SoTL as a Subfield for Political Science Graduate Programs (Part III)
The Subfield of SoTL
Before delving into the details of what a subfield in SoTL would look like in a political science graduate program, it is also worthwhile to consider other changes that could emphasize teaching. For example, political science graduate programs could require a course on SoTL, as departments demand that their students complete a course in methodology. Such a course could examine topics like syllabus and assignment design, student assessment, classroom management and presence, innovative teaching practices, technology and online learning. The introduction to the literature of these subjects as well as prompting students to think about teaching will likely make them better teachers.
In addition to a mandatory course on SoTL, political science programs could institutionalize workshops and mentorship programs for graduate students who teach for their department. Although some political science graduate programs have these features, they could be better managed and evaluated if a faculty member is appointed as director of teaching, a position similar to graduate director or chair. By appointing a faculty member to oversee teaching for all graduate students, political science programs can systematically manage and evaluate the effectiveness of these students' teaching. It also introduces students into a culture where teaching is valued in their programs and that these activities are taken seriously by the department.
Besides the mandatory SoTL course and appointment of a teaching director, the creation of a subfield of SoTL would give teaching a more prominent place in political science graduate programs and the discipline. This subfield should be optional for students as part of their general examination, for making it mandatory might create a backlash among faculty and resentment among students. Political science graduate programs do not currently mandate in which subfields students must specialize and changing this practice might create more problems than it would solve.
Conceding that there are several ways to organize the subfield of SoTL, I propose at least four main areas to be covered: 1) political science content; 2) SoTL content; 3) public policy of education; and 4) a practicum of teaching. With respect to the first area, students should be familiar with all the traditional subfields of political science – American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Theory – and Methods. Programs could decide whether to add to this required list, such as Public Policy or Public Law, or even allow students to develop an innovative curriculum in a specialist’s subject, something that new faculty are often asked to do.
Students would need to know the major authors, themes, and developments in these subjects but not to the extent that a student who specializes in them would. In other words, students would have to demonstrate a familiarity with these subfields rather than a competency of them. One way to think about the difference between familiarity and competency is the difference in expectations of knowledge between a masters and doctoral student. They would be given an abbreviated reading list of the required subfields and could demonstrate their familiarity in a variety of ways: a general examination, a syllabus design requirement, how one can communicate key ideas to the public.[i] Unlike SoTL content, which is the second area for students wishing to specialize in SoTL as a subfield, a familiarity with political science content prepares doctoral students to be able to teach a variety of courses well, which is important for students for several reasons.
First, it is likely that most academic positions are at undergraduate institutions and these positions require faculty members to teach a broad range of topics, even those outside of their areas of specialization. Instead of learning "on the fly," these doctoral students will already be prepared to teach a wide range of subjects in political science. Second, by learning the traditional subfields in political science, students will be able to make the connections among them both in teaching and scholarship. With enough students trained this way, communication about the nature and direction of the discipline will be a common endeavor rather than fragmented one. Finally, students familiar with the traditional subfields will likely be better advocates for their departments and universities in public because such training compels them to speak in a language that is accessible. By contrast, the specialist often does not make the best advocate for their program because he or she is beholden to a jargon-laden vocabulary and narrow academic perspective.
The second aspect of the subfield is SoTL content, the research and scholarship of such subjects like syllabus and assignment design, student assessment, civic engagement and service learning, methodologies for teaching and learning. Although graduate students will have been introduced to these topics in the mandatory SoTL course, they could also specialize in one of these topics for their dissertation. What aspects of the literature of SoTL that will be stressed will vary from department to department, just as in the case in non-SoTL scholarship with programs differing among one another in certain expertise and strengths.
The third aspect of the subfield of SoTL is the public policy of education: a review of the literature on this topic at the local, state, and federal level. The study of this subject is essential for students who want to specialize in SoTL because it places both political science content and SoTL issues in a public context. Students will not only be able to make connections among the disparate actors in public education, but they also will be able to demonstrate how their scholarship is directly tied to public concerns, thereby illuminating the relevance of the discipline.
