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.

This symposium presents the remarks from a roundtable at the 2001 APSA Annual meeting. Originally conceptualized as a discussion in which political theorists would speak with political scientists of a more empirical orientation, the roundtable broadened its purview to tap into the richness of the debate engendered by the Perestroika communications that spread hroughout the discipline of political science throughout 2000–2001. The panelists hoped to encourage public discussion about the future of political science.

The current debate in political science over methods and fundamental theoretical stances recalls similar debates in other fields. Part of the debate focuses on the merits of the use of statistical methods or the use of mathematics and quasi-mathematical reasoning, as in game theory and much of rational choice. Among the critics of those who use these approaches are many who focus more on interpretive approaches to understanding social institutions and behavior. In some ways, the debate seems dated in that the largest and most compelling body of quasi-economic work is broad studies of the relationships between political and economic development. Such work, often with relatively sharply defined statistical models, spans more than two generations of scholars in political science. Such work has given compelling answers to many questions about the workings and workability of democracy. It typically abstracts from culture and it fits congenially with rational choice theory in its focus on microfoundations for various claims.

Contemporary political science is specialized, deeply concerned with its methods, and politicized. It also remains peripheral to most public debates. But the relationships among these characteristics are ambiguous and each yields advantages as well as costs.

The recent discussion about the current and future state of the discipline is a welcome and healthy development. While some of the discussion has generated unnecessary acrimony, my general impression is that this is an excellent time to engage seriously in a critique as well as an effort to reconstruct and move in a more positive direction.

The question, “What kind of political science would you like to see in the next 10 years?” raises several problems: Should I consult my self-serving or my communitarian self in framing an answer? Should I say what practices I would prefer? Or should I recommend what directions the profession should take? More generally, should we be talking about the organization of political science? Or should we refer to the profession's current epistemological conundrums? In his Science as a Vocation, Max Weber first addresses the structure and economic incentives of German university careers, then turns to more philosophical questions: What is “science”? What meanings and usages does “science” convey? What questions can it answer? (Answer: it cannot tell us how to live.) Is it cumulative? Or is Thomas Kuhn right about the noncumulative nature of scientific revolutions? Focusing on the epistemological issues, I'll try to avoid the monopolistic question, “What direction should the profession take?” in favor of the pluralist question, “What variety of knowledge regimes would I like the profession to enable?”

Changing the Subject (Ever So Slightly)

Let me begin with five basic points about scientific inquiry and methodological rigor that ground my own sense of what is to be done in the wake of current methodological battles in the fields of political science and political theory.

To paraphrase slightly, I have been asked to focus on the apparent tensions between making genuinely scientific contributions by advancing knowledge in rigorous ways within specialized subfields, on the one hand, and addressing substantive political issues of general interest in accessible fashion, on the other. My view is that, though we should try to do both things, we should give priority to the latter—to helping both disciplinary and general public understandings of important substantive political issues become better informed and reasoned. To adopt this priority is still, I believe, to pursue the main tasks of political science as scientifically as possible; but it is true that this course involves significant tradeoffs.

I wish to address four related themes that run throughout our discussions. In doing so, I find much about which I agree with the other panelists although I might modify certain propositions in ways that may alter these propositions so significantly as to be critical.

This paper uses a unique source of data about television commercials to examine some of the most important issues connected to this proposal. It is appropriate that we focus on television advertising since it is the largest—and most discussed—single category of expenditures by candidates, parties and interest groups in federal elections. McCain-Feingold's chief impact would surely be seen on the nation's airwaves, on the thousands of issue ads paid for with soft money. Indeed, many of the arguments for and against McCain-Feingold are rooted in different interpretations of those very ads.

For those who study and teach politics or history for a living, The West Wing unsheathes a double-edged sword. A great strength of the series is its ability to put a human face on engaging political discussions, demonstrating that politics can be accessible and enjoyable. However, this fictional White House also presents potential dangers. The purpose of The West Wing is to entertain rather than to educate, and the program deliberately plays the emotions of viewers through such techniques as background music and sophisticated camera work.

In my course, I have students read the Federalist and some of the antifederalist writings. And I require them to read as much of Tocqueville's Democracy in America as possible. But I begin with Shakespeare's Coriolanus. This choice of text is peculiar, and I here address myself to that peculiarity. My aim is to show that Coriolanus fits with these other works and to show, given the depth and breadth of its themes, that it might also profitably be read and studied in other political science courses. To put it in the briefest compass: the more prominent themes of Coriolanus—the nature of ancient politics, political expertise, regimes, and the interplay of honor and ambition—make it well suited to the exploration of politics in general.

The symposium begins with an edited transcript of the roundtable, “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Political Science,” held during the 2001 APSA Annual Meeting. Next, Susan E. Clarke, University of Colorado, Boulder and Carnegie Scholar in 2000, synthesizes the objectives of STL—one of which specifies that STL be discipline-based—in her introduction to Jenny R. Kehl's data essay. In her essay, Jenny Kehl provides an initial exploration of what can be classified as STL work in political science. Finally, the annotated bibliography of STL literature prepared by Pat Hutchings, Chris Bjork, and Marcia Babb provides references for political science faculty new to this discussion.

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.

There is also evidence of the continuing importance of diversity, experimentation with service learning, and attention to professional development.

We compiled this bibliography to acknowledge the work that CASTL builds on, and to locate this new effort in the longer trajectory of related developments. It has two sections. The first, a definitional one, includes significant statements about the idea of the scholarship of teaching and learning, drawn from various traditions that contribute to its evolving conception. The second section points readers to resources that may assist them in performing the scholarship of teaching and learning.

In January 2001, the APSA Nominating Committee designated Theda Skocpol as president-elect of APSA, making Skocpol only the third women ever to hold this office. In April of the same year, the APSA Council passed a nonbinding resolution encouraging future APSA Nominating Committees to avoid choosing presidents-elect of the same gender for more than two years in a row. In February 2002, the APSA Nominating Committee shattered tradition by selecting Susanne Rudolph as president-elect, thus promising the first instance of two women-given a normal course of events-consecutively assuming the APSA presidency. These actions hold tremendous value, both symbolic and substantive, in widening the cracks in the glass ceiling for female professional political scientists. In this article, I describe how many people, together, worked to break the glass ceiling. I then propose a program designed to increase gender equality within APSA as a professional association.

Are you married? Are you dating? What does your spouse do? One would think we learned years ago not to ask such questions of prospective job candidates. Nonetheless, several of our candidates on the job market in this interviewing season, both male and female, were asked precisely these questions—even the one about dating.

Activities, Administrative Appointments, New Appointments, Promotions, Retirements, Visiting and Temporary Positions, Awards

Joseph Lepgold, by George Shambaugh and Victor Cha, Georgetown University

Erwin L. Levine, by Grace M. Burton and Ronald P. Seyb, Skidmore College

Michael P. Rogin, by Shannon Stimson and Paul Thomas, University of California, Berkeley

William Pierce Tucker, by Clarke E. Cochran, Texas Tech University

Richard A. Watson, by David M. Wood and Dean L. Yarwood, University of Missouri, Columbia

The Association's 2002 Nominating Committee convened at the national office on February 1 and 2 and agreed upon the following slate of officers and Council members. Members of the Association will have an opportunity to meet the nominees at a special gathering on Thursday, August 29, at 12:30 PM as part of the 2002 Annual Meeting in Boston. Elections will be held at the Business Meeting on Saturday, August 31 at 5:30 PM. The Annual Meeting Final Program will have the room location for each event.