BACKGROUND

Political science remains a popular discipline at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. The teaching of political science is, however, a relatively recent phenomenon when compared with the history of political science per se. As Mike and Chris Goldsmith illuminate, it “is largely a late twentieth century development … [and it] was not until after the Second World War that the teaching of politics and political science in Europe really blossomed” (2010, S62; also see Goldsmith and Goldsmith Reference Goldsmith and Goldsmith2010 for further information about the history of political science teaching). In the past decade or so, possibly one of the key changes within political science education in the twenty-first century has been much greater emphasis upon the “student voice.” Effectively, there has been greater involvement of students themselves in their own teaching and learning. In part, the driver for this has been because across Europe, students are paying more for their post-compulsory education, and there is a greater need than ever before for students to have their say and to be heard ^{Footnote 3} (Saul Reference Saul2014; USA Today 2015). This development is, however, also based on sound pedagogical theory that the more that students are involved in their own teaching and learning, the more effective that learning process will be (cf: Zepke and Leach Reference Zepke and Leach2010). Another phenomenon, of the past ten years or thereabouts, is the fact that new technology (Anson Reference Anson2015; Blair Reference Blair2013; Thornton Reference Thornton, Gormley-Heenan and Lightfoot2012; and Valeriano Reference Valeriano2013) has increased the involvement of audio-visual resources in the teaching and learning of politics more than ever before—for example, there is greater use of video material and online resources. It is much easier now for the political science lecturer to access video and audio material to enhance the teaching and learning process.

The gender dimension has also changed over the past couple of decades with respect to political science teaching. This is both in the number of women studying political science (although political science statistically remains a predominantly male discipline) but also in the subject matter itself. The student is much more likely to study women and political science than previously when the gender dimension was very often entirely absent from any political discussion or debate (Briggs and Harrison Reference Briggs and Harrison2015; Childs and Krook Reference Childs and Krook2006). Likewise, race is also studied to a much greater extent than hitherto (cf: Spencer Reference Spencer, Gormley-Heenan and Lightfoot2012). Indeed, there is more attention paid to equality and diversity across the teaching of political science. The issues of gender and race are highly relevant and discussed in most political science curricula and modules. Virtually all politics degrees have at least one optional module where questions of race and gender form an integral part. There has been increasing gender mainstreaming over the past decade or so. In part, this is due to the strength of the feminist movement. At most higher education institutions, race and gender tend not to be required courses but are increasingly important as optional modules more than was the case, say, ten years ago. They increasingly feed into the curriculum in a cross-cutting way and are certainly less marginalized than hitherto.

In terms of how political science is taught, the traditional approach has been a classic lecture and seminar format; however, over the last decade or so, there has been a much greater emphasis upon teaching transferable skills as part of a political science degree. For example, glossophobia, the fear of public speaking, still ranks alongside the fear of spiders for many adults. Thus, presentational skills are covered as part of a political science degree alongside other key skills such as group-work/team building activities and problem-solving techniques, which all contribute towards making the political science graduate more marketable vis-à-vis the world of work (see the Subject Benchmark Statement for Politics and International Relations for details of what a political science degree ought/could entail ^{Footnote 4} ). Employability is a buzzword amongst political science tutors as they seek to facilitate not just knowledgeable graduates but graduates that are ready for the workforce (Ashe Reference Ashe2012; Buckley and Reidy Reference Buckley and Reidy2014; and Curtis Reference Curtis2012). Over the last ten years or so, there has also been greater emphasis placed upon statistical data analysis and ensuring that political science graduates are sufficiently equipped when it comes to quantitative methodological approaches in addition to qualitative methodology. In the United Kingdom, the Q-Step initiative, ^{Footnote 5} a £19.5 million programme funded by the Nuffield Foundation, the Economic and Social Research Council and by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), was aimed at ensuring that political science, amongst other disciplines, places greater emphasis on the teaching of statistics. It supports 15 universities in setting up specialist Q-Step centers across the UK, in response to a perceived shortage of social science graduates with quantitative skills.

