See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316994470

SoTL as a Subfield for Political Science Graduate Programs

Article  in  Journal of Political Science Education · April 2017

DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2016.1227264

CITATIONS READS

2 12

1 author:

Lee Trepanier
Saginaw Valley State University
59 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lee Trepanier on 12 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Political Science Education

ISSN: 1551-2169 (Print) 1551-2177 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

SoTL as a Subfield for Political Science Graduate

Programs

Lee Trepanier

To cite this article: Lee Trepanier (2017) SoTL as a Subfield for Political Science
Graduate Programs, Journal of Political Science Education, 13:2, 138-151, DOI:
10.1080/15512169.2016.1227264

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2016.1227264

Published online: 08 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 90

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upse20

Download by: [Dr Lee Trepanier] Date: 17 May 2017, At: 11:59
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION
2017, VOL. 13, NO. 2, 138–151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2016.1227264

SoTL as a Subfield for Political Science Graduate Programs

Lee Trepanier
Saginaw Valley State University

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article offers a theoretical proposal of how political science Received 16 February 2016
graduate programs can emphasize teaching in the discipline by Accepted 28 July 2016
creating the subfield of the scholarship of teaching and learning KEYWORDS
(SoTL). Currently, these programs neither prepare their students for Graduate education;
academic positions where teaching is valued nor participate in a pedagogy; scholarship of
disciplinary trend that emphasize SoTL. Furthermore, the recent teaching and learning
political pressure for political science programs to demonstrate their
public worth might be alleviated by the scholarship in teaching and
learning, which is more understandable to the public than traditional
non-SoTL work. The article concludes with some of the challenges
political science programs may confront in institutionalizing a subfield
of SoTL and how they can overcome them.

Introduction
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 (American Political Science Association [APSA] 2014,
2015a, 2015b; Beltran et al. 2005; Brown-Dean 2015; “Let’s Be Heard” 2015; Lupia
2014). 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; Cambridge 2001; Hutchings and
Schulman 1999; Martin et al. 1999). 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, to provide a public good that is comprehensible to the public.
Currently, almost all political science graduate programs neglect SoTL in the training of
their doctoral students.1 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.

CONTACT Lee Trepanier ldtrepan@svsu.edu GN 220 Gilbertson Hall, Political Science Department, Saginaw Valley
State University, 7400 Bay road, University Center, MI 48710-0001, USA.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 139

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, Grofman, and Felt
2007).2 Scholarship also is required to teach well with new theories and findings incor-
porated 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 scholar-
ship 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
(“Wisconsin Governor” 2015). Legislation introduced in the Iowa’s legislature required
faculty to teach at least one course per semester and to 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” (“Iowa Bill Sparks Faculty
Ire” 2015, 1). 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
(“Too Many Teaching Waivers?” 2015).
This recent political pressure on faculty is different from previous attempts, where the
criticism of faculty was a lack of scholarly productivity.3 The focus on teaching has more
public appeal, as faculty scholarship is often understood in utilitarian terms, such as in the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields 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 schol-
arship is not understood as useful or perceived as politically biased (Jaschik 2013, 2015).
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 (“25 Years of Declining State
Support” 2014; APSA 2014; Brown-Dean 2015; Lupia 2014; Rust and Kim 2012; Trepanier
2013; U.S. Government Accountability Office 2014).4 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.
140 L. TREPANIER

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. 2005). 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 trans-
mitters of knowledge (Beltran et al. 2005, 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 (APSA 2015c). 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 (APSA 2015d; Hamann, Pollock, and Wilson 2009).
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.5 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.
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 2009–2010
to 55.99% in 2013–2014 (APSA 2015a).6 The placement of doctoral graduate students in
tenure-track positions is even smaller. For the 2013–2014 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 nontenure track
were 64 (26.8%) and 45 (18.8%); for other subfields, the respective numbers are as follows:
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%).7
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 are
tenure-track positions regardless of subfield (except Methods) — the posting of available
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 141

