Dissertation Awards
Gabriel A. Almond Award for the best dissertation in the field of comparative politics
Recipient: Feyaad Allie, Harvard University
Title: “Power, Exclusion and Identity: The Politics of Muslim Marginalization in India”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Hillel David Soifer of Temple University, Dr. Sarah L. Henderson of Oregon State University, and Dr. Lynette H. Ong of the University of Toronto
Feyaad Allie (left) receives his award from presenter Michael Neblo (right)
Award Citation: Feyaad Allie’s dissertation “Power, Exclusion, and Identity: The Politics of Muslim Marginalization in India” was selected unanimously from a very strong field of candidates as the winner of the 2024 Gabriel A. Almond Award. Allie explores the roots of Muslim exclusion in India, as well as the reasons why this political exclusion is so difficult to overcome even when Muslim candidates are elected. Whereas much other work on representation in contemporary India focuses on democratic backsliding at the systemic level, Allie centers the experience of Muslims, who, unlike other marginalized groups have failed to see political gains in recent decades. Even as the Muslim share of population has grown, Allie shows, their representation in elected office has declined. Moreover, where Muslims have broken through and won elected office, they are rarely able to retain it in subsequent elections. This argument challenges our understanding of the challenges facing democracy in contemporary India, arguing that its problems are more deeply historically rooted, and predate the recent dominance by the BJP.
Allie’s theory explains not only when Muslim candidates get nominated, but also which parties are more likely to nominate them, which Muslim candidates are most effective, and which parties among those that do are most likely to win. This last element of the argument, which introduces the idea that parties vary in their ability to signal that Muslim candidates will be constrained from favoring their in-group, generates some especially precise predictions that Allie is able to test with fine-grained data about candidates and party leader characteristics. An especially interesting feature of the dissertation is its argument about the dilemma that faces Muslim politicians once in office. Because winning elections as a Muslim requires gaining support from Hindu voters, these politicians must balance pressures from the Muslim community for descriptive representation with pressures to deliver for the Hindu voters that supported them. Muslim victory therefore both motivates Hindu nationalist politicians to mobilize Hindu identity against them in subsequent elections, and divides Muslim voters among various sub-identities competing for attention from the Muslim incumbent. The resulting “representation trap” rooted in the reactions of both marginalized and dominant groups explains why breakthrough victories by Muslim politicians do not result in longer-term representation.
The committee was impressed with the empirical research Allie conducted. The project draws on significant in-depth qualitative fieldwork, a massive data effort to code the religious identity of Indian politicians in all national and state-level elections since 1962, and a survey of Hindu and Muslim voters with various embedded experiments. The resulting analysis provides important insight into the causes of political exclusion, the consequences of breakthrough by marginalized groups (based on a regression discontinuity design), and the long-term trends in Muslim representation. Thus, the dissertation as a whole provides a novel and compelling explanation for the political exclusion of the world’s largest minority group, and rigorous evidence of a variety of types that support its findings. Its framework also points to insights that can help to understand dominant group consolidation and marginalized group divisions in other contemporary multi-ethnic democracies. In combining an important research question, creative theories, and careful multi-method empirical analysis, Allie makes important contributions to our understanding of Indian politics, and the dynamics of democratic inclusion more generally.
William Anderson Award for the best dissertation in the general field of federalism or intergovernmental relations, state, and local politics
Recipient: Abigail Mancinelli, Guidehouse Consulting
Title: “A ‘Clean’ Slate: Public Financing and Representation in American Legislatures”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Christopher M. Witko of Pennsylvania State University, Dr. Claudia N. Avellaneda of Indiana University, and Dr. Jake M. Grumbach of the University of California, Berkeley.
Abigail Mancinelli (left) receives her award from presenter Danielle Allen (right)
Award Citation: “A ‘Clean’ Slate: Public Financing and Representation in American Legislatures” provides the most systematic empirical analysis of the effects of the public financing of elections to date.
This dissertation shows that the public financing of elections in the US states increases electoral competition and the descriptive representation of women, while shifting the ideology of elected officials to the left. The observational analyses cover 1976-2018, a much longer time period than is typically found in existing studies, and the author also includes interviews with lobbyists and legislators, and conjoint survey experiments, to probe the mechanisms linking campaign finance laws and outcomes.
This work shows that campaign finance regulation matters, rebutting a conventional wisdom that has emerged in recent decades. This dissertation sets an example of how to rigorously study institutional reforms and suggests a path forward for advocates and policy makers interested in strengthening democracy and descriptive and substantive representation.
Lucien Ferguson (left) receives his award from presenter Michael Neblo (right)
Edward S. Corwin Award for the best dissertation in the field of public law
Recipient: Lucien Ferguson, Boston College Law School
Title: “The Spirit of Caste: Recasting the History of Civil Rights”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Christine L. Nemacheck of the College of William & Mary, Dr. Rebecca Ann Reid of the University of Texas at El Paso, and Dr. Salmon A. Shomade of Emory University
Award Citation: In “The Spirit of Caste: Recasting the History of Civil Rights,” Lucien Ferguson writes a compelling account of the civil rights movement and the constitutional protections on which it depends through the lens of caste. Ferguson’s project is an ambitious one in which he engages with the political thought of Black theorists like Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. DuBois to recover their understanding of the integral importance of social mobility and the eradication of caste in the fight for civil rights, a tradition Ferguson calls anti-caste constitutionalism. This focus on social mobility, Ferguson argues, significantly overlaps with the struggle for women’s rights and highlights the importance of intersectionality in the movement. He analyzes the writing of female leaders in the Black women’s club movement like activist and educator Anna Julia Cooper to illustrate the importance of the anti-caste mission in the early civil rights movement and developing social mobility for Black women. Ferguson’s dissertation builds upon the important work of theorists and historians who have used caste to understand persistent inequality in the United States. In doing so he provides substantial evidence and analysis supporting the centrality of the anti-caste focus of the early civil rights movement and the subsequent failure of the courts to fully articulate a notion of equal protection that includes economic inequality that might lead to its full realization.
Harold D. Lasswell Award for the best dissertation in the field of public policy
Recipient: Alice Xu, University of Pennsylvania
Title: “Segregation and the Spatial Externalities of Inequality: A Theory of Interdependence and Public Goods in Cities”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. John Boswell of the University of Southampton, Dr. Daniel Fiorino of American University, and Dr. Carolyn Hendriks of Australian National University
Award Citation: Amid very strong competition, Alice Xu’s dissertation, “Segregation and the Spatial Externalities of Inequality: A Theory of Interdependence and Public Goods in Cities” stands out. It is theoretically ambitious, methodologically creative, deeply rigorous, expertly executed and elegantly crafted. This dissertation develops a new and more enlightened understanding of the factors that underlie support for the provision of public goods in urban settings, in the process opening up new methodological possibilities and theoretical lines of inquiry. The committee agrees that this is research of the highest quality and is thoroughly deserving of the Harold D. Lasswell Prize.
