role of public intellectuals. In the process, it also has allowed us to break down the conventional boundaries of teaching and to reevaluate who we think of as our students.