positions in political science have varied. For assistant professorships, 489 were posted in
2002–2003; 715 were posted in 2007–2008; 445 were posted in 2009–2010; and 452 were
posted in 2012–2013.8 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 institu-
tions shows that two thirds of new jobs in the United States are teaching ones (Ishiyama,
Miles, and Balarezo 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 four-year institutions, 297 can be classi-
fied as research institutions using the Carnegie Classification system of institutions of
higher education, leaving 2,729 undergraduate institutions.9 Even if the numbers are not
exact, it is evident that there are more teaching institutions — nondoctoral 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 nondoctoral institutions; 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 types of institutions would be liberal arts colleges. However, the number of these
institutions are small: The Council of Independent Colleges lists only 630 institutions
and the Council of Public Liberal Art Colleges lists 29 in the United States (Council of
Independent Colleges n.d.; Council of Public Liberal Art Colleges n.d.). Subtracting
them from nondoctoral institutions, this would still leave 2,070 nondoctoral and
noncommunity-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 nonacademic institutions
(APSA 2015a). Unfortunately for these students, this preference runs contrary to the type
of academic positions available.

Political science graduate programs

This divergence between the economic, disciplinary, and political reality, on the one hand,
and the aspirations of doctoral graduate students, on the other, is not the fault of
students.10 Political science graduate programs are to be blamed. By not incorporating
SoTL into their curriculum, political science graduate programs produce students who
are prepared for traditional scholarship but not for an academic labor market and public
pressure to demonstrate the discipline’s worth.11 Despite discussion and evidence that
graduate students are not prepared to teach, there has been little formalized training
142 L. TREPANIER

developed in political science graduate programs ( Beltran et al. 2005; Euchner and Jewell
1989; Gaff et al. 2003; Ishiyama, Miles, and Balarezo 2010; Ishiyama et al. 2013; Rothgeb,
Spadafore, and Burger 2007).
A review of the Web sites of the top-ten political science graduate programs in the
United States reveals that students are not introduced to SoTL, and, if they are, it is only
in the traditional manner of teaching assistants and instructorships.12 With some minor
variations, these political science graduate programs are organized in the same way: two
years of coursework (with none about SoTL), a foreign language and quantitative method
competency requirement, a general examination, and a dissertation. General education
usually requires students to know three areas of political science in the traditional fields
of American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Relations, and Political Theory.13
In addition to these formal requirements, these programs also sponsor colloquia and
workshops for graduate students that focus on research or professional development as
defined by non-SoTL scholarship, for example, dissertation topic, grant writing, and the
academic labor market.
The only place for teaching in these programs is for students to be eligible to teach
sections in introductory courses, to assist undergraduate sessions, or to partake in tutorial
programs. Harvard is the most specific in how students should allot their time to teaching:
third-year students should devote two fifths of their time to teaching and the rest on the
dissertation; fourth-year students and above should devote most of their time to work
on their dissertation or “a combination of teaching and research” (“Graduate Program:
Requirements for Students Admitted to Fall 2010 or Later” n.d., 1). Of the 122 political
science doctoral programs, only 41 had a graduate-level course on teaching political
science, and only 28 of these programs required students to enroll in the course (Ishiyama,
Miles, and Balarezo 2010).
From the departments’ Web sites, it is not clear how the graduate student teaching is
supervised and evaluated, but one suspects that the mentorship of students into teaching
is dependent upon the faculty advisor and the relationship he or she has with the student
(Kuehl, Eschenburg, and Miller 2016). If a faculty member is attentive to his or her
graduate student, concerned about teaching, and knows about the literature of SoTL, then
the student is likely to be well prepared as a teacher. But if a faculty member lacks any one
of the above-mentioned factors, then the student will have to devise for himself or herself
how to teach well. Given that the incentives in political science graduate programs are for
students to spend time on non-SoTL scholarship, it is unlikely students will spend any
more time than needed to teach.
It is also not clear whether graduate students teach because it is part of their professional
development, personal income, an inexpensive way for programs to manage their budgets,
or a combination of all these reasons. Teaching may be part of a graduate student’s financial
aid package and, therefore, they teach because they need the income. Alternatively, graduate
students may teach to supplement their income not only in their own programs but also be
employed as adjuncts at other universities. Having graduate students teach — whether
within one’ s own program, as adjuncts elsewhere, or online — is an inexpensive, and
perhaps exploitive, way for programs and universities to meet the demands of undergrad-
uate teaching. The income that undergraduate students bring to programs are compensate
with inexpensive and inexperienced graduate students, while faculty members are free to
pursue traditional scholarship and thereby to justify their high costs to a department.
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 143

