In recent years, prominent Republican elites have instituted statewide migrant transportation programs in which asylum-seeking migrants are “bused” to liberal cities across the country. These programs are often justified by invoking NIMBYism (not-in-my-backyard), suggesting that when people must consider the effects of immigration policy in terms of their community, their attitudes toward immigrants will vary. Despite this, extant scholarship has yet to document the extent to which American immigration preferences vary by spatial scale and gives no expectation about how important any variation is relative to other determinants of immigration attitudes. Findings from a conjoint experiment reveal that Americans, on average, oppose immigrants proposed to move into their neighborhoods, but spatial scale does not alter considerations at the national, state, or city level. The relative importance of this NIMBY effect, however, is modest compared to a host of other individual-level characteristics of an immigrant. Moreover, despite elite claims of “liberal hypocrisy” in immigration, we find no evidence that the NIMBY effect varies by partisanship. Both Democrats and Republicans exhibit modest preferences against immigrants expected to move to their neighborhoods.

It has been a long time since political scientists have taken measure of our political engagement in the United States. Drawing on data collected from political scientists in Summer 2024, this article assesses the extent and type of political engagement, finding three alliterative dimensions into which we tend to fall: partisans (who engage in partisan politics), public scholars (who share political science logic and findings), and pedagogues (who engage through teaching and event sponsorship). This effort may represent the first time we have tried to measure individual beliefs about how personal participation should intersect with professional responsibilities. Our dimensions of engagement tend not to differ substantially by demography, institution, or rank. However, we do have different beliefs about the propriety and the likely effects of different types of engagement with politics that give structure to our presence in the public sphere.

Political science is useful for many things but especially for the suite of research methods that we teach our students that generalize to a wide range of careers. However, that training is often buried deep in the major and is not well integrated into further coursework except perhaps for senior research. In reaction to that model, we started a new program that frontloads quantitative research methods, beginning with data visualization and then modeling following an inquiry model. With their newfound independence, students are able to approach substantive upper-level courses ready to engage the worth of theory by evaluating and updating their empirical tests. This article describes the program and reports on survey results from a 2024 sample of political scientists that reveals broadscale support for the program and its operating assumptions.

Teaching political methodology classes typically requires a set of technical, instructor-led lectures on sophisticated statistical concepts (such as probability modeling, inference, and proper interpretation), followed by chances for students to iteratively adjust methodological specifications, parameters, and data sets so they can understand how each combination affects the results. Iteration is essential to learning complicated concepts, but until now has required simultaneous mastery of a statistical programming language (such as R), which makes learning both harder. Teaching R the semester before would make methods classes easier but also delay research experiences and demotivate our students eager to begin substantive research. We address both problems through a new type of interactive teaching tool that lets students iterate while learning the big conceptual picture and all its separate parts, without having to simultaneously become programmers. We make this tool available for use in classes now (via one click in a web browser) and as an example of a new type of more friendly methods instruction for students and instructors alike.

Japan is one of the world’s fastest aging societies, with projections showing a population decline of almost 40 million people as the country grays during the next 40 years. By the end of this period, those aged 65 and older will comprise almost 40% of the population. Despite efforts to boost fertility rates and millions of septuagenarians working full-time, Japan remains one of the least receptive immigration destinations. In this study, we investigate how information about these demographic trends affect attitudes toward immigration. In a survey experiment with 1,000 Japanese voters, we evaluate the impact of exposing participants to demographic data on aging and its implications. The prime results in a 10-percentage-point increase in immigration support for the treatment group. Younger, urban respondents responded positively and elderly and rural respondents reacted less positively. Follow-up interview-based fieldwork reveals that restrictionist subgroups view a shrinking population as vulnerable to increased immigration, whereas other participants are less concerned with identity issues and more concerned with economic competitiveness. Taken together, this research provides a new understanding of Japan’s unique perceptions of immigration policy relative to peer countries, which may foreshadow political developments in Western democracies that are becoming increasingly xenophobic and increasingly older.

This article examines how to increase students’ self-reported feelings of political efficacy in introductory US government courses. We test the effectiveness of civic engagement assignments, such as writing a letter to one’s member of Congress and attending a public meeting, in increasing political efficacy beyond simply taking the course. By conducting pretests and posttests in both classes with (treatment group) and without (control group), the civic engagement assignments allowed us to isolate the effect of the assignments. We find significant effects for taking the course in both the treatment and control groups, confirming existing research that taking an introductory US government course increases students’ political efficacy. We also find treatment effects for multiple elements of the standard political efficacy questionnaire. That our intervention had these affects at a state university that is both a Hispanic Serving Institution and a Minority Serving Institution indicates that these types of civic engagement assignments hold significant potential not only for increasing political efficacy among students but also for increasing it among historical marginalized groups that typically participate in politics at lower rates than white Americans.

