Home

Is learning research methods central to an undergraduate political science education? If it is, what ought to be taught, and how do we optimally convey these materials to our students?  These questions drove the presentations in the Teaching Research Methods track at the 2009 Teaching & Learning conference. Track participants represented a range of perspectives, from small, liberal arts institutions to Ph.D. granting universities; veteran research methods instructors to those anticipating their first opportunity to teach such a class; and both quantitative and qualitative scholars.  We agreed, however, on the centrality of research methods training to political science education, and we focused much of our discussion on the perceived disconnect between research methods and the rest of the political science curriculum.  Specifically, students, faculty, and administrators tend to see research methods instruction as separate and apart from the central thrust of political science education.  Our conversations focused on integrating research methods into the broader focus of our teaching mission.  To that end, we emphasized the importance of choosing context-consistent goals, building interest and engagement, and using regular assessment and evaluation to improve the quality of our teaching.

Choosing Context-Consistent Goals
To the extent that political science education intends both to impart knowledge and to build skills, many of the skills we hope our students will acquire are first introduced--or introduced most explicitly--in research methods classes.  Accordingly, our discussion returned repeatedly to the idea of identifying the skills we want our students to develop and using a backwards mapping approach to structure curricula, courses, and classes. 

We identified a number of “best practices” for integrating research methods courses with the broader educational missions of our departments and schools.  First, as in previous years, we agreed that undergraduate research methods courses are ideal opportunities to review basic information literacy skills.  We addressed the value of working cooperatively with library staff to improve information literacy and incorporating librarian-led instruction in methods classes.  Second, we focused on the importance of sequencing courses.  Students should take research methods courses early in their educational careers, so that they may better utilize the skills in their coursework.  Research methods courses should also be structured to provide continuity in both content and teaching style.  Sequencing and coordination allows for greater clarity in course objectives, reinforcement of key concepts and skills, and the creation of student cohorts that can support one another throughout their education.  Third, we recognized the importance of matching the content of research methods classes with how students will ultimately use the skills they acquire.  For example, graduate students who are anticipating careers in public administration will require a different set of skills and a different depth of knowledge than graduate students planning academic careers.  Ultimately, research methods training is about providing students with tools, and as instructors we need to be aware of the tools our particular students need most and to impress upon students the importance of choosing the right tool for the job they plan to do.

Building Interest and Engagement
As in past years, we touched on the “public relations problem” that research methods courses face.  It is difficult to persuade students, and sometimes evens university administrators and other political science faculty, that methods courses are valuable; because engagement is central to the learning process, resistance to the subject-matter undermines our effectiveness as teachers. A key component to engaging students is demonstrating the relevance of the material to their lives and to the rest of their classes.  This can be accomplished by emphasizing the utility of these skills sets to their futures as lawyers, public administrators, and even simply savvy citizens.  Another crucial component in engaging students is transforming them from passive to active learners.  We agreed on the importance of students applying their methods skills immediately through a combination of in-class exercises, research papers, computer-based data analysis, and larger simulations (such as student-created and conducted surveys and experiments). We also returned to the notion of creating learning communities to engage students, and participants offered a number of innovative suggestions beyond the usual to help students see themselves and each other as active contributors to the learning process: conducting office hours in informal settings, utilizing peer review for essays and short papers, and employing minute-papers as a way of stimulating conversation and setting the class agenda.

Assessment and Evaluation
Finally, we discussed the importance of assessment and evaluation to improve the quality of our teaching. As in past iterations of this track, we noted the irony that, as instructors of research methods, we often claim “best practices” without providing empirical, systematic evidence to support our claims. Each year, track participants bring ideas and innovations for improving the quality of research methods courses, and as a group of instructors committed to quality teaching and positive student outcomes, we must focus more on understanding the utility of these ideas and innovations. Will creating a cohort through learning communities actually improve student absorption and retention of the material? Do active learning exercises actually improve student learning as compared to traditional lecture methods? Do presentations by instructional library faculty actually improve the information literacy skills of our students?  We believe the answer to all of these questions is yes, but we still lack systematic evidence to support these claims. The call to action we are left with is to work together to systematically assess these claims.