Like their counterparts in the United States, the top political science programs in the
world also are organized in a similar fashion but are even more focused on traditional
research than their American counterparts.14 Oxford, Cambridge, Science Po Paris, and
Australian National University make no references to SoTL for their doctoral students:
Only the London School of Economics states that there are opportunities for doctoral
students to teach undergraduate courses.15 The emphasis on research at the expense of
teaching is understandable at these programs because the time to complete a doctorate
is three years, a shorter period when compared to American programs. The result is that
these programs emphasize non-SoTL scholarship even more so than American programs,
with graduate students encouraged to have publications in peer-reviewed journals before
they defend their doctorate (Mair 2009; Steuriuc 2009; for a contrary view, see Pleschová
and Simon 2009).

The case for SoTL and teaching

Thus, there is a discrepancy between the doctoral training of political science programs and
the number and type of academic positions available, the direction of the discipline, and
the political pressures of governments on public universities. Confronted with these chal-
lenges, political science graduate programs must adapt in order to provide realistic oppor-
tunities for employment for its graduate students, to remain current with the latest trends
in the discipline, and to demonstrate its relevance to the public. One way political science
graduate programs could meet these challenges is to create a new subfield of SoTL.16
By adding this new subfield into their graduate program, political science departments
would be creating opportunities and incentives for students to be eligible for employment
not only at undergraduate institutions but also for positions in the education industry, for
example, the following: secondary schools; local, state, and the federal governments; text-
book publishing companies; nonprofit educational organizations and foundations. For
those students who secure academic positions, they will be aware of the teaching demands
and expectations of their institutions, which in turn will help them on their career paths of
tenure and promotion (Ishiyama, Balarezo, and Miles 2014). And once these students
become established professors at their institutions, they can have influence on the future
teaching demands and expectations of their own schools.
The new subfield of SoTL also will show students the connection between scholarship
and teaching, which ultimately may deepen the affinity between these activities in the disci-
pline.17 Instead of conceiving each of these activities as isolated from each other, students
will be able to make the connections between them, leading them to make new scholarly
contributions. By creating this subfield, the culture within the discipline and departments
will change where SoTL becomes as valued as much as traditional scholarship.
Although academics recognize the foundational role that traditional scholarship plays in
any discipline, this fact is not evident to the public. Academics can continue to make the
case about the importance of traditional scholarship or how low-teaching loads make their
universities more competitive to recruit and retain faculty, but these arguments seem to
have little effect on changing public perception or the minds of state legislators. Instead,
political scientists could make the public case that SoTL needs to be institutionalized so
that teaching becomes more effective rather than just having more of it. It is not necessarily
evident that having professors teach more would make them better teachers and students
144 L. TREPANIER

better learners. But the creation of a subfield of SoTL would enable faculty to identify the
best practices and methods for effective teaching for particular disciplines. Academics,
therefore, would concede to public demands that teaching needs to have a more central
place in the university’s mission but would qualify that criticism that it is effective, not just
more, teaching that is required.
Because of APSA’s initiatives, there already are numerous faculty who do research in
SoTL and publish in places like the Journal of Political Science of Education. Because the
community and literature in SoTL is established and continues to grow, there is fertile
ground to create SoTL as a subfield. Having said that, the creation and implementation
of this subfield will vary from department to department. It is not clear whether a
top-down or organic approach would be best. Another question is the role of the College
of Education (COE) with their pedagogical programs: Should COE and political science
programs work together or remain apart? Finally, institutional questions, like accreditation,
need to be investigated if the creation of a subfield of SoTL would have any negative effect
upon a university’s standing.
What would a subfield actually look like in a political science graduate program? In the
following section, I outline the contents of this subfield and its place in a political science
graduate program. With the understanding that this proposal is to start a conversation
about what a subfield of SoTL would look like rather than claim it is definitive, I have
designed one that is as broad as possible so it could be used as a template, allowing
flexibility among programs to tailor it for their specific needs.