On a pan-European basis, political science teaching often utilizes innovative teaching methods in order to convey the subject matter (Gormley-Heenan and McCartan Reference Gormley-Heenan and McCartan2009, on audience response systems; Ralph et al. Reference Ralph, Head and Lightfoot2010, on podcasting and political science teaching; and Blair Reference Blair2013 on the use of Twitter; Thornton Reference Thornton, Gormley-Heenan and Lightfoot2012, on new technologies per se). For example, there has been the much greater usage of simulations and role play in order to enhance the learning experience (cf: Brunazzo and Settembri Reference Brunazzo and Settembri2015; Guasti et al. Reference Guasti, Muno and Niemann2015; and Obendorf and Randerson Reference Obendorf and Randerson2013). As Michael Brintnall and Kimberly Mealy highlight with their analysis of the situation in the United States, this is not just a pan-European phenomenon but a global one. They declare, “Now every faculty member must confront technology in the classroom; and all have access to remarkable new tools for learning” (Brintnall and Mealy Reference Brintnall and Mealey2014, 168). There has also been greater focus upon aspects such as assessment and feedback to ensure that students not only understand why and how they are being assessed but also that they fully comprehend the feedback that they receive on their work (Blair et al. Reference Blair, Curtis and McGinty2012; Blair et al. Reference Blair, Curtis, Goodwin and Shields2013; and Raymond and Usherwood Reference Raymond and Usherwood2013) and that they are able to learn from this and improve in future assignments. The feedback loop is, therefore, intrinsically important in the teaching and learning of political science. Students are able to build upon earlier assessments if they take heed of the feedback that they receive.

A further development, over the past decade or so, has been an emphasis on the more practical aspects of political science teaching. Many courses now offer the opportunity for internships or placement opportunities with practicing politicians, civil servants, local government officers, or pressure groups, to name a few. Over the last ten years, most political science degrees at least have internships as an option. They are not as widespread as in the United States, but they are increasing in popularity as greater attempts are made to engage students in “real” politics. The idea is that students will acquire hands-on experience. This is again enhancing their ability to move in to the workforce. There have also been moves for students to feed into policy making and contribute to the creation of knowledge. This happens at postgraduate level—especially in terms of those writing a PhD thesis in political science whereby they must demonstrate that they are adding to the sum of knowledge—but also more frequently at undergraduate level where schemes encourage students to become involved in research projects that mean they too are adding to knowledge and may even be contributing to policy (for detail on undergraduate research projects, cf: Lightfoot and Piotukh Reference Lightfoot and Piotukh2015; Neary and Winn Reference Neary, Winn, Bell, Stevenson and Neary2009; and Page Reference Page2015). This notion of impact—contributing to knowledge and making a difference—has permeated down from academics to students. As Simon Lightfoot, senior lecturer in European politics at the University of Leeds states, “Where possible, we should encourage politics undergraduates to engage with research at all levels of study. I would argue that this not only allows them to develop and refine their skills and enhances their employability, but overall provides a more enjoyable and stimulating university experience.” ^{Footnote 6} There are, therefore, significant merits to be gleaned from this particular pedagogical approach.

The long-standing Erasmus Programme (its successor Erasmus Plus began in 2014), which facilitates study or work across the European Union and partners, has provided more opportunities for political science students to travel and study abroad. There have been increasing levels of interest and awareness of the value of the scheme, and this interest is reflected by trends whereby students wish to enhance their CV. The notion of the “global graduate” and emphasis upon inter-cultural skills come to the forefront with the cross-cultural dimension and the internationalization of the political science curriculum. ^{Footnote 7} Likewise, the Bologna process, which aims to ensure comparability of degree standards on a pan-European basis, has also facilitated greater freedom of movement of political science students across Europe. From the Bologna Declaration, signed in 1999, this emphasis on parity and standardisation has accelerated mobility of political science students and staff. ^{Footnote 8}

At the postgraduate level, there are many opportunities across Europe for students to study political science. This might be through a taught masters degree (these are usually one year full-time or two years on a part-time mode of study), or it might be through a masters of philosophy degree or a doctorate of philosophy in politics. Again, these can be studied on a full-time or part-time basis. The PhD thesis, usually about 80,000 words in length, has to demonstrate that it is filling a niche and is contributing to the sum of knowledge via original research. Taught masters in political science are often a popular route through to a research degree. Indeed, the dissertation, usually a component of a masters degree, is often a precursor to the research degree and its written thesis. Many masters degrees include “politics” within their title, but other descriptors include globalising justice, gender and women’s studies, or citizenship (to name a few), for which the political science content is probably a little less obvious but nonetheless integral part of the subject matter. In part driven by the Bologna process, ^{Footnote 9} as Goldsmith and Goldsmith point out, “Increasingly, students stay on to master’s level: we can expect their numbers to increase, and for them to demand for more specialist (relevant) courses at this level” (Goldsmith and Goldsmith Reference Goldsmith and Goldsmith2010, S67).

