SoTL as a Subfield for Political Science Graduate Programs (Part I)

Today the discipline of political science is faced with the challenges of demonstrating its public worth, finding employment for its doctoral students, and discovering a common language among its specialists (APSA 2014, 2015a, 2015b; Beltran et al. 2004; Brown-Dean 2015; Lupia 2014;  PS: Political Science & Politics 2015).[i] To address this situation, I recommend that political science departments create the subfield of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in their graduate programs. There are several definitions of the SoTL but all involve engagement with the existing knowledge of teaching and learning in one’s discipline and the dissemination of findings in both academic and public venues (Boyer 1997; Martin, Benjamin, Prosser, and Trigwell 1999; Cambridge 2001; Hutchings 2002). This new subfield would provide a bridge between scholarship and teaching within the discipline, better prepare its doctoral students for employment at undergraduate institutions, and show the public that they are committed to teaching and therefore provide a public good which is comprehensible to the public.

Currently almost all political science graduate programs neglect SoTL in the training of their doctoral students.[ii] The result is that these programs neither prepare their students for academic positions where teaching is valued nor participate in disciplinary trends where more attention is being paid to SoTL. Furthermore, the emphasis of scholarship over teaching in political science graduate programs fails to persuade the public of political science’s value. The creation of the subfield SoTL will not only alleviate some these public criticisms but also bridge the gap between teaching and scholarship within the discipline.

Public Criticism

Political science graduate training today is almost exclusively focused on scholarship. This is to be expected, since graduate training transpires at research institutions whose mission centers on scholarship. Faculty at these places consequently are focused on scholarship for their own promotion, tenure, and prestige. The result is that political science graduate students are not only trained in programs that value scholarship but are also introduced into an academic culture where scholarship is preeminent.

This value emphasized on scholarship is understandable, as the core of any discipline is the creation and dissemination of knowledge among its academic communities and the public. Scholarship is what characterizes the most prestigious conferences, presses, and journals in the discipline; and the most renowned political scientists are recognized for their scholarship rather than for their teaching or service (Masuoka et al. 2007).[iii] Scholarship also is required to teach well, with new theories and findings incorporated into a faculty's teaching. In brief, scholarship is at the foundation of the political science discipline.

However, recent political pressure raises questions about the value of pursuing scholarship at the expense of teaching. For example, after proposing to cut $300 million to the university system, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker demanded that faculty teach more.[iv] Legislation introduced in the Iowa's legislature required faculty to teach at least one course per semester and be rated by student evaluations such that if “a professor fails to attain a minimum threshold of performance based on the student evaluations used to assess the professor’s teaching effectiveness, in accordance with the criteria and rating system adopted by the board, the institution shall terminate the professor’s employment regardless of tenure status or contract.”[v] Finally, a legislative inquiry at the University of Missouri has brought public attention that one-half of faculty do not meet the system’s minimum teaching load requirement, prompting a prominent lawmaker to threaten to withhold state funding.[vi]

This recent political pressure on faculty is different from previous attempts, where the criticism of faculty was a lack of scholarly productivity.[vii] The focus on teaching has more public appeal, as faculty scholarship is often understood in utilitarian terms, such as in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) or not understood at all. The recent limits of the National Science Foundation towards funding the discipline of political science in 2013 and the general lowering of funding for the social sciences are examples where the public fails to support these endeavors because political science scholarship is not understood as useful or perceived as politically biased.[viii]

In an era of continual state budget cuts for higher education and greater competition among students in a globalized environment, universities and disciplines like political science need to articulate a reason for public support (APSA 2014; Brown-Dean 2015; Lupia 2014; Rust 2012; Trepanier 2013; U.S. Government Accountability Office 2014).[ix] Furthermore, political science as a discipline has a unique relationship and obligation to the public because politics is by its very nature a public activity. At the very heart of its discipline, political scientists study what transpires in public and consequently need to explain to the public the profession and value of its discipline.

The problem is that most political science scholarship is seen neither as relevant nor understandable by the public; however, SoTL is not scholarship that the public can easily comprehend but also could support (Beltran et al. 2004). The adage of "publish or perish" needs to be replaced with "teach or perish" if political science programs wish to justify themselves to the public in a relevant manner. The American Political Science Association Task Force on Graduate Education calls for political scientists not to be simply political scientists but also “teachers of political science,” as society will always need skilled transmitters of knowledge (Beltran et al. 2004, 3).

Disciplinary Trends and Academic Employment

The American Political Science Association (APSA) has recognized these challenges and has directed the discipline to focus on SoTL. Prominent initiatives include the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, which is devoted to SoTL in contrast to the traditional (non-SoTL) scholarship-oriented APSA Conference; the publication of the journals of PS: Political Science & Politics and the Journal of Political Science Education, the latter which has recently been promoted to a journal of the discipline; the distinguished teaching awards to honor undergraduate and graduate teachers; and its committees on teaching and learning.[x] Political scientists also have played a role in promoting SoTL in the creation of the Political Science Education section within APSA. The result is that SoTL as a field of inquiry has become more prominent, especially as a younger cohort of scholars matures (Hamann et al. 2009).[xi]

These initiatives not only make a public case for the need of political science but also shows within the discipline the importance and merit of SoTL. With APSA’s elevation of SoTL, political scientists who are interested in teaching are now able to demonstrate their relevance to colleagues who are concerned exclusively with traditional scholarship, a case that is particularly important when it comes to matters of tenure and promotion. This change in the discipline’s and a department’s culture is likely to lead political scientists to recognize that being an excellent teacher is inextricably linked with being an excellent scholar.[xii] The significance of recognizing the importance of SoTL therefore is not only for the changing the public’s perception of political science but also changing views about SoTL within the discipline too.

