The contributions in this spotlight of “From the Sections” were published in the American Political Science Association (APSA) Legislative Studies Section (LSS) newsletter, The Legislative Scholar, in Fall 2020. This spotlight focuses on the experiences of scholars who work at the nexus of legislative studies and race, ethnicity, and politics (REP). Few REP scholars in political science identify as legislative scholars or maintain LSS membership but many are doing important and timely research on legislative politics. By hearing directly from these scholars about their experiences in conducting research at the intersection of REP and legislative studies, we gain insight on when and why some scholars are more (or less) likely to identify with the LSS; understand the ways that a focus on REP research structures how scholars approach questions in legislative studies and vice versa; and hear advice from successful scholars about how to thrive as a REP and legislative scholar.

Not only does identity influence the study of institutions; it also influences the experiences of scholars who study institutions. It is widely known that the APSA LSS has a history of being fairly homogeneous. The section welcomes a broader range of scholars but, of course, there is more work to be done.

This was most recently made overtly apparent when Roberts (Reference Roberts2018) revealed the gender breakdown of all APSA sections, with LSS faring among the worst. Although we are not aware of similar data regarding the racial and ethnic composition of APSA sections, we know that scholars of color are underrepresented in the discipline at large. According to data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates reported by the National Science Foundation, in 2017, black scholars earned 42 of 753 (3.2%) of PhDs awarded in political science.Footnote ¹ Latinos similarly are underrepresented in the discipline.

These patterns are replicated (to a greater or lesser degree) in APSA sections. Although we do not have data on the share of underrepresented minorities in the LSS, we suspect that they may be less well represented in the section than in the discipline. It becomes readily apparent at any LSS business meeting that people of color are dramatically underrepresented. Moreover, although some whites do study REP, the study of racial and ethnic politics is itself rare, being perceived as a subfield rather than central to the study of politics more broadly.

In a March 2020 spotlight published in “From the Sections” in PS: Political Science & Politics and edited by Laurel Harbridge-Yong and Gisela Sin (Reference Harbridge-Yong and Sin2020), we heard from a group of women legislative scholars to gain insight into the underrepresentation of women in the LSS. They related their experiences with the section and working in the field. Inspired by former Legislative Scholar editors Harbridge-Yong and Sin, we hope to advance what they started by hearing from scholars who work at the nexus of identity politics and legislative studies. This will give us the opportunity to reflect on the ways that the academy as an institution reproduces the same patterns that we observe in political institutions. We can use our scholarship on institutions to learn about ourselves and to ask about policy prescriptions for becoming a more inclusive section.

The first of these spotlight contributions is an honest and reflective article by Nadia Brown, in which she chronicles her experiences of being a black woman who studies black women, and she describes the dearth of research that centers black women elected officials. Although it is not the case that only black women can effectively study black women, Brown’s article highlights the important perspective that black women contribute when studying black women lawmakers.

In an interview with Kristen Smole, Valeria Sinclair-Chapman describes her experience as a woman of color studying legislatures. She mentions that although it initially was difficult to find her way as a graduate student, a year on Capitol Hill in the office of Representative Maxine Waters changed the trajectory of her career. Sinclair-Chapman also discusses why she thinks it is important to study minority representation in legislatures, and she raises several questions that scholars can answer by studying the intersection of these two topics.

In a related article, Artemesia Stanberry challenges the field to take up the study of black lawmakers—especially in this era of awakening and racial reckoning—bringing to bear her vast experiences on Capitol Hill and in teaching at historically black colleges and universities.

Niambi Carter honestly articulates why she considers herself a REP scholar and not a legislative studies scholar, despite conducting research on legislators. She pushes the discipline to make space for and to center the experiences of marginalized groups.

Anna Mahoney discusses the benefits and the challenges of conducting community-engaged research, making a compelling argument for why more people should participate in research that advances the public good. By engaging in community-engaged research, perhaps scholars are more likely to be compelled to grapple with the ways that identity intersects with research on political institutions.

Renita Miller describes how her training in REP and legislative studies has allowed her to thrive as an administrator in the realm of higher education, showing that a PhD in political science does not have to circumscribe our career choices. In doing so, she explains how findings from legislative studies and REP research inform her approach to her job.

By hearing directly from scholars about their research and research experiences, we can better understand their experience working in this area so that the APSA LSS will benefit from useful insight on how to improve the diversity among scholars and scholarship in the section.