POLITICAL SCIENCE TEACHING IN EUROPE

Political science is a popular subject across the whole of Europe. In numbers, it is difficult to give a precise figure but Goldsmith and Goldsmith (Op. Cit, S62) quote Hans-Dieter Klingemann’s observation that by 2005 “there were more than 300 universities teaching politics to more than 150,000 students” (Klingemann Reference Klingemann2007, 23). Students usually cover a range of areas, including political theory, political ideologies, political history, political culture, the policy-making process, comparative politics, policy analysis, area studies, international relations (this remains a separate discipline but the level of synergy between the two remains strong), political participation, political socialization, and political behavior, to name a few. If there is an emphasis, it is probably correct to say that the European focus tends to be slightly more toward comparative political science than is the case in the United States. This is hardly surprising given the proximity of countries within Europe, thus meaning that the existence of differing political systems and political cultures within a close range offers a wealth of data, experiences, and material that makes a comparative focus inevitable (cf: Caramani Reference Caramani2011; Hague and Harrop Reference Hague and Harrop2010; and Lane and Ersson Reference Lane and Ersson1999). This is not to say that the United States does not utilize the comparative approach (as works by Bingham Powell et al. and Ishiyama testify) but that it is probably a fair assertion to state that there is less emphasis than in Europe.

In many continental public universities, it remains free to study at higher education level. This is akin to the situation in the United Kingdom prior to the introduction of tuition fees in September, 1998 (which were then subject to significant increases to the current level of £9,000 per year). Countries with free tuition include Central Europe (Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic), some Nordic countries, and Low countries, amongst others. It remains the case that, in most of Europe, higher education is still perceived as a public good that benefits the whole of society and not simply specific individuals.

It appears that there is no in-depth discussion about the introduction of a TEF-like mechanism currently taking place in continental Europe. The only countries that might potentially head towards a Teaching Excellence Framework, or similar initiative, in the future are possibly Ireland, the Low countries, and the Nordic countries. But there is little discussion of something similar to the TEF in these countries at the moment. It appears, therefore, that with advocates and detractors of the process in equal measure, the United Kingdom is the only country moving ahead on this at the current time.

One of the key organisations supporting political science teaching across Europe is the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). Set up in 1970, it has around 300 institutional members emanating from around 50 countries and supports teaching, training, research, and cross-national cooperation of political scientists, via activities such as graduate student conferences ^{Footnote 10} and summer methods training. ^{Footnote 11} The ECPR’s standing group Teaching and Learning Politics (see Pleschová Reference Pleschová2014) is a relatively recent grouping, formally set up in 2011 and, in part, building upon the legacy of the European Political Science Network (epsNet). Its activities include “organising panels at the ECPR General Conference, publishing about issues of teaching and learning politics, running a specialised website, organising a summer school for beginner political science teachers, and … a new book series for political science educators” (Pleschová Reference Pleschová2014, 143). Aimed at new and also more experienced political science educators, the group provides support for the teaching and learning of political science. The standing group, and the ECPR more generally, can also help political science educators from countries where national political science associations have “not yet formed groups supporting enhancement of teaching, including both large and smaller associations like Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Switzerland as well as others, and where structures are missing to enhance quality education” (Pleschová Reference Pleschová2014, 142–3). The Teaching and Learning Politics standing group also seeks to foster greater links with existing organisations such as “the APSA Teaching and Learning section, the PSA’s Teaching and Learning in Politics group, the BISA’s Learning and Teaching group,” and the Political Studies Association of Ireland’s Teaching and Learning Politics Specialist Group (Pleschová Reference Pleschová2014, 144).

VARIATION WITHIN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

There are key, if subtle, differences between the teaching of political science within European countries. It is certainly the case that European countries teach political science, in the first instance, from the perspective of each particular country and through the lens of their own experience. According to Gabriela Pleschová, co-convenor of the ECPR Teaching and Learning Politics Standing Group, the teaching of political science in universities is not a priority. Pleschová states, “While in some European countries, notably in the UK, Ireland, Nordic countries and in the Low countries, institutions have increased the recognition of quality teaching, in many other countries of Europe quality of education is still not a priority.” She continues, “This also relates to political science programs.” ^{Footnote 12} It appears to be the case, therefore, that in addition to differences across European countries in what is taught under the banner heading of political science, there are also key distinctions to be made in how political science is taught, with some countries placing greater emphasis upon teaching skills and pedagogical approaches than others.

Brid Quinn, a teaching and learning political science expert from the University of Limerick, Ireland, illuminates the changes taking place within the teaching and learning of political science in Europe: “Significant developments in the teaching of political science in Europe include a broadening of the range of pedagogical praxis and growth in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Implementation of these developments varies from country to country according to context, curriculum, and resources. Notwithstanding country-specific contexts and resource issues, there is widespread acceptance of a move towards student-centred learning and openness among faculty to new ways of teaching political science and new ways of framing and implementing their chosen pedagogies.” Quinn elucidates, “Although Europe may have come later to the articulation and institutionalization of these themes than the USA and Australia, the pace of change in Europe is remarkable, with particular significance being accorded to the teaching of political science because of its role in enabling citizens to make an informed, considered, and valuable contribution to society.” ^{Footnote 13} Clearly, teaching and learning has increased in importance on a pan-European basis. It is no longer simply about what is taught but also about how that information is conveyed that has become increasingly important.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE TEACHING AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