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 method-
ology. Such a course could examine topics like syllabus and assignment design, student
assessment, classroom management and presence, innovative teaching practices, and tech-
nology 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 institutio-
nalize 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 a 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 fac-
ulty and resentment among students. Political science graduate programs do not currently
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 145

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.18 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 learn-
ing the traditional subfields in political science, students will be able to make the connec-
tions 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 levels. 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
146 L. TREPANIER

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 are collected and evaluated.19
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 from 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, to provide connections between
scholarship and teaching, and to demonstrate to search committees that the candidate is
knowledgeable about teaching.20

Conclusion
One of the practical questions is how this proposal can be implemented and institutiona-
lized in political science graduate programs. Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that the disci-
pline 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.21 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 disser-
tation, whether it is a classroom-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 nonelite 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 nonelite political science doctoral
programs offer a subfield in SoTL, it could formalize a two-tier system between elite
(traditional scholarship only) and nonelite (SoTL scholarship) programs. This division
between political science programs would not only be detrimental to a sense of collabor-
ation, 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 implement and institutionalize a subfield of
SoTL.22 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
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 147

to better prepare political science students for employment, to show the public the
relevance of political science, and to 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 respond to
these challenges.

Notes
1. The neglect of teaching among political science graduate programs, especially among elite ones,
is discussed further in this articles section “Political Science Graduate Programs.”
2. This article lists the top political scientists in 5-year cohorts from 1940–1999, by subfield (c.
2002) and women. All the political scientists listed are known for their scholarship.
3. For example, the University of Texas at Austin was criticized in Rick O’Donnell’s (2011) report,
“Higher Education’s Faculty Productivity Gap: The Cost to Students, Parents & Taxpayers.”
Marc Musick (2011), a sociology professor and associate dean in the College of Liberal Arts, sub-
sequently issued his 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).
4. 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, 1).
5. Examples of this approach are Boyer (1997) and McKinney (2007).
6. Students secured postdoctorates (13.62%) and nonacademic positions (9.91%), and 17.07% were
not placed at all. The APSA 2014–15 Graduate Placement Survey (APSA 2015b) shows that these
trends continue in academic employment in political science: 51.3% secured academic positions;
17% postdoctorates; 12.1% nonacademic; 16.8% not placed.
7. The 2014-15 Graduate Placement Survey: Preliminary Results (APSA 2015b) 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.
8. Positions in American Politics, International Relations, and Comparative Politics were consist-
ently the most posted during this period.
9. Research institutions, as categorized by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education (n.d.), include RU/VH (very high research activity), RU/H (high research activity),
and DRU (doctoral/research universities).
10. For more about the problems with graduate education, refer to Cassuto (2015).
11. For more about the state of teaching in political science graduate programs, refer to Jones and
Woodward (2016) and Kuehl, Eschenburg, and Miller (2016).
12. I use the U.S. News & World Report’s (“Top Political Science Programs” n.d.) ranking of political
science graduate programs. Although some may disagree with its methodology, I suspect the
results comport with most political scientists’ assessments of these programs: Harvard, Prince-
ton, Stanford, Michigan, Berkeley, Columbia, MIT, University of San Diego, Duke, and Univer-
sity of California at Los Angeles.
13. Some programs also include Methodology, Formal Political Theory, Political Economy, Public
Policy, Political Psychology, Security Studies, Gender and Politics, Law, Courts, and Politics, and
Race, Ethnicity, and Politics.
14. I use the QS World University Ranking of 2015 for the top political science graduate programs
in the world. As stated before, although some may disagree with its methodology, I suspect the
results comport with most political scientists’ assessments of these programs: Harvard, Prince-
ton, Oxford, London School of Economics (LSE), Science Po Paris, Cambridge, Australian
National University, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, and John Hopkins (“QS Top Universities” n.
d.). For more about the differences and similarities between North American and European doc-
toral graduate programs, refer to Mény (2010) and Ishiyama et al. (2010).
148 L. TREPANIER