Alice Xu (middle) receives her award from presenters Danielle Allen (right) and Michael Neblo (left)
E.E. Schattschneider Award for the best dissertation in the field of American government
Recipient: Claire Willeck, Netflix
Title: “Active Civics: How Civic Education Shapes Political Engagement”
Award Committee: Chair: Nathan J. Kelly of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Dr. Daniel M. Shea, Colby College, and Danielle Thomsen of the University of California, Irvine
Award Citation: The E. E. Schattschneider Award is proudly presented to Claire Willeck for her outstanding dissertation, “Active Civics: How Civics Education Shapes Political Engagement.” This thoughtful research tackles the vital link between civics education and political engagement, a key element of a healthy democracy. Willeck’s work is notable for its methodological rigor and comprehensive approach. She developed her theory based on a detailed and careful understanding of the historical underpinnings of civic education in the United States. Employing a national field experiment, Willeck used an array of data to assess the impact of active civics education. Her findings demonstrate that active civics, regardless of its implementation, increases students’ cognitive engagement, situational interest, political knowledge, and expressive political participation. Moreover, this dissertation highlights extensive collaborations, including a partnership with iCivics, an educational non-profit, ensuring her findings have practical applications that reach hundreds of thousands of teachers and millions of students. The award committee is convinced that Willeck’s research will have real-world implications; it offers a tangible means for enhancing civics education nationwide, thus providing valuable insights into how to cultivate political engagement among young people. Her work exemplifies exceptional scholarship and contributes meaningfully to the field of political science and the betterment of democratic participation.
Claire Willeck (left) receives her award from presenter Michael Neblo (right)
Kenneth Sherrill Prize for the best dissertation proposal for an empirical study of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) topics in political science
Recipient: Yun (Nancy) Tang, Princeton University
Title: “Making Autocracy Queer: A Dance in ‘Law’ Between LGBTQ Movements and Authoritarian States in China and Singapore”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Ellen Andersen of the University of Vermont, Dr. Logan S. Casey of the Movement Advancement Project, Dr. Gabriele Magni of Loyola Marymount University, and Dr. Carly Thomsen of Middlebury College
Award Citation: The 2024 Kenneth Sherrill Prize is awarded to Yun (Nancy) Tang for her dissertation proposal, which presents a blueprint for a comparative study of how LGBTQ+ movements engage the law in authoritarian contexts, using China and Singapore as her fieldwork sites. She lays out a sophisticated multi-method approach to pursuing her project, combining comparative ethnographic fieldwork (including interviews, participant observation and real-time examination of relevant social media conversations) with content analysis of court rulings and litigant filings. In explaining the importance of this work, Tang deftly weaves together multiple strands of literature, including comparative analyses of the dynamics between authoritarianism and contentious social movements, studies of legal mobilization, and interdisciplinary scholarship on LGBTQ+ movements. Her initial sense is that legal mobilization creates a dilemma for both authoritarian states and social movements operating within them. Social movements face what she calls an “authoritarian legal mobilization dilemma” in that they risk legitimizing authoritarian regimes by using legal avenues for activism. Authoritarian states, conversely, face the dilemma of “double-edged authoritarian legality,” because legal rulings enhance state legitimacy but also open opportunities for rights claims that undermine autocratic control.
The Kenneth Sherrill Prize Committee is deeply impressed with Tang’s project and its potential contribution to the fields of LGBTQ+ politics and political science more broadly.
William Tilleczek (left) receives his award from presenter Michael Neblo (right)
Leo Strauss Award for best dissertation in the field of political psychology
Recipient: William Tilleczek, McGill University
Title: “Powers of Practice: Michel Foucault and the Politics of Asceticism”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Elizabeth R. Wingrove of the University of Michigan, Dr. Timothy Fuller of Colorado College, and Dr. Zeynep Pamuk of the University of Oxford
Award Citation: Dr. Tilleczek’s “Powers of Practice: Michel Foucault and the Politics of Asceticism” is a meticulously crafted, exceptionally creative, deeply erudite, and beautifully written study of Foucault’s thought that recasts his contributions to contemporary analyses of neoliberalism and a politics of freedom. The dissertation’s accomplishments are noteworthy on several fronts. First, it offers a new approach to reading Foucault centered on his attentions to asceticism, understood not as a normative but rather a methodological framework that situates practices of ethical self-fashioning within their socio-political and interpersonal contexts. Joining a biographical account of Foucault with careful exegesis of his later writings on care of the self, Dr. Tilleczek elaborates a ‘general ascetology’ in which understanding power and agency as they pertain to practices of self-improvement remains a matter of historical anthropological investigation. Second, Dr. Tilleczek’s approach enables them to surface continuities between the different phases of Foucault’s work, persuasively showing how his ‘turn to antiquity’ recuperates his earlier account of discipline as a modern ascetological apparatus. Avoiding heavy-handed impositions of unity across Foucault’s corpus, Dr. Tilleczek makes their case through nuanced argumentation, deft interpretive analyses, and productively provocative intertextual readings. Third, Dr. Tilleczek’s account of Foucault’s general ascetology and the anthropology of ethics subtending it introduces rich resources, conceptual and hermeneutic, for understanding neoliberalism and its self-fashioning homo economicus. The dissertation demonstrates how self-optimization, as the generalized ‘practice imperative’ of a marketized society, both reproduces its social inequalities and cultivates forms of life that can subvert its modes of governance. Taken as a whole, “Powers of Practice” succeeds admirably not only in making significant contributions to our understanding of a pivotal and often divisive thinker but also in enabling us to ‘think (and see) what we are doing’ in the present from a fresh perspective.
Merze Tate Award for the best dissertation in the field of international relations, law and politics
Recipient: Lotem Bassan-Nygate, Princeton University
Title: “Who is Watching? The Consequences of Foreign Criticism”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham of the University of Maryland, Dr. In Song Kim of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Dr. Sebastian Rosato of the University of Notre Dame
Award Citation: Bassan-Nygate’s dissertation, “Who is Watching? The Consequences of Foreign Criticism”, examines the consequences of foreign criticism via “naming and shaming.” Bassan-Nygate develops a novel theoretical approach to understanding naming and shaming, which focuses on multiple audiences of these behaviors–the shamed state, the shaming state’s domestic population, and the international community. Through a series of surveys in seven democratic states, Bassan-Nygate shows that shaming has positive effects on the reputation of the shaming state, but simultaneously creates backlash in the shamed state, often counter to the goals of the shaming policy. This dissertation sheds new light on our understanding of the costs and benefits of naming and shaming human rights abusers.
