At a roundtable at the American Political Science Association annual meeting in September 2009, congressional scholars took on a challenge uncommon to the discipline: scenario planning. As chair of the roundtable “Congress and the 21st Century: Future Challenges and Development,” I asked each participant to identify factors to take into account if one were to project what Congress would look like as an institution in 2030. I am pleased to introduce the following articles that resulted from this effort. The authors are Frances E. Lee, University of Maryland; Matthew N. Green, Catholic University of America, with coauthor Daniel Burns; Kathryn Pearson, University of Minnesota; and Colleen J. Shogan, Congressional Research Service.

It is not hard to find critics of how the U.S. Congress operates today. Two of the most prominent, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, have bemoaned in particular Congress's failure to follow “regular order,” which in their 2006 book The Broken Branch they describe as a legislative process that incorporates “discussion, debate, negotiation, and compromise” (Mann and Ornstein 2006, 170).

Current circumstances might seem to present real opportunities for Congress to reassert itself relative to its weakened role during George W. Bush's presidency. Large, unusually cohesive Democratic majorities in both chambers; unified government; and an administration staffed with people who know Congress well—all this might lead one to expect a productive working relationship permitting Congress wide scope of action. Nevertheless, the Senate's internal deliberative processes threaten to create difficulties so significant that they may outweigh these developments. Looking to the future of Congress, changes in Senate procedures and practices are important not only because of their effects on the institution's internal power structure. Left unchecked, they are also likely to have implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.

From the establishment of the United States Postal Service and the invention of the telegram, to the introduction of C-SPAN and the explosion of the Internet, the development of new communication technologies has always affected the functioning of Congress. Not surprisingly, recent innovations such as e-mail and social networking have spurred Congress to alter the way it operates as an institution, and rethink the manner in which it engages the public. In this brief examination, I discuss recent changes in congressional behavior and practices due to technological innovation, specifically the proliferation of social networking Web sites. Then, I cautiously predict future trends in the use of social networking and related technologies as they become more integrated in congressional offices and increase the capacity for more robust internal and constituent communications over time.

The United States population is changing in significant ways: it is growing larger, older, and more racially and ethnically diverse, and these changes are regionally concentrated. How will these changes affect the future of Congress? In this article, I show that demographic change has significant implications for the quality of representation, the legislative agenda, party coalitions, and the diversity of congressional membership in the future, even as change inside Congress will proceed more slowly than change outside it.

In the 2008 election, Barack Obama's campaign brought many new voters to the polls. Were these new voters necessary for Obama's victory? In this study, I find that they were not. The basis of this finding is an examination of decisions made by people who voted for George W. Bush in 2004. I show that Bush voters' decisions not to vote or to support Obama were a sufficient condition for Obama's victory.

Travel, stump speeches, and pressing-the-flesh make up a large part of any presidential electoral campaign. Obviously, candidates feel that their appearances are important, as they make hundreds of appearances between Labor Day and Election Day. But are they right? Well over 100 million people cast ballots in November, but only the tiniest fraction of voters meets or catches a glimpse of either of the candidates. Do candidate appearances and contact sway voters in some way? In this article, we use changes in weekly state tracking polls to determine the impact of candidate appearances in battleground and non-battleground states. Using polling data from the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections, we find that campaign appearances can change a candidate's polling percentages, and that the impact varies by candidate and location (battleground state, safe Democratic state, or safe Republican state). We also find that the selection of a vice-presidential candidate is important, because of this candidate's ability to campaign effectively.

This research examines the effect of disgruntlement among primary and caucus voters who supported U.S. presidential nomination losers—a potentially divisive nomination process. I analyze the general election voting behavior of primary and caucus voters in the 2008 presidential election to determine if differences exist between supporters of the winning nominee in each party and backers of other candidates who also sought the nomination. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of “loyal party vote” suggests that Clinton and Edwards supporters showed a significantly higher degree of defection in the general election, although this behavior did not occur among people who voted for Romney or Huckabee in their state's primary or caucus.

The article discusses the term “recursive,” which has multiple uses in the political science literature. The two principle uses are reviewed, with attention to precedent and technical meanings, and examples are provided of mathematical concepts and their application to political science literature. The problem of divergent meaning is addressed through a survey of potential for reconciliation or possible substitute terminology.

The question of the role of normative or historical political theory within the broader discipline of political science has been controversial at least since the founding of the American Political Science Association (see Gunnell 2006 for a brief overview). Perhaps it goes without saying that during that same period people who think of themselves as engaged in political theory have disagreed among themselves about the core concerns of the field, the appropriate kinds of graduate training, the relative value of various authors and texts, and, of course, about theory's role within political science.

This article reports the results of a 2008 national survey of political theorists. The results, based on 1,086 responses from professors at accredited, four-year colleges and universities in the United States, provide information about the demographic characteristics of political theorists, opinion data on the place of political theory within political science, the proportion of political theorists in political science departments, teaching loads, expectations for tenure, the experience of political theorists on the academic job market, and, finally, rankings of theorists, journals, publishers, professional organizations, and Ph.D. programs.

Matthew Moore's survey of political theorists in U.S. American colleges and universities is an impressive contribution to political science (Moore 2010). It is the first such survey of political theory as a subfield, the response rate is very high, and the answers to the survey questions provide new information about how political theorists look when compared to political scientists overall. We are roughly the same age, for example, and are slightly more likely to be female. The survey also gives us a picture of political theorists' conditions of employment: about half of us get jobs in the first year upon receiving our Ph.D.s; most of us teach at schools that range from 1,000 to 10,000 students; most of us are not at Ph.D.-granting institutions.