15. Cambridge University’s Web site states that there are teaching fellows in addition to the full-
time faculty; however, it is not clear who these teaching fellows are, that is, doctoral students,
postdoctoral students, visiting professors, etc. (Department of Politics and International Studies
n.d.).
16. Serve et al. (2013) even suggest creating a separate degree, Doctorate of Arts, which focuses on
SoTL. This proposal incorporates this idea as part of a doctoral student’s comprehensive
examination.
17. Boyer (1997) is an advocate of this approach of combining scholarship and teaching with his
typology of the scholarship of discovery, integration, teaching and learning, and application.
18. The requirement of graduate students having familiarity with all the traditional subfields in
political science is one the recommendations of the 2004 APSA Task Force Committee on
Graduate Education: “[A] serious graduate education includes a broadly informed perspective
on the discipline” (Beltran et al. 2005 p. 4).
19. Some innovative mentoring systems for teacher training and greater evaluation and supervision
of graduate instructors are noted by Ishiyama et al. (2010) at Miami University (Ohio) and Bay-
lor University, innovations that had not placed a strain on the resources of faculty time.
20. Craig (2014) reviews the literature on teaching and learning in political science and the persist-
ent 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.
21. This claim seems to comport with most political scientists’ perceptions in the discipline; how-
ever, data to support this claim in political science are difficult to determine. For academic stu-
dies about this phenomenon within academia in general, refer to Warner and Clauset (2015).
22. The role of professional associations, like APSA, is crucial for determining the expectations and
requirements of academic employment and prestige in the discipline (Gaff et al. 2003).

Acknowledgements
A previous version of this article 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.

Notes on Contributor
Lee Trepanier is a Professor of Political Science at Saginaw Valley State University in Michigan.
His research interests are the scholarship of teaching and learning in political science, classical
and postmodern political philosophy, the works of Eric Voegelin, religion and politics, and politics,
literature, and film. He is author and editor of over 15 books and the series editor for Lexington
Books’ Politics, Literature, and Film and the academic Web site VoegelinView.

References
“25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges.” 2014. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
March 3. http://chronicle.com/interactives/statesupport (December 15, 2015).
American Political Science Association (APSA). 2014. “APSA Task Force on Improving Public
Perceptions of Political Science’s Value.” http://www.apsanet.org/reports (November 25, 2015).
American Political Science Association (APSA). 2015a. “Six Years of Political Science Doctoral
Student Placement, 2009–14.” http://www.apsanet.org/RESOURCES/Data-on-the-Profession
(November 25, 2015).
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 149