Lotem Bassan-Nygate (left) receives her award from presenter Danielle Allen (right)
Leonard D. White Award for the best dissertation in the field of public administration
Recipient: Sarah Rozenblum, Cornell University
Title: “Why Do Governments Ignore Their Own Experts? The Role of Scientific Advice in Covid-19 Vaccine Policy in France and the United States”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Kimberly L. Nelson of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Dr. Janine O’Flynn of the Australian National University, and Dr. Patrick S. Roberts of Virginia Tech
Award Citation: The research presented by Sarah Rozenblum in “Why Do Governments Ignore Their Own Experts? The Role of Scientific Advice in Covid-19 Vaccine Policy in France and the United States” addresses a timely and important question that is likely to continue to be relevant in the future. As the title suggests, the dissertation investigates why governments don’t rely on their experts and associated expertise in times of crisis? In other words, why build this capacity and invest in it over many years if you aren’t going to use it? The empirical work is well done and intellectually rigorous and advances our theoretical understanding of questions of how governments should seek guidance for policy decisions. Although the research is focused on only two countries, the lessons learned are applicable more broadly. In our opinion, the comparative nature of the work makes the findings valuable by drawing out important policy implications.
Sarah Rozenblum (left) receives her award from presenter Michael Neblo (right)
Paper, Article and Poster Awards
Paper, Article and Poster Awards
APSA Best Poster Award for the best poster presented by a graduate student and/or early career scholar at the previous year’s APSA Annual Meeting
Recipient: Annamaria Prati, Washington University in St. Louis
Title: “Can International Interventions Build States? Evidence From UNDP”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Avital Livny of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Dr. Stephanie Chan of Lafayette College, Dr. Simon Haeder of Texas A&M University, Dr. Daniel Mallinson of Penn State University, Harrisburg, and Dr. Nicole Yadon of Ohio State University
Award Citation: The committee was impressed with Annamaria Prati’s poster design as well as with the project it presents. Prati concisely discusses a range of views in the extant literature then puts forward a novel theory that has important implications for both political science and policy. The data collection is impressive and Prati carefully works through threats to causal inference, conducting a series of convincing robustness checks. As a group, we were convinced that UNDP state-building projects can indeed help mitigate violence and urge both political scientists and policy makers to take note.
Annamaria Prati (left) receives her award from presenter Danielle Allen (right)
Franklin L. Burdette/Pi Sigma Alpha Award for the best paper presented at the previous year’s APSA Annual Meeting
Recipients: Dorothy Kronick, University of California, Berkeley and John Marshall, Columbia University
Title: “Collateral Censorship: Theory and Evidence from Venezuela”
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Cecilia Hyunjung Mo of the University of California, Berkeley, Dr. Mark Daniel Ramirez of Arizona State University, and Dr. Amanda Wintersieck of Virginia Commonwealth University
Award Citation: In their paper, “Collateral Censorship: Theory and Evidence From Venezuela.” Kronick and Marshall provide a fascinating theoretical explanation and test of how twenty-first century autocrats maintain power through a process of cooperation and control of information.
Their research develops a new theory that reconciles the tradeoff faced by regimes who have an interest in censoring unfavorable media, but must also maintain favorability among the electorate. Although censorship can aid incumbent leaders by removing news critical of their regime, they pay a potential cost when a censored media outlet is beloved by voters—often as a source of entertainment. The extent of this cost is dependent on the structure of the overall media market and relative popularity of media content. Thus, Kronick and Marshall provide a theoretical framework that explains why we observe cross-country variation in the electoral effects of censorship.
The theory is tested by examining the censorship of the popular Radio Caracas Television in Venezuela (RCTV) by Hugo Chavez. They find that voters punished Chavez for taking away their valued content. However, exploring 4,000 hours of newscasts leveraging large language models, they show that the loss of RCTV created more positive sentiments toward the government, as less critical news became more prevalent. Thus, although Chavez faced a personal penalty for the removal of a popular media outlet among voters who lost access to RCTV, his regime benefited from less critical coverage of domestic political issues.
The paper is exemplary in making a connection between the theoretical model and the empirical tests of the model. It advances the literature by showing not only the effects of censorship on electoral outcomes, but also the content of media outlets that remain in the market. The analysis anticipates the reader’s questions with a series of robustness checks. It offers a high level of detail in ensuring the reader understands the connection between different data components and tests of the theory. It’s an exemplary paper, and we’re pleased to recognize this paper as the best paper presented at the 2023 APSA Annual Meeting.
Dorothy Kronick (right) and John Marshall (left) receive their awards from presenter Michael Neblo (middle)
Heinz L. Eulau Award for the best article publics in the American Political Science Review and Perspectives on Politics in the previous calendar year
Recipient (American Political Science Review): Suthan Krishnarajan, Aarhus University
Title: “Rationalizing Democracy: The Perceptual Bias and (Un)Democratic Behavior.” Volume 117, Issue 2
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Tara Grillos of Purdue University, Dr. Carl Henrik Knutsen of the University of Oslo, and Dr. Alisha Holland of Harvard University
Award Citation: “Rationalizing Democracy: The Perceptual Bias and (Un)Democratic Behavior” grapples with a central issue for contemporary democracies: when do citizens accept undemocratic behavior? In this article, Suthan Krishnarajan advances the debate by showing how citizens change their views on what actions are regarded as democratic and undemocratic to dovetail with their political beliefs. While previous studies have shown that citizens accept undemocratic behavior when they stand to gain politically from it, Krishnarajan goes beyond this finding to help us understand how citizens rethink what democracy is when it comes into conflict with their partisan preferences. The paper bridges literature from political psychology and comparative politics, by applying insights from the former to explain important phenomena pertaining to anti-democratic behavior and, presumably in extension, democratic stability and change.
The empirical evidence is fabulous: the article combines an original survey experiment with carefully crafted vignettes around democratic and undemocratic behavior on salient issues with a cross-national survey that covers 22 countries. The results generalize astonishingly well across diverse country settings, while also leaving open important research questions about who updates their views of democracy and the extent to which the share of citizens willing to revise their views of democracy differs across country contexts. On top of this, the article is very well written and the presentation of the argument and results is clear throughout and easily accessible, even to a non-specialized readership. The article illustrates the best of political science—what seems like a simple theory with the power to explain a wide range of behavior on a key topic of today.
Suthan Krishnarajan (left) receives his award from presenter Danielle Allen (right)
Recipient (Perspectives on Politics): Adam B. Lerner, University of Massachusetts Lowell
Title: “Blurring the Boundaries of War: PTSD in American Foreign Policy Discourse.” Volume 21, Issue 2
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Tara Grillos of Purdue University, Dr. Resat Bayer of Koç University, and Dr. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni of Cambridge University
Award Citation: “Blurring the Boundaries of War: PTSD in American Foreign Policy Discourse” uses rich descriptive data to tell a compelling story about the politicization of war trauma and its far-reaching implications. Through historical analysis and a review of presidential papers, debates, and Congressional records spanning the last fifty years, Adam Lerner argues that heightened focus on PTSD has contributed to a notable blurring of traditional spatiotemporal boundaries associated with war. This shift extends the impact of war trauma into indefinite futures and locations far beyond the immediate battlefield, thereby challenging established ethical distinctions between victims and perpetrators of war.