The final aspect of the subfield of SoTL is a practicum of teaching. In their teaching, students should be able to see how the practice of teaching is part of the scholarship of teaching and learning. This could be accomplished as a report, a dissertation chapter, or even be the dissertation itself. As far as to when students should be allowed to teach and how they are supervised, this should be left to individual political science programs until more systematic data is collected and evaluated.[ii]
The dissertation and its defense is the conclusion of a student's doctoral education. With the subfield of SoTL as a new field, students can select a wide range of topics. Unlike most political science dissertations, ones from the subfield of SoTL will be able to speak directly to the public about the value of political science, provide connections between scholarship and teaching, and demonstrate to search committees that the candidate is knowledgeable about teaching.[iii]
Conclusion
One of the practical questions is how this proposal can be implemented and institutionalized in political science graduate programs. Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that the discipline is determined by its elite graduate programs, which not only emphasize traditional scholarship but also employ a new generation of political scientists among these very same institutions.[iv] The result is an academic culture that continues to replicate itself, stressing the exclusive value of non-SoTL scholarship.
Thus, the implementation of this subfield must be gradual. For instance, political science graduate programs could strongly encourage an SoTL chapter or appendix for every dissertation, whether it is a class-room based experience or engaging the research and scholarship of SoTL. By having students write only a chapter or appendix on SoTL instead of being the subject of their entire dissertation, political science graduate programs would allow these students to secure academic employment rather than be perceived as not conducting rigorous scholarship and thereby not seriously be considered in the job market. Likewise, the subfield of SoTL could be the second or third field rather than the primary one in a student's general examination.
One possible path to change the discipline's culture is to have non-elite political science doctoral programs create a subfield of SoTL for their own programs. To a certain extent, this makes sense for these programs as they typically place their doctoral students at undergraduate teaching institutions. But by having only non-elite political science doctoral programs offer a subfield in SoTL, it could formalize a two-tier system between elite (traditional scholarship only) and non-elite (SoTL scholarship) programs. This division between political science programs would not only be detrimental to a sense of collaboration, cooperation, and community among political scientists in the discipline, but it also could reinforce how reputational prestige is currently evaluated.
A better approach is to have the elite political science doctoral programs in coordination with the discipline as represented by APSA to implement and institutionalize a subfield of SoTL.[v] This would demonstrate to the public, political science graduate programs, and doctoral students that SoTL is held in equal esteem as non-SoTL scholarship. Such a feat would require great effort and patience; however, such an endeavor would be worthwhile to better prepare political science students for employment, show the public relevance of political science, and build bridges between scholarship and teaching. Simply put, it is the long-term interest of these programs and the discipline to do this, although it remains to be seen whether there is leadership to recognize and response to these challenges.
[i] The requirement of graduate students having familiarity with all the traditional subfields in political science is one the recommendations that the 2004 APSA Task Force Committee on Graduate Education: "a serious graduate education includes a broadly informed perspective on the discipline" (p. 4).
[ii] Some innovative mentoring systems for teacher training and greater evaluation and supervision of graduate instructors are noted by Ishiyama (2010) at Miami University (Ohio) and Baylor University, innovations which had not placed a strain on the resources of faculty time.
[iii] Craig (2014) reviews the literature on teaching and learning in political science and the persistent problem of identifying the aspects that distinguishes political science from other disciplines. By creating a subfield of SoTL, political scientists can address this and other problems in the field.
[iv] This claim seems to comport with most political scientists' perceptions in the discipline, although data to support this claim in political science is difficult to determine. For academic studies about this phenomenon within academia in general, refer to Warner 2015.
[v] The role of professional associations, like APSA, is crucial for determining the expectations and requirements of academic employment and prestige in the discipline (Gaff 2003).