American Political Science Association (APSA). 2015b. “The 2014–15 Graduate Placement Survey:
Preliminary Results.” http://www.apsanet.org/RESOURCES/Data-on-the-Profession (December
7, 2015).
American Political Science Association (APSA). 2015c. “American Political Science Association -
Home.” Available at http://www.apsanet.org (December 15, 2015).
American Political Science Association (APSA). 2015d. “Political Science Education (Section 29).”
http://www.apsanet.org/section29 (December 15, 2015).
Beltran, Cristina, Cathy J. Cohen, David Collier, Edie Goldenberg, Robert Keohane, Kristen
Monroe, Michael Wallerstein, Christopher H. Achen, and Roger M. Smith. 2005. “APSA Task
Force on Graduate Education: 2004 Report to the Council.” PS: Political Science and Politics
38(1): 129–135.
Boyer, Ernest L. 1997. Scholarship Reconsidered. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Brown-Dean, Khalilah. 2015. “Emphasizing the Scholar in Public Scholarship.” PS: Political Science
& Politics 48: S1 (Special Issue Supplement).
Cambridge, B. 2001. “Fostering the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Communities of
Practice.” In To Improve the Academy, eds. D. Lieberman and C. Wehlburg. Bolton, MA: Anker,
3–16.
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. n.d. “The Carnegie Classification of
Institutions of Higher Education News & Announcements.” http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/
(December 15, 2015).
Cassuto, Leonard. 2015. The Graduate School Mess. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Council of Independent Colleges. n.d. “The Council of Independent Colleges - Home.” http://www.
cic.edu/Pages/default.aspx (December 18, 2015).
Council of Public Liberal Art Colleges. n.d. “Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges - Home.” http://
www.coplac.org/ (December 18, 2015).
Craig, John. 2014. “What Have We Been Writing About?: Patterns and Trends in the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Political Science.” Journal of Political Science Education 10(1): 23–36.
Department of Politics and International Studies. n.d. Cambridge University. http://www.polis.cam.
ac.uk/study-at-polis/graduates/ProsPhD (December 28, 2015).
Euchner, Jonathan P., and Malcom E. Jewell. 1989. “A Survey of Teaching by Graduate Students.” PS:
Political Science and Politics 22(1): 73–76.
Gaff, Jerry, Anne Pruitt-Logan, Leslie Sims, and Daniel Denecke. 2003. Preparing Future Faculty in
the Humanities and Social sciences: A Study for Change. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate
Schools, Association of American Colleges and Universities.
“Graduate Program: Requirements for Students Admitted to Fall 2010 or Later.” n.d. Harvard
University. http://gov.harvard.edu/requirements-students-admitted-fall-2010-and-later (December
18, 2015).
Hamann, Kerstin, Philip H. Pollock, and Bruce W. Wilson. 2009. “Who SoTLs Where?: Publishing
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics
42(4): 729–735.
Hutchings, P., and Schulman, L. 1999. “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: New Elabora-
tions, New Developments.” Change 31(5): 10–15.
“Iowa Bill Sparks Faculty Ire.” 2015. Inside Higher Ed. April 23. www.insidehighered.com/quick-
takes/2015/04/23/iowa-bill-sparks-faculty-ire (December 5, 2015).
Ishiyama, John, Christine Balarezo, and Tom Miles. 2014. “Do Graduate Student Teacher Training
Courses Affect Placement Rates?” Journal of Political Science Education 10(3): 278–283.
Ishiyama, John, Alexandra Cole, Angela Nichols, Kerstin Hamann, and Kimberly Mealy. 2013.
“Graduate Student Teacher Training Courses, Job Placement, and Teaching Awards in the United
States.” In Teaching Development in Higher Education: Existing Programs, and Program Impact,
and Future Trends, ed. Eszter Simon and Gabriela Pleschová. London and New York: Routledge,
34–52.
Ishiyama, John, Tom Miles, and Christine Balarezo. 2010. “Training the Next Generation of
Teaching Professors: A Comparative Study of PhD Programs in Political Science.” PS: Political
Science & Politics 43(3): 515–522.
150 L. TREPANIER