Lerner’s narrative of the “pathologization of war” stands as a testament to the value of rich descriptive analysis combined with theoretical insights. The article does more than just present data; it weaves a narrative that challenges conventional understandings of trauma and its role in society. By demonstrating how discourse on PTSD has evolved and influenced policy, Lerner not only sheds light on the changing landscape of American foreign policy but also prompts deeper reflections on the conceptual and ethical challenges posed by war trauma. We believe that this study will generate fresh research inquiries on a topic of policy and theoretical relevance for American foreign policy and far beyond.
Journal of Political Science Education Best Article Award
Recipients: Mark Cal Rom, Jorge Abeledo, Randall Ellsworth, Noah Martin, and Lina Zuluaga
Title: “Engaging Students in American Politics: Effort and Accomplishment.” Volume 19, Issue 4
Book Awards
Merze Tate – Elinor Ostrom Outstanding Book Award for the best book on government, politics, or international affairs
Recipient: Olukunle P. Owolabi, Villanova University
Title: Ruling Emancipated Slaves and Indigenous Subjects (Oxford University Press)
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Jana Morgan of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Dr. Nathan P. Kalmoe of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dr. Andrew Karch of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Dr. Catherine Lu of McGill University, and Dr. Milan Svolik of Yale University
Award Citation: Ruling Emancipated Slaves and Indigenous Subjects provides a sweeping and incisive account of divergent post-colonial development trajectories in the Global South. Owolabi first identifies a pattern that previous scholarship has often overlooked: post-independence performance across multiple dimensions of politics and development is much stronger in colonies where European settlers relied heavily on chattel slavery than in those where settlers exploited existing Indigenous populations rather than imported enslaved Africans. He then advances a compelling explanation for these divergent outcomes, arguing for the important role of emancipation and early liberal reforms in enhancing the political agency of those formerly enslaved. These processes enabled political trajectories that led to higher levels of human development and more robust postcolonial democratization in contexts previously characterized by forced settlement than those that experienced colonial occupation.
The selection committee was impressed by Owolabi’s skillful use of multiple methodological tools including large-scale statistical analysis and comparative historical analysis based on extensive original archival research across multiple continents. In this way, Owolabi provides a thorough and rigorous evidentiary basis to understand how and why the trajectories of forced-settlement colonies diverged from those subjected to extractive colonial occupations. Also, by investigating across rarely compared contexts and leveraging bodies of scholarship that are often not in direct dialogue, Ruling Emancipated Slaves and Indigenous Subjects offers an innovative argument concerning the way that emancipation often (but not always) facilitated not only the formal establishment of individual legal and citizenship rights but also the eventual expansion of administrative capacity, state-funded education, and political representation. This process produced comparatively more favorable development patterns in both British as well as French forced settlement colonies than in instances of colonial occupation in West Africa where colonial officials established extractive administrative systems and restricted legal and citizenship rights. Owolabi also uses well-designed comparisons and analyses of outlier cases such as Haiti to grapple with alternative accounts in the existing literature, to center the pivotal role that inclusive citizenship regimes play in advancing long-term development trajectories, and to delineate the scope conditions of his argument.
Emancipated Slaves and Indigenous Subjects impresses with its ambitious scope, thoughtful research design, and novel theoretical argument. The theoretical and conceptual distinction between forced settlement and imperial domination seems poised to shift how future research thinks about colonialism and its legacies. Moreover, Owolabi’s extraordinary ability to reach across contexts, time periods, literatures and even disciplines ranging from political science and sociology to history and economics sets the book apart. This breadth enables the book to speak to a wide audience about important debates concerning race, power, post-colonialism, and democratization. As a result, Emancipated Slaves and Indigenous Subjects offers insights that are directly applicable to political struggles for social and political equality today.
The committee applauds these contributions and commends the book to scholars across all fields of political science as well as other disciplines, making it highly meritorious of the Merze Tate-Elinor Ostrom Outstanding Book Award.
Olikunle P. Owolabi (left) receives his award from presenter Michael Neblo (right)
Ralph J. Bunche Award for the best scholarly work in political science that explores the phenomenon of ethnic and cultural pluralism
Recipient: Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Title: The Darkened Light of Faith (Princeton University Press)
Award Committee: Co-Chair: Dr. Jeremy Ferwerda of Dartmouth College Co-Chair: Dr. Niambi M. Carter of the University of Maryland, Dr. Lauren D. Davenport of Stanford University, and Dr. Noora Anwar Lori of Boston University
Award Citation: In The Darkened Light of Faith: Race, Democracy, and Freedom in African American Political Thought, Rogers offers a nuanced account of what democracy means and what is its potential for transformation. Centering the voices of African American thinkers, Rogers’ work provides a view of American democracy and its potential from the perspective of ‘disinherited’ Americans who have seen their life chances rise and fall with the whims of white supremacy. Hope, however, is what these authors see in times of despair and their vision for how to transform American society could not be more important given our contemporary political condition. Rogers’ work shows that African American have been the true believers in America’s possibility to become a more perfect union. These commitments have not only sustained Black people, but also guided America through its most trying periods. This book could not be more important and speaks to the difficulties but also the possibilities of Black life and America’s promise. This book is a vital read, an intellectual triumph, and is one of the best representatives of the tradition of REP scholarship the Ralph J. Bunche Award was created to acknowledge.
Robert A. Dahl Award for untenured scholar who has produced scholarship of the highest quality on democracy
Recipient: Niloufer Siddiqui, University at Albany, State University of New York
Title: Under the Gun: Political Violence and Parties in Pakistan (Cambridge University Press)
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Sheena Chestnut Greitens of the University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Michael J. Coppedge of the University of Notre Dame, and Dr. Robin Harding of the University of Oxford
Award Citation: Niloufer Siddiqui’s Under the Gun: Political Parties and Violence in Pakistan is an empirically impressive, theoretically novel contribution to the study of democracy and political violence. The book seeks to answer the questions: why do democratic actors, especially political parties, employ or aid in violence, and how do their strategies of violence impede state building and effective democratization?
