The 2012 congressional redistricting was the first for which census data and mapmaking software were available to and easily useable by undergraduate students. We discuss our experience teaching the redistricting process to undergraduates and having our students draw constitutionally and statutorily valid congressional districts for Massachusetts. Bringing students into the process is a valuable teaching tool, and it also provides unbiased redistricting scenarios to state legislators and makes the redistricting process more open and transparent. Perhaps contrary to the fears of some legislators, our students placed substantial value on incumbency and the preservation of existing district lines, along with a respect for the traditional redistricting concerns of communities of interest and compactness.

This article illustrates major trends in political science research and frames the progress of research agendas in comparative politics. Drawing on the titles and abstracts of every article published in eight major political science journals between 1906 and 2015, the study tracks the frequency of references to specific keywords over time. The analysis corresponds to and complements extant descriptions of how the field has developed, providing evidence of three ‘revolutions’ that shaped comparative politics—the divorce of political science from history during its early years, a behavioral revolution that lasted until the late 1960s, and a second scientific revolution after 1989 characterized by greater empiricism. Understanding the development of the subdiscipline, and viewing it through the research published in political science over the last 100 years, provides useful context for teaching future comparativists and encourages scholars to think more broadly about the research traditions to which they are contributing.

The problem of plagiarism by political scientists has not received much attention. The incidence of plagiarism, however, may be greater than one would think. In this article, I offer a humorous look at what happened when a manuscript of mine was plagiarized. Based on my experience, I offer some suggestions on how scholars might detect and prevent plagiarism.

Political scientists increasingly enlist the work of historians but they often treat this work in a nonchalant or superficial way, which makes their evidentiary record questionable. It follows that we need to check the validity of the interpretation of historians’ work in review processes. This article argues that enlisting historians as reviewers is not the answer. Instead, it proposes four simple criteria that can be used to flag situations in which the use of historians’ work as empirical evidence is unconvincing. The general purpose of the article is to increase awareness about what is at stake when political scientists base empirical analysis on evidence gathered by historians.

Using survey data collected less than two weeks before the 2020 presidential election, we investigated why likely Trump voters would support Trump resisting the election results if he lost. We first used an experiment with randomized hypothetical popular-vote margins to test whether support for resistance was contingent on the results of the election. We also directly asked respondents who stated that they would support resistance to explain their reasoning in an open-ended response. In doing so, we gained insight into one of the most turbulent elections in American history and examined how support for resistance existed before the election due to both misinformation about voter fraud and hyperpartisanship that made Trump voters view the electoral process itself as illegitimate.

North Dakota’s unique statewide parking-meter ban was instituted by initiated measure in 1948. The 2017 legislative session witnessed the most credible effort to repeal the ban in decades. The legislative debate centered on tradition, the state’s long-standing urban–rural split, and its lingering populist roots. The authors place this debate within a larger rural-consciousness literature and examine how the politics of rural resentment contributed to maintaining the parking-meter ban, as well as the willingness of state lawmakers to use preemption as a tool to constrain the authority of larger cities. The authors also examine the complexity surrounding individual place-based identities. The extent to which urban residents in a rural state can simultaneously identify as “urban” relative to state-based policies and politics and “rural” relative to federal-based policies and politics merits further consideration.

Federalism is a core principle of American government; yet, how much attention is given to federalism beyond introductory courses? A 1969 study described American federalism as the “dark continent” of political science teaching. Based on surveys of chairs of US departments of political science and members of the APSA’s section on federalism and intergovernmental relations in 2013, the authors found that these course offerings have increased markedly since 1969, that the courses cover a range of topics, and that many department chairs are interested in offering these courses in the future. However, the teaching of comparative federalism lags far behind American federalism. Thus, comparative federalism remains a “dark continent” of federalism teaching.

This article summarizes research on the profession of community college faculty generally and data gathered from a survey of political science faculty teaching at community colleges nationwide conducted in 2018. The purpose of the article is to educate the discipline about what life is like for faculty at two-year schools and specifically how political science faculty at these schools perceive their role.

In recent years, scholars, journals, and professional organizations in political science have been working to improve research transparency. Although better transparency is a laudable goal, the implementation of standards for reproducibility still leaves much to be desired. This article identifies two practices that political science should adopt to improve research transparency: (1) journals must provide detailed replication guidance and run provided material; and (2) authors must begin their work with replication in mind. We focus on problems that occur when scholars provide research materials to journals for replication, and we outline best practices regarding documentation and code structure for researchers to use.