Public service internships are a staple in contemporary political science curricula. Research shows that internships produce better thinkers, employees, and citizens. Yet, political science interns are on the frontlines in observing the firsthand trauma, stress, and mental health challenges of many people seeking support and services from government. In turn, students may internalize this stress and trauma, a phenomenon recognized as secondary traumatic stress (STS). This study addresses a significant gap in the discipline’s understanding of the frequency and severity of STS experienced by political science interns in their fieldwork. We relied on surveys and written assessments from students enrolled in internship courses at two public universities. We find that interns report increased exposure to STS at the end of the semester. Furthermore, STS vulnerability varies among interns, with higher incidence rates among those with a history of primary trauma, older students, and women. We outline coping strategies for students, propose adaptations to experiential learning to enhance support, and emphasize the need for further research on this issue.

This article investigates whether campaign contributions and lobbying are complementary, substitutive, or distinct forms of organizational political engagement. Our study reveals minimal overlap between organizations that engage in lobbying and those that make campaign contributions despite the perception that these activities are interchangeable forms of “money in politics.” Using comprehensive contribution and lobbying report data from 1998 to 2018, we find that most politically active organizations focus exclusively on either lobbying or making campaign contributions. Only a small percentage of organizations engage in both activities. This finding challenges the assumption that these forms of political activity are inherently linked. The majority of organizations engaged in political activity do so exclusively through lobbying. However, the top lobbying groups spend the most money and almost always have affiliated political action committees (PACs). Most lobbying money is spent by a small number of big spenders—organizations that also have affiliated PACs. Organizations that both lobby and make campaign contributions tend to be well resourced and rare.

Innovations in deliberative and participatory democracy have been rapidly adopted by policy makers. Long-term success of democratic reform hinges on developing research through open, reproducible, and ethical standards that secure trust in findings. This study examines how Democratic Innovations (DI) scholars implement open science practices (OSP). We analyze empirical research published in English-language peer-reviewed journals between 1970 and 2021. Our analysis reveals limited OSP use: less than 1% of research articles involve replication and approximately 3.5% provide full data access, despite an increase in the past decade to almost 8% of articles published in 2020. Open publishing has increased, reaching almost 50% of publications in recent years. The article concludes by discussing how OSP can contribute to improving the practice of DI and the policy effects of institutional design. Researchers who understand institutional design for inclusive collective action are best placed to make the changes required to promote open science.

In recent years, political science has expanded its focus on pedagogy, developing its own subfield in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Although this research is seemingly low risk, it nevertheless raises distinctive ethical questions. It also is increasingly subject to rigorous ethics review, often justified as necessary to protect students as a vulnerable category. Until recently, the field has made little comment on which ethical issues political scientists should be attuned to when designing SoTL studies. Building on the wider literature on ethics and SoTL research, this article presents research findings on how political science students view their own experiences of becoming participants in SoTL research, and it highlights several resultant ethical considerations. We accompany these findings with recommendations for conducting ethically sound SoTL research on political science education.

This article explores the use of large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT, for enhancing information extraction from unstructured text in political science research. By automating the retrieval of explicit details from sources including historical documents, meeting minutes, news articles, and unstructured search results, GPT significantly reduces the time and resources required for data collection. The study highlights how GPT complements human research assistants, combining automated efficiency with human oversight to improve the reliability and depth of research. This integration not only makes comprehensive data collection more accessible; it also increases the overall research efficiency and scope of research. The article highlights GPT’s unique capabilities in information extraction and its potential to advance empirical research in the field. Additionally, we discuss ethical concerns related to student employment, privacy, bias, and environmental impact associated with the use of LLMs.

Predatory journals have become omnipresent in academia. Hardly a day goes by that a political scientist does not receive a solicitation from a dubious outlet. Yet, we have neither clearly identifiable criteria to help us recognize predatory journals nor the tools to detect them. This article seeks to remedy this situation. We propose and validate a 10-item predation index, which should help researchers to identify the degree to which a journal is predatory. Even if there is individual subjectivity in the application of the criteria, we believe that the predation index can be a strong and easily usable tool for political and social scientists.

Civic engagement benefits both participants and society, but what motivates young adults to decide to become civically engaged? A cost-benefit analysis concludes that resumé-building is a major motivator for young adult civic engagement participation because it has more visible short-term impacts compared to social or community motivators. Using a preregistered survey experiment and follow-up focus groups fielded to college students, I demonstrate that respondents exposed to a treatment describing the social benefits of civic engagement are significantly more willing to increase their civic engagement. Counter to expectations, career benefits are—at best—a secondary motivating factor. These results suggest that civic engagement does not appear to be inherently beneficial to young adults. Non-profit organizations and educators should consider ways to draw attention to the social benefits of civic engagement as a method of attracting additional program interest.

Surveys continue to be the most common research tool in American politics. Yet, there are normative, ontological, and conceptual concerns that render these techniques incomplete, especially when deployed in the study of marginalized people. This article argues that survey research is limited mainly in the study of race, gender, sexuality, and class because it fails to capture the intricacies of political life. Furthermore, the general exclusion of marginalized voices in survey research represents a major concern for the veracity of our findings. In response, I suggest three recommendations to help political scientists extend survey methods and tell more comprehensive stories about the political experiences and attitudes of marginalized people. I contend that political science departments must make qualitative methods required training for graduate students; political scientists must engage in feminist methodologies in building their research agendas; and researchers studying marginalized people must engage in multimethodological research approaches that provide context and detail about the lived experiences of vulnerable people.