Siddiqui argues that states are sometimes unable to consolidate a democratically-controlled monopoly on violence because parties have political incentives to inhibit the development of that coercive capacity by including violent actors in the party organization, outsourcing violence to other actors, or rallying with violent actors. Using a rich array of methods—qualitative, quantitative, survey, and experimental—Siddiqui’s “meso-level” analysis focuses on the organizational capacity and incentives of political parties as the key actors in generating both democracy and political violence. The book carefully traces the development of political parties’ strategies of violence in Pakistan, and how democratic politics both shape and are shaped by these strategies. It provides an important and novel insight: that political parties are both essential to democracy, and simultaneously often an obstacle to its consolidation.
Under the Gun provides a novel, theoretically rich, and empirically adept understanding of the complex and important relationship between political parties, violence, and democracy. Siddiqui’s findings make a significant contribution to scholarly understanding of the quality and sustainment of democracy worldwide. Her insights into the complex and challenging relationship between democracy and security also provide important foundational knowledge for policymakers working in a broad swathe of countries around the world where political and electoral violence affect the quality of democracy today.
Jamie Druckman (left) and Elizabeth Sharrow (right) receive their awards from presenter Danielle Allen (middle)
Gladys M. Kammerer Award for the best book published during the previous calendar year in the field of US national policy
Recipient: Jamie Druckman, University of Rochester and Elizabeth Sharrow, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Title: Equality Unfulfilled: How Title IX’s Policy Design Undermines Change to College Sports (Cambridge University Press)
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Anna Mahoney of Dartmouth College, Dr. Andrew O’Geen of Davidson College, and Dr. Emily Pears of Claremont McKenna College
Award Citation: Equality Unfulfilled: How Title IX’s Policy Design Undermines Change to College Sports stands out this year as the best book in US policymaking for its courage in taking on such a universally lauded public policy and asking readers to consider its shortcomings. Comprehensive in its approach, Druckman and Sharrow present original survey data of 7500 student-athletes, coaches, administrators, citizens, and sports fans in addition to decades of financial, participation, and human resources records. They take on a difficult challenge to show why inequality persists despite significant public policy intervention and public support for equality in college athletics. The result is a compelling case for their argument that “college sports operate as a segregated, economic industry overseen by and largely for the benefit of men” (166). They document how structures within sport in higher education create hurdles for bottom-up, top-down, or outside-in demands for change and ultimately call for institutional change if equality is to be achieved. This work is an impressive piece of scholarship about an important and relevant subject that is sure to incite wide conversation.
Benjamin E. Lippincott Award for exceptional work by a living political theorist that is still considered significant after a time span of at least 15 years since the original publication
Recipient: James Tully, University of Victoria
Title: Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity (Cambridge University Press)
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Mary G. Dietz of Northwestern University, Dr. Stephen Macedo of Princeton University, and Dr. Anne Phillips of the London School of Economics
Award Citation: An exceptionally rich and generative work for many domains of political theory, James Tully’s Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity asks: “Can a modern constitution recognize and accommodate cultural diversity?” Tully’s controversial answer is a conditional “yes,” but only if we first radically rethink key features of “modern constitutionalism” so familiar that they are taken as given in political discourse. At stake in this work, in the name of what he calls an alternative “contemporary constitutionalism,” are two projects: a critical interpretive endeavor centered on the early formation of modern constitutionalism in the history of European thought (1650-1750) and a programmatic effort to articulate a new way of studying the politics of cultural recognition. In line with the first project, which continues to bear significance for scholarship in the now expansive fields of settler-colonialism, empire, indigeneity studies, and comparative political theory, Tully argues that we can find in the “founding fathers of constitutional theory” a normative language that was used “to exclude or assimilate cultural diversity and justify uniformity,” particularly, for his purposes, in the long and consequential history of British and French imperial wars against the Aboriginal peoples of North America. Indebted to cultural feminist critiques of masculinism in both canonical and contemporary political theory, Tully extends his provocative indictment of the language of modern constitutionalism to what he calls three “authoritative traditions” in political theory (liberalism, communitarianism, and nationalism), setting in train productive lines of controversy and response, including considerable criticism and resistance from liberal and deliberative democratic political theorists. The book’s second generative project pursues an emancipatory intent, contending that “the constitutions of contemporary societies,” once freed from the impress of modern constitutionalism, are best understood as “chains of continual intercultural negotiations and agreements in accord with and violation of the conventions of mutual recognition, continuity and consent.” This dynamic, action-oriented, account of culture(s) is both contentious and conciliatory in its investment of value in the historical realities of the “indomitable liberty of ancient peoples” and in living “intercultural” practices of speech, negotiation, and mediation of claims to recognition. Here Tully proposes a new and distinctively fluid perspective that releases “diversity” from the monologic categorization of groups and identities, opening possibilities of dialogue and interactive multiplicity among ordinary “intercultural citizens” within and across nation-states. In this spirit, under the abiding influence of Wittgenstein, Tully also calls readers toward a practical political and aesthetic “post-imperial” attitude where the “play of the imagination” resists the lure of sweeping generalizations and the urge to assert uniformity in the form of implicit rules. Strange Multiplicity remains politically and methodologically generative for contemporary theories of pluralism, constitutionalism, and cultural diversity, as well as for political theorists attuned to Tully’s distinctive approach to finding “public philosophy in a new key” in dialogic interaction with others, as interlocutors on ever-changing “‘common’ ground.”
APSA-IPSA Theodore J. Lowi First Book Award for the best first book in any field of political science, showing promise of having substantive impact on the overall discipline
Recipient: Rochelle Terman, University of Chicago
Title: The Geopolitics of Shaming: When Human Rights Pressure Works—and When It Backfires (Princeton University Press)
Award Committee: Dr. Irasema Coronado of Arizona State University, Dr. Henry Farrell of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Serge Granger of the University of Sherbrooke, Dr. Nazita Lajevardi of Michigan State University, and Dr. A. Maurits van der Veen of the College of William & Mary
Award Citation: The APSA-IPSA Theodore J. Lowi First Book Award committee has unanimously selected Professor Termans’s book, The Geopolitics of Shaming: When Human Rights Pressure Works—and When It Backfires. This innovative study on the use of international moral pressure against a government violating the rights of its citizens combines evidence from large-scale cross-national data, original survey experiments, and multiple in-depth case studies across a wide range of contexts. Terman presents a new theory on the strategic logic of international human rights enforcement, revealing why and how states punish violations in other countries, when shaming leads to an improvement in human rights conditions, and when it backfires.
The book establishes that human rights shaming is a deeply political process, one that operates in and through strategic relationships. Arguing that preexisting geopolitical relationships condition both the causes and consequences of shaming in world politics, Terman shows how adversaries are quick to condemn human rights abuses but often provoke a counterproductive response, while friends and allies are the most effective shamers, but can be reluctant to impose meaningful sanctions. Offering a new take on the role of norms in international affairs, The Geopolitics of Shaming represents an important contribution to our understanding of the global human rights project.