This survey's importance comes not from what it informs us about political theory as a field, but rather from the function it serves within debates over the component areas of the field of political science. Rather than answering whether political theory “belongs” within political science (an unanswerable question), the survey uses quantification of qualitative experience and data collection to consolidate political theory as a subfield. Thus success of this project relies upon and reinforces disciplinary norms, operating as a process that attempts to bring a normative political theory into existence. The rank ordering of departments, journals, and individual theorists proves appealing not only for the competitive, horse-race valuation of those people and institutions, but also for how they ultimately resist this project by showing the anti-normative heart of political theory: an important and useful survey indeed.

Matthew Moore's survey and analysis reflect an enormous amount of work, for which all of us who study or teach political theory should be grateful. They offer us a fascinating snapshot of who is teaching political theory today, of how they understand and think about what they are doing, and of how they think others think about theory. Much that is included in his analysis (and especially in the longer paper from which the report here is selected) is well worth further study and debate, as it opens a door to the ways political science in general (and not theory alone) is being taught around the country: what political scientists think they are doing when they/we teach their material, what training they/we have, and even what modal teaching loads are.

Despite the size and growth of political science and sociology relative to other disciplines, political science and sociology graduate students have received a declining share of funding for dissertation field research in recent years. Specifically, political science and sociology students are losing out to competitive applicants from humanities-oriented fields that provide strong training in area studies and language. These trends are explained by multiple factors. On the funding demand side, changes in graduate training within political science and sociology are undermining students' ability to conduct contextual work, thus leading to lower quality applications. On the funding supply side, the structure of selection committees may be privileging certain disciplines and approaches. We offer suggestions on how to begin reversing these worrisome trends in dissertation funding. Doing so is crucial to ensuring the continued participation of political scientists and sociologists in international comparative research.

Scholarly publication in peer-reviewed journals is widely regarded as the road to scholarly success. However, in a diversity of fields such as sociology, economics, and political science, it has been shown that the rate of publication is much lower for women than for men. The question of whether a systematic relationship exists between gender and research methods has also frequently been debated. In this paper, we explore patterns of authorship and scholarship in two influential interdisciplinary journals, Political Communication and the International Journal of Press/Politics, over the last decade. A systematic content analysis was conducted to determine the gender ratio of authors, the methods and theories employed, and the ratio of quantitative to qualitative research studies. In addition, we tracked the use of primary or secondary data sources and the prevalence of research funding by gender. Overall, we find that while women are publishing less than men, their rate of publication is somewhat higher than their representation in the field.

As part of the ongoing work by the Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession (CSWP), we offer an empirical analysis of the pipeline problem in academia. The image of a pipeline is a commonly advanced explanation for persistent discrimination that suggests that gender inequality will decline once there are sufficient numbers of qualified women in the hiring pool. The CSWP believes that it is important to ask whether this phenomenon is actually occurring, because the implication is that we can explain inequality as a function of insufficient numbers of trained women in the pool, rather than as a result of ongoing discrimination that requires alternate remedies. Data from the American Association of University Professors suggests that merely increasing the pool of qualified women has not led to a commensurate number of women rising to the top in academia. Women are still ending up in lower paid jobs, and they continue to earn less than men in comparable positions. More aggressive policies to end discrimination are required.

The breadth of material covered in introductory U.S. government and politics survey courses creates a situation in which the textbooks used may serve as the primary source of information students receive about the country's political system. At the same time, their content represents a conscious choice by the authors, editors, and publishers of these textbooks regarding what topics and content are necessary and worthy of publication, which socializes students to accept particular viewpoints of the formation and operation of the U.S. government. Oftentimes, the information presented in textbooks across subdisciplines ignores the political experiences and influence of racial, ethnic, and other minority groups. We test this premise by engaging in a study of 29 introductory U.S. government and politics textbooks to assess the level of coverage and treatment of Latinos/as, the fastest growing racial/ethnic group in the country. We find that the discussion of Latinos in these textbooks is incredibly brief and often limited to the civil rights chapters. Furthermore, Latinos are primarily mentioned in the discussion of immigration, while their overall contributions to the political development of the United States are largely ignored.

In July of 2008, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AACSU) selected a handful of public universities to begin an initiative to promote civic engagement among students, faculty, and wider communities regarding the issues of the national debt and budget deficit issues. Named the America's Future Initiative, the project developed pilot programs on university campuses as part of AASCU's American Democracy Project, an effort to promote civic engagement on America's public university campuses. Moreover, the initiative linked the participating universities to Public Agenda, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization aimed at raising awareness about a number of public policy issues. The universities selected to participate in the America's Future Initiative varied tremendously in terms of geographic location and student enrollment.

Despite nearly universal concern about America's rapidly rising national debt, the United States government was $12.5 trillion in debt by the spring of 2010. Yet, few people—including college and university students—understand why we are in debt, what the many effects and dangers could be, the difficult steps necessary to reduce our deficits and debt, and the critical importance of bipartisanship and compromise. Given that young people are the nation's future and knowledge is power, what better place to raise awareness and stimulate discussion than on college campuses?