When we open a random political science journal, we have a roughly two-to-one chance that the article is written by a man. Beyond this general finding, we know little about the gender gaps within political science knowledge production: Are women more represented in lower- or higher-ranked journals? Do they publish more single-authored or multiauthored papers? Do they publish more content in some fields than in others? This article answers these questions by analyzing an original dataset based on the International Political Science Abstracts (a peer-reviewed academic journal) from 2022 consisting of more than 7,000 articles and more than 13,000 authors in political science from around the world. We find no difference in the percentage of female authors between higher- and lower-ranked journals. We find a slightly higher propensity among women to publish in teams. Regarding subfields of study, women are particularly underrepresented in political theory, in which they publish only 21.6% of all published articles—which is an approximate 12-percentage-point deviation from the overall average.

Are LGBTQ legislators effective lawmakers? We build on theories that link voter discrimination to legislative effectiveness by arguing that voters’ biases against LGBTQ candidates narrow the candidate pool, leading to the election of only the most experienced and qualified LGBTQ candidates. As a result of this electoral selection effect, we expect that LGBTQ legislators will be more effective lawmakers than their non-LGBTQ counterparts. To test this, we combine data on state legislators’ LGBTQ identification with their State Legislative Effectiveness Scores (SLES). Our findings reveal that LGBTQ legislators are meaningfully more effective than non-LGBTQ legislators. To link our findings to voter discrimination, we leverage over-time variation in discrimination toward LGBTQ individuals. Across four tests, we consistently find that LGBTQ lawmakers elected in high-discrimination environments are more effective than those elected from less discriminatory environments.

How are LGBTQ+ issues represented within labor organizing and how are they linked to broader debates about inequality? We answered these questions by examining press releases, internal resolutions, and online resources from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and the Pride at Work (PAW) constituency group. We find that they significantly differ in their approaches to symbolic and substantive representation and agenda setting. Across all three outcomes, PAW and the AFL-CIO vary in LGBTQ+ issue representation. The AFL-CIO engages in more symbolic representation but also devotes resources to collective action that can improve the lives of LGBTQ+ people. PAW places greater emphasis on the interconnectedness of LGBTQ+ and labor issues to mobilize LGBTQ+ people. Our findings highlight the marginal position of LGBTQ+ labor activism in the labor and LGBTQ+ movements, and they demonstrate the challenges associated with linking LGBTQ+ issues to broader debates about inequality in American politics.

By many accounts, the state of reviewing is in dire straits. Editors cannot get people to respond to review requests, much less to say yes and complete the review on time. In previous work (Djupe 2015; Djupe, Smith, and Sokhey 2022) conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, reviewing was heavily concentrated in a core set of reviewers, reviewing increased with age and rank, and political scientists stood by the value of peer reviewing for themselves, the discipline, and the research. Is any of that still true in the post-pandemic period? This article analyzes a Summer 2024 survey of 637 political scientists in comparison with 2013 data and finds an evident decline in reviewing post-pandemic from those who historically review the most. This pattern likely reflects broader movements, especially toward diversification, in the discipline and in higher education.

Anti-LGBTQ+ narratives are deployed by extremist groups with contrasting ideologies, from Jihadis to right-wing extremists and QAnon to Incels (involuntary celibates). Using these different movements as case studies, this article highlights the convergence of ideologically conflicting extremist organizations around antiqueer sentiment. Given the enhanced vulnerability of LGBTQ+ populations, fueled by politically charged rhetoric, this article makes an appeal for more research to explore and analyze narratives through a scholarly lens and link queer issues to current debates in the study of terrorism and political violence. Research should focus on the experiences of queer populations within conflicts abroad and experiences of domestic extremism in the United States. Without adequate attention given to the experiences of LGBTQ+ victims, it is impossible to develop protocols for trauma-informed care for vulnerable populations.

Political science was once silent about—and for many decades continued to be slow to address—LGBTQ+ politics as a topic worthy of scholarly research. One of the longest-standing gaps in the literature has been the lack of work that was pioneered by Ken Sherrill: research that centers LGBTQ+ people and politics as subjects, rather than objects, of study. Here I make the case for sustained scholarly attention to LGBTQ+ political behavior and discuss how quantitative empirical research in this vein is more feasible than ever before. I then provide an example of what is possible today with analyses of the 2022 Cooperative Election Study (CES), a large representative sample survey (complete case N = 45,240; LGBTQ+ N = 5,213) that includes questions about respondents’ sexual and gender identities. The analyses reveal several discoveries about LGBTQ+ people’s political behavior and lived experiences, including that they are no more politically engaged than the typical American, are in much poorer health than any other group, and belying stereotypes, are not of higher socioeconomic status than other Americans. A spatial representation of groups’ positions on the US political landscape shows that LGBTQ+ people are relatively distant from other groups, indicating that they may struggle to find natural coalition partners because of lack of shared interests.