Rochelle Terman (left) receives her award from presenter Danielle Allen (right)
Victoria Schuck Award for the best book published on women and politics
Recipient: Soledad Artiz Prillaman, Stanford University
Title: The Patriarchal Political Order: The Making and Unraveling of the Gendered Participation Gap in India (Cambridge University Press)
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Diana Z. O’Brien of Rice University, Dr. Erin Cassese of the University of Delaware, and Dr. Cheryl O’Brien of San Diego State University
Award Citation: Soledad Artiz Prillaman’s book, The Patriarchal Political Order: The Making and Unraveling of the Gendered Participation Gap in India, addresses a key puzzle in the literature on gender and politics, political behavior, and South Asian politics: why is it that Indian women turn out to vote but are otherwise unlikely to participate in politics? Prillaman carefully theorizes how household decision-making, situated in a larger patriarchal political order, elevates the voices of men while suppressing women’s participation. She draws on a wealth of original survey research and semi-structured interviews, analyzing data with descriptive and causal inference methodologies. The book documents the patriarchal nature of politics and the household in Madhya Pradesh, noting that men have more powerful networks and more ties outside the household. However, Prillaman finds that self-help groups can shift behavior, enabling women to contest patriarchal norms and demand political representation through autonomy from the household and joint collective action. This important and well-written work offers important insights into the dynamics of gender and political participation in patriarchal societies, making a significant contribution across subfields and academic disciplines.
Soledad Artiz Prillaman (left) receives her award from presenter Michael Neblo (right)
Career Awards
APSA Award for Teaching Innovation Award for a political scientist who has developed an effective new approach to teaching in the discipline
Recipient: Dr. Ñusta Carranza Ko, University of Baltimore
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Allen Sens of the University of British Columbia, Dr. Jyl J. Josephson of Rutgers University – Newark, and Dr. Rodrigo Nunes of St. Edward’s University
Award Citation: Dr. Carranza Ko has developed a major assignment designed to engage students at a Minority Serving Institution and Predominantly Black Institution with political inquiry, quantitative methodology, and knowledge creation. In this assignment, students design a research project inspired by a group or community they identify with. By combining the lived experiences of students, Political Science methods, the use of interactive online teaching software, and student creation of open access resources, Dr. Carranza Ko has demonstrated a commitment to the innovative teaching of political science.
Ñusta Carranza Ko (left) receives her award from presenter Danielle Allen (right)
APSA Community College Faculty Award for excellence in teaching, mentoring, community engagement, governance, and/or research by a community college faculty member in the profession
Recipient: Farhana Loonat, Skagit Community College
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Julia Wendt of Victor Valley College and Dr. Robert Harbaugh of the College of Western Idaho
Award Citation: A self-described, “high-spirited feminist philosopher and political scientist”, Dr. Loonat is a passionate advocate for equity and social justice. As an immigrant and first-generation scholar, she brings a unique and invaluable perspective to her work.
Dr. Loonat’s dedication to teaching excellence is exemplified by multiple teaching awards at Skagit Valley College. An innovative instructor, she has transformed the classroom into a space of critical inquiry and empowerment, boasting an unparalleled student success rate. Committed to fostering inclusive environments, Dr. Loonat is a pioneer in equity and inclusion training, addressing topics such as liberatory practices, racial microaggressions, and the creation of equitable award committees and anti-racist tenure review processes.
Beyond the classroom, Dr. Loonat is a prolific researcher whose work has garnered international recognition. Invited to present at the University of London and to deliver a TEDx Talk, titled “Racism in Higher Education”, at the University of Santa Barbara in 2022, she excels at translating complex ideas into accessible and impactful discourse.
Farahana Loonat (left) receives her award from presenter Danielle Allen (right)
APSA Distinguished Award for Civic and Community Engagement for significant civic or community engagement activity by a political scientist which merges knowledge and practice and has an impact outside of the profession or the academy
Recipient: Emily Beausoleil, Victoria University of Wellington
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Karen M. Kedrowski of Iowa State University, Dr. Stephen Danley of Rutgers University - Camden, Dr. Samantha A. Majic of CUNY-John Jay College, Dr. Kathy Postel Kretman of Georgetown University, and Dr. Austin Trantham of Saint Leo University
Award Citation: Dr. Beausoleil created a powerful, research-informed, initiative to counter online, racialized hate against Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. She partnered with Te Raukura O’Connell Rapira, a Māori community organizer, to create a nationwide, anti-racism training program that equips non-Māori with tools to productively engage with racist thinking. Based on years of field research with cross-sectoral practitioners on how to foster listening in the face of challenge, the project’s novel approach moves beyond “calling out” and fact-checking errant claims to using listening- and value-based strategies.
Participants undergo a formal eight-week training session to learn these engagement techniques. Independent assessments show that this approach leads to several positive outcomes: changes in tone and position from racist commentators; appreciation from those targeted by racism; changes in opinions; and improvement in the overall online discourse.
The training has sparked significant civic and community engagement in Aotearoa New Zealand and beyond. It has been adapted for use by other organizations and individuals including History teachers in New Zealand, as they tackle difficult subjects; Māori youth, as they create resources to support conversations on racism and belonging; and the New Zealand Ministries of Health, Justice, and Social Development. The training has also garnered interest and uptake by community and activist organizations and academics in Canada, Ireland, Australia, Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It has also been adapted by Greenpeace to promote climate conversations and by Every Gender to counter anti-trans discrimination.
The committee enthusiastically agrees that this project and Dr. Emily Beausoleil embody the spirit and the letter of the APSA Distinguished Award for Civic and Community Engagement.
APSA Distinguished Teaching Award for outstanding contributions to undergraduate and graduate teaching political science at two- or four-year institutions
Recipient: Katy Harriger, Wake Forest University
Award Committee: Dr. Jennifer Leonor Erkulwater of University of Richmond and Dr. Julia Marin Hellwege of University of South Dakota
Award Citation: Across her 38-year career, Dr. Katy Harriger has established an impressive record as an innovative and impactful educator, both within and well beyond her own classroom. Dr. Harriger was nominated for the Distinguished Teaching Award by her former students, now accomplished professionals in their own right. Their nomination letters testify to the ways in which she challenged them to engage deeply with questions of democracy; they attribute to her their love of learning and their professional success in government, law, journalism, and academia. For many of these graduates, time spent in her classroom and on experiential trips abroad or to Washington, DC are among their fondest and most transformative memories from college. Dr. Harriger’s accomplishments as a teacher span her career at Wake Forest University, where she has been an advocate for deliberative discourse and experiential learning. Known for being challenging yet inspiring, grounded in a pedagogy of guided deliberative discussion and experiential learning, her courses compel students to engage in deliberative processes, work within communities, and participate in real-world politics. Looking back on their experiences in her classroom, her former students raved that no other course in their undergraduate career fostered as much exchange between and among students, nor did any other quite bring out the best in each and every student the way that her courses did.