There are subtle differences between how political science is taught in Europe and how it is taught in the United States. In the United States the American Political Science Association (APSA), was founded in 1903 (cf: Brintnall and Mealy Reference Brintnall and Mealey2014, for detail about the role played by APSA). Alongside research, one of its primary objectives is to promote “high quality teaching and education about politics and government,” ^{Footnote 14} but it has a relatively young teaching and learning political science section. As stated earlier, there is an emphasis upon comparative politics with the teaching of political science in Europe. It is interesting to note that the key American learned society for the discipline is the American Political Science Association, whereas in the United Kingdom it is the Political Studies Association. This constitutes a subtle but significant difference that may lead to more of a concentration upon scientific methodological approaches to the teaching and learning of political science, for example, upon quantitative data analysis, studies of electoral data, and statistics. This is not to say that other approaches are absent, but it is possible to detect a slight emphasis in this direction. This is an over-generalization in the search for trends or emphases as, clearly, there are programmes in Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, for example, which are very quantitatively oriented too. Likewise, in the United States, it is also possible, for example, to identify a strong area studies tradition.

One journal for political scientists with respect to teaching and learning in the States, and beyond, is the Journal of Political Science Education (JPSE). It is now under the umbrella of APSA and recognized as one of its official journals. Founded in 2005, its focus is the teaching of political science and it provides a fitting resumé of the key areas of the teaching of political science in America. These articles contribute to a large and developing literature on discipline-specific teaching and learning practice. One classic article that helps to provide more of a contextual background is Rogers M. Smith’s piece “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America” in the American Political Science Review (APSR). It outlines the scope of traditional political science and looks beyond the traditional, liberal approach ensuring that specific groups/identities are not excluded from political science teaching (Smith Reference Smith1993).

Political science is taught across a broad range of differing institutions in the United States. According to Sherri Wallace, associate professor in political science at the University of Louisville, ^{Footnote 15} “How political science is taught depends on the type of institutions—community college, liberal college, public or private university—and the needs of that institutional curricular program.” As she states, “It’s all very broad and sporadic.” It is difficult, therefore, to avoid sweeping generalizations in terms of how it is taught—there is such a wide variety. Wallace continues, “Political science is viewed as a ‘science’ using formal theories and modelling by the Behaviorists in the discipline; however, Normative (theoretical) scholars tend to view it as the study of the principles of democracy and institutions of government. Both tend to have an elitist focus on governmental institutions more so than on investigations on the influences of culture and society. Most programs in the US are organized around these broad focus areas: American, Comparative, International Relations, Theory, Policy Studies, and Public Administration (again, depending on the type of institution).” Wallace is of the opinion that there “has always been friction between the primary ‘researchers’ and the ‘teacher-scholars’ (the overwhelming majority) in the discipline. The discipline itself has only recently elevated the JPSE to the same status as APSR and other research journals, which is to say that we are only beginning to value ‘teaching’ political science in the same way as we value doing political science research.” There are definite parallels here between political science teaching in Europe and the United States.

In the United States, there are similar issues to those faced in certain parts of Europe. It appears to be a time of change for political science teaching. The 2016 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference website states, “There are a number of significant trends that are currently impacting higher education, including rising costs, student debt, assessment and accountability, MOOCs, changing student populations, and more.” ^{Footnote 16} It seems that, as in Europe, this is a time of flux in America too.

THE FUTURE

It is interesting to speculate what is likely to happen with political science teaching in the future. Tutors will, no doubt, continue to find interesting and engaging pedagogical approaches to convey their subject matter. The movement away from the lecturer as the font of all knowledge to a relationship that is more akin to a partnership approach looks likely to continue with the student and tutor equally engaged and fascinated by their discipline. Using this approach, the tutor becomes more of a facilitator or guide, helping the student to research and unearth knowledge and information themselves. The ideas, arguments, and political philosophy will continue to attract many political scientists. Likewise, there will be those who are equally, if not more so, engaged by the practical application of politics and the fact that it is a real world, living subject. As Clodagh Harris and Brid Quinn illuminate, “University teachers strive not only to achieve excellence and effectiveness but also to substantiate those attributes” (Harris and Quinn Reference Harris and Quinn2015, 257). If current trends continue, there will be healthy recruitment of the next generation of political scientists. Political science recruitment is buoyant, but it does tend to be affected by events at national and international levels—be that the Obama Effect, a concern for issues such as environmentalism, migration policies, or an ongoing interest in the so-called “war on terror”—and in that sense has a tendency to ebb and flow slightly. Political science teaching remains as relevant today as it has for many decades. Aristotle dubbed politics the “master science,” and whilst feminists today may balk at the chauvinistic moniker, its enduring relevance and attraction is surely beyond dispute. Sufficient rationale exists, if such were needed, to ensure that the teaching of political science remains of central importance.