We collected data on every tenure-track (TT) faculty member in the 122 PhD-granting political science departments in the United States to identify which graduate programs place faculty members in our discipline’s research universities. The top 20% of departments produced 75% of all faculty and the bottom 50% accounted for less than 5% of all TT faculty members at a research university. Forty-nine programs did not have a single graduate placed in a TT position at a PhD-granting department in the past 10 years, and 18 programs did not have a single graduate in a TT position at a PhD-granting department at all. The overwhelming majority of TT faculty members are at a lower or equally ranked department. The results have important implications for prospective graduate students and the future of our discipline.

Social construction theory postulates that policy outcomes depend on whether target groups are imagined by the public as deserving or undeserving. However, recent evidence demonstrates that the constructions in question are contentious rather than uniformly shared. This article applies the conjoint-experimental method to measure the social construction of immigrant (il)legality and to assess its political implications. We demonstrate that it is multidimensional because the absence of legal status is associated with receipt of government benefits, Hispanic origin, police record, poor English fluency, and less education. We also show that whereas the receipt of government benefits is not associated with the absence of legal status among most respondents, individuals who hold this association support stricter immigration-enforcement policies. Our findings corroborate the social construction approach but also indicate that researchers may want to measure multiple dimensions of target-group constructions in addition to deservingness.

Giving students choice in how they are assessed, known as assessment optionality, is an innovation in assessment that has gained attention in recent years for its potential for improving inclusivity and engagement in teaching and learning. However, although assessment innovations can be beneficial, the process of changing long-established norms can be difficult. Political science is a field in which the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning literature has long noted that there is limited pedagogical innovation. This resistance to innovation creates a challenge for those working in the field—stronger and specific arguments must be developed to justify changes to curricula. This article presents the results of participatory research with political science students to explore whether a subject-specific case can be made for the use of assessment optionality in the discipline. The study explores political science students’ understandings of costs and benefits of assessment optionality and shares co-created recommendations for the potential application of the practice.

When introducing students to broad theoretical frameworks, simulations and games can help to make theoretical concepts clearer. One example is the use of the mobile app for the board game Risk to illustrate many of the concepts associated with realism. The mobile app has advantages over the physical board game in that the length of the games often is much shorter and allows students to experiment with the number of opponents to determine how that changes the dynamics of the game. Survey results from students in an introduction to international relations course who played Risk in proximity to lessons on realism report that playing iterations of the game clarified realist topics including the balance of power, the security dilemma, and the temporary nature of alliances.

Since the first Trump administration, historically marginalized groups in the United States have been subjected to greater instances of bigotry and discrimination due to conservative influence on sociopolitical institutions. These actions suggest a shift in the “Overton Window,” whereby policy preferences previously deemed “unacceptable” are given consideration in the mainstream, especially by conservative policy actors. “Project 2025” is a comprehensive plan to restructure the federal government according to conservative dictates in the second Trump administration. This article is an examination of how higher education may be impacted by this plan, especially as it relates to LGBTQ+1 faculty, administration, staff, and students.

In this article, we assess the availability of reproduction archives in political science. By “reproduction archive,” we mean the data and code supporting quantitative research articles that allows others to reproduce the computations described in the published article. We collect a random sample of quantitative research articles published in political science from 1995 to 2022. We find that—even in 2022—most quantitative research articles do not point to a reproduction archive. However, practices are improving. In 2014, when the DA-RT symposium was published in PS: Political Science and Politics, about 12% of quantitative research articles point to the data and code. Eight years later, in 2022, that has increased to 31%. This underscores a massive shift in norms, requirements, and infrastructure. Still, only a minority of articles share the supporting data and code. In 2014, Lupia and Alter wrote, “Today, information on the data production and analytic decisions that underlie many published works in political science is unavailable.” They could write the same today; much work remains to be done.

Taiwan’s achievement in passing a marriage-equality law in 2019 and the democratic backlash against LGBTQ+ rights deserve scholarly attention in Asia and beyond. Specifically, Taiwan’s road to marriage equality led to these empirical puzzles: What explains the conservative shift in Taiwan’s public perceptions toward LGBTQ+ rights? How would the backlash against LGBTQ+ rights impact Taiwan’s democracy? What does Taiwan’s experience inform us about norm localization and LGBTQ+ politics in Asia and beyond?

The strategic framing of the Christian right—that is, the symbolic use of family and its localization of conservative values using Confucian norms—enabled them to couch their religious beliefs and facilitate collective action among different groups. This study offers a culture-based explanation of how the Christian right successfully established a single-issue coalition against LGBTQ+ rights. The article is organized as follows. First, it engages current literature on discourse analysis, norms contestation, and contentious politics. Second, the study proposes a two-part framework for understanding how the Christian right effectively constructs their conservative claims to gain public support. A comparative analysis of the discourse from the conservative and progressive sides sheds light on how their narratives shaped the marriage-equality debate. Third, it addresses how this countermovement impacts Taiwan’s democracy and human rights.