Dr. Harriger’s impact extends beyond the classroom. She has also established a legacy of teaching innovation at Wake Forest University by creating institutions that advocate for high-impact teaching and learning practices. In 1997, she co-founded Wake Forest’s Teaching and Learning Center, by securing a grant that annually brought together a cohort of faculty to design experiential service-learning courses for undergraduate students. The program eventually became the university’s Pro Humanitate Center, which extended the development of experiential learning and deliberative discussion to cover all of Wake Forest’s schools. Additionally, Dr. Harriger founded Wake Forest’s experiential learning program in Washington, DC, and currently serves as its director. Dr. Harriger’s thoughtfulness around pedagogical innovations and institutional developments have resulted in two publications: Speaking of Politics: Preparing College Students for Democratic Citizenship (2007) and The Long-Term Impact of Learning to Deliberate (2016). Dr. Harriger’s body of work demonstrates that she does more than transform the lives of her students; she is also transforming Wake Forest University. Dr. Harriger has distinguished herself as an innovative, impactful, and reflective teacher and scholar, not only in political science but also in higher education, more broadly. For this reason, the committee is pleased to select her as the 2024 recipient of the APSA Distinguished Teaching Award.
Katy Harriger (left) receives her award from presenter Michael Neblo (right)
John Gaus Award for a career of exemplary scholarship in the joint tradition of political science and public administration
Recipient: Lael Keiser, University of Missouri
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Brian N. Williams of the University of Georgia, Dr. K. Jurée Capers of Georgia State University, and Dr. Craig W. Thomas of the University of Washington
Award Citation: Professor Keiser has made an extraordinary impact on the study of policy implementation and the administration of public programs. Taking a multi-institutional approach, she excavates and illuminates what takes place at the intersection of bureaucratic institutions within contemporary democratic systems nudged by interest groups, elected officials, and other political actors. Her nuanced appreciation for program design and its impact on street-level personnel, contributes to a deeper understanding of representative bureaucracy, policy adoption, and policy implementation.
Professor Keiser is primarily known for examining the role of gender and race in representative bureaucracy. Her contributions in this field of study have been ground-breaking. A nomination letter signed by eleven public administration scholars states that her seminal work on gender and representative bureaucracy (APSR 2002) “was not just the first quantitative study to demonstrate that female representation in the bureaucracy was associated with positive benefits to female clients, but established the theory for when and where gender representation in the bureaucracy was likely to have policy impacts.” This article has been cited more than 800 times (according to Google Scholar), with its findings replicated across numerous policy areas in many countries. Her research projects continue to push at the edges of the representative bureaucracy literature by examining emergent topics, such as the impacts of administrative burdens and automated systems, while deploying a wide range of methodologies, including survey experiments.
Professor Keiser’s research contributions have been recognized in numerous ways. For example, she is currently a Fellow with the National Academy of Public Administration and has received many awards, including the Herbert Simon Award from the Midwest Political Science Association for significant contributions to the study of bureaucracy and the Rita Mae Kelly Award from the American Society for Public Administration for distinguished research on women’s issues. She is also a three-time recipient of the Herbert Kaufman Award for the best paper on public administration from the American Political Science Association. These awards indicate she is at the leading edge of her field. Her service contributions have also been remarkable. She is currently President-Elect of the Public Management Research Association, following a four-year term on the Board of Directors. She has also served as President of the Public Administration Section of the American Political Science Association and President of the Midwest Public Administration Caucus of the Midwest Political Science Association. These service roles indicate a remarkable and sustained professional commitment to both public administration and political science. She is thus highly deserving of the John Gaus Award.
Lael Keiser (left) receives her award from presenter Danielle Allen (right)
Frank J. Goodnow Award for service to the community of political science by teachers, researchers, and public servants who work in the many fields of politics
Recipient: Cathy J. Cohen, University of Chicago
Award Committee: Dr. Kathleen Thelen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. Rogers M. Smith of the University of Pennsylvania
Award Citation: As a scholar, as a teacher and mentor, as an institutional and disciplinary leader, and as a political activist, Cathy J. Cohen has illuminated and combatted injustices of race, gender, sexuality, class, and age in ways that have launched vital new fields of research; reformed institutions and created new ones; and inspired innumerable students, colleagues, and members of communities that have long been undervalued and underserved in the United States.
Born to a Black working-class family in Toledo, Ohio, Cathy Cohen earned her BA from Ohio’s Miami University and her PhD from the University of Michigan. She began her career at Yale University, where she co-created the Center for the Study of Race, Inequality and Politics and received tenure with the publication of her first path-breaking book, The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. It was a landmark study that both theorized and provided empirical evidence of how not only governmental institutions but also middle-class and religious leaders of Black communities, pressured to appear respectable in white eyes, often failed their poorer, younger, and, especially, their LGBTQ+ community members in the AIDS crisis. It was preceded by among other works, her hugely cited 1997 essay “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: the Radical Potential of Queer Politics,” a pioneering call for queer activists to build broader, more transformational coalitions through intersectional political approaches that fostered solidarity with those marginalized in multiple ways by prevailing standards of desirable identities.
Moving to the University of Chicago in 2002, Cohen soon launched the Black Youth Project, aided by a major grant from the Ford Foundation. Through nationwide surveys and other forms of research, it has shed unprecedented light on the norms, decision-making, and political practices of young Black people between the ages of 18 and 30, generating insights reported in Cohen’s second book, Democracy Remixed: Black Youth and the Future of American Politics, and also in broadly accessible fashion on the Project’s website. The Ford Foundation went on to fund her subsequent Mobilization, Change and Political and Civic Engagement Project. At Chicago as at Yale, Cohen has mentored innumerable graduate students, both formally and informally, who have similarly gone on to become major contributors to scholarship and teaching and to institutional and political reform initiatives.
In addition to the many leadership roles Cohen has played at both Yale and Chicago, she has also provided outstanding service to the American Political Science Association. She has served as APSA Secretary and Vice President, and for APSA President Paula McClain’s Task Force on Systemic Inequalities in the Discipline, Cohen led the Burdens of Faculty of Color Working Group’s study of Tenure and Promotion Standards.
Cathy Cohen has been a tireless political activist, having served as a founding board member and co-chair of the board of the Audre Lorde Project in New York and on the boards of Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press; the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies; and the Arcus Foundation. She has also been active in the Black Radical Congress, ACT UP New York, and African American Women in Defense of Ourselves, and she is a founder and executive committee member of Scholars for Social Justice, as well as a member of the collective More than Diversity at the University of Chicago.
In all these many endeavors, Professor Cathy J. Cohen has been a fearless and both passionate and compassionate fighter for greater truth and greater justice, in ways that have helped to make our discipline and our society, though still very imperfect, far better than they were before she began her distinguished career.