Jaschik, Scott. 2011. “An Analysis of Faculty Instructional and Grant-Based Productivity at the Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin.” Inside Higher Ed. November 14. www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/
11/14/study-finds-u-texas-faculty-are- productive (December 5, 2015).
Jaschik, Scott. 2013. “What to do about Congress.” Inside Higher Ed. September 3. www.
insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/03/political-scientists-consider-strategies-deal-ban-nsf-support
(December 5, 2015).
Jaschik, Scott. 2015. “New Ways to Hinder Social Science Grants.” Insider Higher Ed. August 3. www.
insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/03/social-scientists-are-alarmed-new-legislation-nsf-grants
(December 5, 2015).
Jones, David, and Jennifer Woodward. 2016. “Re-Imaging Without Re-Inventing: The Need to
Incorporate Pedagogical Training into Political Science Doctoral Programs.” Presented at The
American Political Science Teaching and Learning Conference, Portland, Oregon.
Kuehl, Colin, Jake Eschenburg, and Caleb Miller. 2016. “The Pedagogical Apprentice: Self-
Perceptions of Teaching Efficacy Among Political Science Graduate Students.” Presented at The
American Political Science Teaching and Learning Conference, Portland, Oregon.
“Let’s Be Heard! How to Better Communicate Political Science’s Public Value.” 2015. PS: Political
Science & Politics 48: Special Issue.
Lupia, Arthur. 2014. “What is the Value of Social Science?: Challenges for Researchers and
Government Funders.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47(1): 1–7.
Mair, Peter. 2009. “The Way We Work Now.” European Political Science 8(2): 143–150.
Martin, E., J. Benjamin, M. Prosser, and K. Trigwell. 1999. “Scholarship of Teaching: A Study of the
Approaches of Academic Staff.” In Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning
Outcomes, ed. Chris Rust. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Learning and Development, Oxford
Brookes University, 326–331.
Masuoka, Natalie, Bernard Grofman, and Scott L. Felt. 2007. “The Political Science 400: A 20- Year
Update.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40(1): 133–145.
McKinney, Kathleen. 2007. Enhancing Learning through the Scholarship of Teaching Learning.
Bolton, MA: Anker.
Mény, Yves. 2010. “Political Science as a Profession.” European Political Science 9(1): 11–21.
Musick, Marc. 2011. “An Analysis of Faculty Instructional and Grant-Based Productivity at The
University of Texas at Austin.” Available at https://alt.coxnewsweb.com/shared-blogs/austin/
investigative/upload/2011/11/new_ut_study_finds_its_profess/Faculty%20Productivity%20Report.
pdf. (November 30, 2015).
O’Donnell, Richard F. 2011. “Higher Education’s Faculty Productivity Gap: The Cost to Students,
Parents & Taxpayers.” Available at https://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/Higher_Eds_
Faculty_Productivity_Gap.pdf (November 30, 2015).
Pleschová, Gabriela, and Eszter Simon. 2009. “Teacher Training for Political Science PhD Students in
Europe Determinants of a Tool for Enhanced Teaching in Higher Education.” Journal of Political
Science Education 5(3): 233–249.
“QS Top Universities.” n.d. World University Ranking of 2015. http://www.topuniversities.com/
university-rankings-articles/university-subject-rankings/top-universities-politics-international-
studies-2015 (December 20, 2015).
Rothgeb, John M., Annemarie Spadafore, and Betsy Burger. 2007. “Faculty Training in Political
Science: Results from a Survey from Department Chairs.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40(4):
759–763.
Rust, Val D., and Stephanie Kim. 2012. “The Global Competition for Higher Education.” World
Studies in Education 13(1): 5–20.
Serve, Kinta, Nathan Clements, Kaleb K. Heinrich, and Rosemary J. Smith. 2013. “The Tale of Two
Degrees: The Need and Power of the Doctor of Arts.” College Teaching 61(4): 113–115.
Smith, Roger M. 2015. “Creating an APSA ‘Exploring Public Issues’ Speakers and Classroom
Resource Program” PS: Political Science & Politics 48: 96–99.
Steuriuc, Irina. 2009. “Building an Academic Profile — Considerations for Graduate Students
Embarking on an Academic Career in Political Science in Europe.” European Political Science
8(2): 138–142.
 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 151

“Too Many Teaching Waivers?” 2015. Inside Higher Ed. November 8. www.insidehighered.com/
news/2015/12/08/how-many-too-many-teaching-waivers-public-research-institution (December 5,
2015).
“Top Political Science Programs.” n.d. U.S. News & World Report. http://grad-schools.usnews.
rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/political-science-rankings
(December 18, 2015).
Trepanier, Lee. 2013. “A Philosophy of Prudence and the Purpose of Higher Education Today.”
In The Relevance of Higher Education, ed. Timothy Simpson. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books,
1–23.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2013. “Number of
Educational Institutions, by Level and Control of Institutions: Selected Years, 1980–81 Through
2010–11.” https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84 (November 30, 2015).
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2014. Higher Education: State Funding Trends and Policies
on Affordability. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
United States Senate.
Warner, Joel, and Aaron Clauset. 2015. “The Academy’s Dirty Secret: An Astonishing Small Number
of Elite Universities Produce an Overwhelming Number of America’s Professors.” Slate. February
23. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2015/02/university_hiring_if_you_didn_t_get_
your_ph_d_at_an_elite_university_good.html (December 30, 2015).
“Wisconsin Governor: Faculty Should Teach More Classes.” 2015. Inside Higher Ed. January 29.
www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/01/29/wisconsin-governor-faculty-should-teach-more-
classes (December 5, 2015).

View publication stats