Another reason for political scientists to promote SoTL is the number and types of jobs available. According to the APSA Graduate Placement Survey, the number of doctoral graduate students securing an academic position has declined from 63% in 2009-10 to 55.99% in 2013-14 (APSA 2015a).[xiii] The placement of doctoral graduate students in tenure-track position is even smaller. For the 2013-14 academic year in American Politics, 96 students (44%) were placed in a tenure-track position, while 45 (20.6%) were not; for Comparative Politics, the respective numbers for tenure-track to non-tenure track were 64 (26.8%) and 45 (18.8%); International Politics, 99 (34.1%) to 66 (22.8%); Methods, 5 (71.4%) to 0 (0%); Political Philosophy, 41 (28.3%) to 45 (31%); Public Administration, 8 (36.4%) to 3 (13.6%); Public Law, 8 (47.1%) to 5 (29.4%); and Public Policy, 2 (11.8%) to 2 (11.8%).[xiv]

Although there has been a decline in the number of academic positions for doctoral graduate students in the past five years – and fewer than half of those positions in tenure-track positions regardless of subfield (except Methods) – the posting of available positions in political science have varied. For assistant professorships, 489 were posted in 2002-3; 715 in 2007-8; 445 in 2009-10; and 452 in 2012-13.[xv] The correlation between the state of the country's economy and the number of postings is strong: the healthier the economy, the more positions posted; the worse the economy, the fewer positions posted. What one can conclude from these findings is even though the number of positions posted vary over time, fewer doctoral graduate students have secured academic positions, particularly in tenure-track jobs during the same period.

The latest study on the availability of academic positions at research or teaching institutions shows that two-thirds of new jobs in the United States are teaching ones (Ishiyama et al. 2010). One expects this trend to continue given the number and type of institutions of higher education in the United States. As of 2012, the latest figures available show that the United States has a total of 4,726 colleges and universities: 3,026 are 4-year institutions and 1,700 are 2-year institutions (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2013). Of the 3,026 4-year institutions, 297 can be classified as research institutions using the Carnegie Classification system of institutions of higher education, leaving 2,729 undergraduate institutions.[xvi] Even if the numbers are not exact, it is evident that there are more teaching institutions – non-doctoral undergraduate universities and colleges – than research ones.

Because there are more teaching institutions, the number of academic positions available are more likely to be located in these non-doctoral institutions; and because these institutions' primary mission is teaching, faculty are expected to teach, to teach well, and to teach a variety of courses, even if they are outside one's specialization. A possible exception to these type of institutions would be liberal arts colleges. However, the number of these institutions are small: the Council of Independent Colleges list only 630 institutions and the Council of Public Liberal Art Colleges list 29 in the United States.[xvii] Subtracting them from non-doctoral institutions, this would still leave 2,070 non-doctoral and non-community college institutions.

Unfortunately, the reality of the academic marketplace does not coincide with doctoral graduate students' preferences. The APSA survey of graduate directors' perception of students' preferences for employment is that most students would want to have a tenure-track position at a research doctoral institution (64.9%), with only 27.8% favoring an undergraduate institution, 7.2% at any institution, and 2.8% at non-academic institutions (APSA 2015a). Unfortunately for these students, this preference runs contrary to the type of academic positions available.

---

[i] A previous version of this article was  was presented at the 2016 American Political Science Teaching and Learning Conference. I want to thank the participants in the "Teaching How to Teach" track for their constructive criticism and helpful comments as well as the anonymous referees of this article.

[ii] The neglect of teaching among political science graduate programs, especially among elites one, is discussed further in this paper’s section, “Political Science Graduate Programs.”

[iii] This article lists the top political scientists in five-year cohorts from 1940-1999, by subfield c. 2002, and women. All the political scientists listed are known for their scholarship.

[iv] "Wisconsin Governor: Faculty Should Teach More Classes" 2015.

[v] "Iowa Bill Sparks Faculty Ire" 2015.

[vi] "Too Many Teaching Waivers?" 2015

[vii] For example, the University of Texas at Austin was criticized in Rick O'Donnell's report, "Higher Education's Faculty Productivity Gap: The Cost to Students, Parents & Taxpayers." Marc Musick, a sociology professor and associate dean in the College of Liberal Arts, subsequently issued its own report to repudiate O'Donnell's findings: "An Analysis of Faculty Instructional and Grant-based Productivity at the University of Texas at Austin" (Jaschik 2011).

[viii] Jaschik 2015 and 2013.

[ix] 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges” 2014. In addition to establishing a task force to issue a report on improving the public perception of political science's value, APSA also published a special journal issue on this topic in PS: Political Science & Politics. However, only one article addresses teaching as a way "to better communicate Political Science's public value" (Smith 2015).

[x] APSA 2015c.

[xi] APSA 2015d.

[xii] Examples of this approach are Boyer (1997) and McKinney (2007.

[xiii] 13.62% secured post-doctorates; 9.91% non-academic positions; and 17.07% were not placed at all. The APSA 2014-15 graduate placement survey (2015b) shows that these trends continue in academic employment in political science: 51.3% secured academic positions; 17% post-doctorates; 12.1% non-academic; 16.8% not placed.

[xiv] The 2014-15 Graduate Placement Survey: Preliminary Results shows that these trends continue in academic employment in political science with the exception that there were more placements in Comparative Politics than American Politics.

[xv] Positions in American Politics, International Relations, and Comparative Politics were consistently the most posted during this period.

[xvi] Research institutions as categorized by Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education and include RU/VH (very high research activity), RU/H (high research activity), and DRU (doctoral/research universities). Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education n.d.

[xvii] Council of Independent Colleges n.d.; Council of Public Liberal Art Colleges n.d.