Hubert H. Humphrey Award for notable public service by a political scientist
Recipient: Colleen Shogan, National Archives and Records Administration
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Ann Bowman of Texas A&M University, Dr. Frank Baumgartner of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Dr. Michelle Chin of the University of Texas at Dallas, Dr. Carl LeVan of American University, and Dr. Sanford F. Schram of Hunter College, CUNY
Award Citation: The Committee is pleased to award the Hubert H. Humphrey Award honoring notable public service to political scientist Colleen Shogan. Dr. Shogan is currently the 11th Archivist of the United States (and first political scientist to hold this office)—a position in which she directs the National Archives and Records Administration. Her interest in merging “the academic and practitioner perspective in [her] future classes” led Dr. Shogan to apply for the APSA Congressional Fellowship, the first step in a professional journey.
Dr. Shogan’s contribution to public service is not only extensive, it is also impactful. At a time when democracy is confronting various threats, her commitment to making the historical record of the United States more accessible to the public through actions such as digitizing the Archive’s holdings and reimagining its public exhibits, is particularly significant. Notably, she added the Emancipation Proclamation to the National Archives Rotunda in 2023 to commemorate Juneteenth.
Dr. Shogan’s nominators used words such as “inspiring” and “tireless” to describe her and referred to her as a “force for change.” Dr. Shogan’s devotion to her work was captured in an interview she gave earlier this year. In referring to the National Archives, she said, “We are an essential building block of democracy. Records are our basis for holding our government accountable and providing transparency. It is not a nice thing to have. It’s not something that should be an afterthought. It is a necessity.”
In conclusion, the Committee commends Dr. Shogan for her distinguished career in public service. Her publications include numerous refereed journal articles as well as the book, The Moral Rhetoric of American Presidents, which contribute to our understanding of elected leaders in government.
APSA-PSA International Partnerships Award for political scientists engaged in collaborative and productive cross-national partnerships that make a significant contribution to the discipline in the areas of teaching, research, or civic engagement
Recipients: Amanda Rosen, US Naval War College; Cathy Elliot, University College London; Chad Raymond, Salve Regina University; James Fielder, Colorado State University; Jennifer Ostojski, Colgate University; John-Paul Salter; University College London; John Wilesmith, University College London; Kalina Zhekova, University College London; Simon Usherwood, The Open University
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Robin Kolodny of Temple University, Dr. Amelia Hadfield of the University of Surrey, and Dr. Richard S. Katz of John Hopkins University
Award Citation: The 2024 APSA-PSA International Partnerships Award Committee has selected The Active Learning in Political Science (ALPS) Blog to receive the 2024 APSA-PSA International Partnership Award. The Editors are: Cathy Elliott, University College London–UK; James “Pigeon” Fielder, Colorado State–USA; Jennifer Ostojski, Colgate University–USA; Chad Raymond, Salve Regina University–USA; Amanda Rosen, US Naval War College; John-Paul Salter, University College London–UK; Simon Usherwood, The Open University–UK; John Wilesmith, University College London–UK; Kalina Zhekova, University College London–UK
ALPS, founded in 2011 and used by nearly 2,000 members, created a community of practice to support and train educators in effective pedagogies. A growing set of teaching resources is posted there, often with very frank observations about whether an educator’s tool was effective or not. The blog reflects an inclusive approach to voices and communities, focusing on empowering early career academics. Further, the central contributors to ALPS demonstrate cross-national partnerships both with the original team of editors and the team established in 2023.
We agree with the ALPS team that this prize may raise the profile of the blog further on both sides of the Atlantic, helping it to remain strong.
James Fielder (left) receives his award from presenter Danielle Allen (right)
Carey McWilliams Award for a major journalistic contribution to our understanding of politics
Recipient: Adam Iscoe, The New Yorker
Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Brian Calfano of the University of Cincinnati, Dr. Bethany Albertson of the University of Texas at Austin, and Dr. Albert Dzur of Bowling Green State University
Award Citation: We are pleased to present the 2024 Carey McWilliams Award to Adam Iscoe. In addition to his well-received work across multiple outlets, Mr. Iscoe’s nomination letter notes his connection to McWilliams’ legacy: “McWilliams dedicated his life to writing and editing stories about vulnerable people and politics. I have done the same.” Indeed, he has. Iscoe’s 2023 New Yorker story about problems with safety net programs for the unhoused in New York City with mental health challenges highlights aspects of both the human condition and the realities of policy implementation in complex systems. As Iscoe explains: “There were several occasions in the course of reporting this story in which I found myself in a dangerous or life-threatening situation. I am sure this description is one that would resonate with Carey McWilliams. It is all part of doing the job right.”
Barbara Sinclair Lecture for achievement in promoting the understanding of the US Congress and legislative politics
Recipient: Eric Schickler, University of California, Berkeley
Award Committee: Co-chair: Dr. David C. Barker of American University Co-Chair: Dr. Meghan McConaughey of the American Political Science Association, Dr. David Mayhew of Yale University, Dr. Marvin Overby of Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, and Dr. Melinda Ritchie of Ohio State University
Award Citation: Professor Eric Schickler is one of the most productive and influential congressional scholars of his generation. The author or editor of eight books, some three dozen refereed articles, and another 30 chapters and other invited works, his interests are wide-ranging across legislative politics. His research has been supported by significant grants from the National Science Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Dirksen Congressional Center. Professor Schickler received his undergraduate education at the New College of Florida and his doctorate from Yale University. Since 1997, he has been associated with the University of California, Berkeley, where he has chaired the Department of Political Science and served as co-director of the Institute of Government Studies. From 2003-2006, he was on the faculty of Harvard University.
Professor Schickler has researched and written trenchantly about institutional innovation in Congress, legislative rules (including the filibuster in the Senate and the discharge petition in the House), congressional checks on presidential authority, partisan polarization, the political legacy of slavery, the New Deal coalition, and racial realignment. Of particular note is his interest in exploring political history and American political development through the lens of the Congress. One measure of his impact on congressional studies is that he is a three-time winner (in 2001, 2006, and 2016) of the Richard F. Fenno Jr. Prize for the most outstanding book in legislative studies, more than any other scholar. He has also received the Philip E. Converse Award from the APSA Elections, Public opinion, and Voting behavior Organized Section, and the J. David Greenstone Award from the APSA Politics and History Organized Section. Since 2021 he has also served as co-author of the seminal textbook Congress and Its Members.
APSA Members socializing at the Reception Honoring the 2024 APSA Award Recipients
APSA Members socializing at the Reception Honoring the 2024 APSA Award Recipients
Michael Brintnall Teaching and Learning Award supports faculty attendance at the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference
Recipient: Elizabeth Dorssom, Lincoln University of Missouri
