Critical Transfers: Teaching Approaches in Graduate Political Science
19
1
This paper could not have been completed with the assistance of many others. I would like to especially
thank the all of the individuals who have shared their course syllabi with me, many of whom have taken the
time to write thoughtful comments and suggestions, sharing both resources and insights, including: Steve
Abernathy, John Aldrich, Leslie Anderson, Dinorah Azpuru, Melanie Cammett, Claudine Gay, Howard
Handelman, John Huber, Bryan Jones, Michael Jones-Correa, Herbert Kitschelt, Jan Kubik, Ruth Lane,
Guy Peters, Nelson Polsby, Beth Reingold, Rudra Sil, Elizabeth Theiss, Nicolas van de Walle, and Guy
Whitten.
2
In accordance with APSA’s current initiatives for improving Political Science education this paper refers
to professional development as the process of preparing current graduate students to be future faculty.
3
The 2000 National Doctoral Program Survey is a survey conducted by the National Association of
Graduate-Professional Students. The survey rates individual programs on a number of criteria, averaging
the reported scores of a self-selected sample of graduate students in each program. More information on the
survey instrument and its method are available at the survey webpage: (http://survey.nagps.org/index.php).
4
I have chosen this survey as it deliberately uses feedback from graduate students, and it offers a specific
measurement for professional development. An alternative method for assessing professional development
in graduate programs is through opinion-based rankings, or qualitative ratings of graduate institutions based
on interviews with department chairs and faculty (McCormick and Rice; NRC 1995; US News and World
Report). Beginning with Hayward Keniston in 1959 and continuing onwards, this approach has been the
primary method of ranking graduate programs in the social sciences (McCormick and Rice; NRC 1995; US
News and World Report). It is used by a number of groups in assessing graduate education, including US
New and World Report. The approach carries obvious problems regarding bias and reliability, and it lumps
professional development into an overall score that is not the heart of this analysis.
5
The survey instrument and method are available online at:
http://survey.nagps.org/about/index.php
.
6
Professional development in the survey asks three questions of graduate students. They are asked to
assess the following on a likert in which 0 = Strongly disagree 25 = Disagree, 75 = Agree, and 100 =
strongly agree:
1. Doctoral students in my program receive training in professional ethics and professorial
responsibilities via coursework or seminars.
2. Doctoral students in my program receive training in professional skills such as public speaking,
grant writing, and working in teams.
3. Doctoral students in my program receive sufficient resources such as office space, computer
access, office equipment, and supplies.
The professional development score for each institution is obtained by averaging the scores of students.
7 To have a foundation for collecting syllabi, I used the listing of doctoral programs in Political Science
found on the US News and World Report Website (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-
phdhum/brief/dirpolindex_brief.php). Syllabi were gathered using two methods: one by scanning program
and faculty websites for syllabi available online, and two, by e-mailing professors and department chairs
and requesting a copy of the American and comparative proseminars that were most recently taught in their
programs. Overall, responses to my mails were well received, and individuals were quick to respond
(response rate above 75%). My target goal was to receive 60 course syllabi, and I received 61 syllabi
.
8
Professional development is defined as preparing doctoral students to be future faculty. This involves
setting course assignments so that they adequately provide students with an overview of professional ethics,
skills and responsibilities within the discipline.
9
4 = Superior quality, all criteria are listed; 3 = Good quality = missing one of the criteria; 2 = Quality
OK—missing 2 of the four criteria; 1 = lower quality, missing 3 criteria, lacking critical transfers
10
The process of assessing course syllabi is somewhat daunting, and really there is no way to judge the
quality of a course syllabus with no bias. I have tried to be as objective as possible, setting the benchmark
syllabi for a standard and laying out the guidelines for ranking the overall quality of each course. Also, to
elaborate on what comprises “adequate” transfer of approaches and themes in American and Comparative
Convention