In South Korea, government regulations constrain the resources of higher (tertiary) education, especially non-STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) departments. Resource constraints, in turn, reinforce a culturally Confucian hierarchy that restricts the participation of lower-rank members (e.g., high school and undergraduate students). This more-regulated, formal-education sector does not reflect the increasingly diverse cultural preferences (e.g., utilitarian and expressive) of Korean students. Many students, acting as consumers, exit to alternative sectors, including formal-educational institutions abroad and informal, private supplemental education at home, which offer more student research opportunities. This article develops and illustrates three theoretical propositions with relevant literature and secondary data as well as participant observations and interviews with Korea-based students. Arguably, our propositions and findings are relevant to other countries with gaps between formal education and consumer preferences and with consumer exit options.

Both undergraduate students and faculty members face a challenging job market that requires innovative approaches to skill development and research products. Moreover, entrenched approaches to research and education reinforce traditional hierarchies, exclusionary norms, and exploitative practices. This article describes a lab-based pedagogical framework designed to support faculty research goals and student learning and, simultaneously, to attenuate patterns of historical exclusion. This approach leverages evidence-based best practices from experiential education, team-based workflows, an understanding of servant leadership, and “whole-person”–style mentorship models. We find that these tools advance faculty research goals (in terms of both quality and productivity), support student learning in ways beyond traditional undergraduate coursework, and disrupt patterns of historical exclusion. We provide qualitative evidence to support our model and discuss the hurdles and challenges still to be overcome.

Student involvement in faculty research is on the rise because it serves at least three sets of interests: (1) students’ desire to build their résumés and develop close relationships with faculty members; (2) faculty members’ hope of getting research support from bright, attentive assistants; and (3) universities’ wish to publicize these opportunities to incoming student and faculty cohorts. At times, faculty members may come to see their undergraduate researchers as a source of inexpensive but high-quality labor, forgetting that they are students who are at the university to learn critical skills. In this article, I make the case for a student-centered approach to the undergraduate research experience (URE), which combines a traditional apprenticeship with a curriculum in the “what,” “why,” and “how” of research and expands the program over multiple semesters, supporting a team of student apprentices. I argue that this approach meets more of students’ goals while also supporting faculty and university interests. I describe the multi-semester URE that I have developed and provide tools to faculty members who want to adapt this program to their home institution.

In addition to interest in undergraduate research, political science increasingly recognizes the value of civically engaged research for various educational, professional, and civic outcomes. With limited time and steep tradeoffs, instructors must find ways to cleverly combine undergraduate research experiences with the broader normative civic-education responsibilities of political science and higher education. This article presents a course design that allows instructors to leverage their classroom for both civic education and undergraduate research without the need for previously developed community partnerships that are common to most engaged research and learning. Our approach brings together undergraduate research and community engagement through course design.

What are the opportunities and challenges of faculty–undergraduate collaborative scholarship that involves student participation at every stage of the research process? Drawing on interviews with comparative politics faculty members and undergraduate students, this article discusses the themes of reciprocity, incentives, and “off-ramps.” First, we find that an unequal division of labor can give way to a more reciprocal work dynamic as long-term projects unfold. Second, we consider the use of incremental incentives to sustain student motivation. Third, we propose the creation of off-ramps to allow an undergraduate to gracefully exit a project early. Grounded in these themes, we argue that—with a few guardrails—faculty members and undergraduate students can benefit from long-term collaborative research projects, including those that involve fieldwork or that seek to publish peer-reviewed articles.

Data Laboratories (Data Labs)—by which we mean a collaborative, group-based research program that can be conducted inside and/or outside of the classroom and is designed to generate observational datasets—have numerous advantages for undergraduate learning and scholarly research. Undergraduate researchers in Data Labs learn about the actual process of collecting and constructing research-quality data—a skillset that is relevant for both academic and workplace opportunities but otherwise under-covered in most undergraduate political science degrees. This article discusses our experiences in founding and running Data Labs, general guidelines for effective lab structure, positive impacts on undergraduate learning and research output, and challenges to consider.

Research-based learning adopts a “learning-by-doing” approach toward teaching research. This article documents the experience of publishing a coauthored article with undergraduate students that grew out of a research-based–learning course at Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. In particular, I reflect on the opportunities and challenges of engaging undergraduate students in research. The article demonstrates that research-based–learning courses must maintain a balance between the research process and research output. Too much focus on output overlooks students’ need to gain substantive knowledge, and the exclusive emphasis on the research process might reduce their motivation. Generally, students appreciate the autonomy and horizontality of relationships in research-based learning. Furthermore, the article shows that the knowledge and skills gained by students through research-based–learning courses facilitate their engagement in follow-up research projects, thereby paving the way for publishing research.

This study examines undergraduate research experiences at a minority-serving institution (MSI) in a political science laboratory. Students contributed to projects in a collaborative research lab at the University of California Riverside that involves undergraduate and graduate students in projects related to health and politics. Adopting a participatory approach to research, the study’s research participants also are coauthors who co-created the research protocols; collected the data; transcribed, coded, and analyzed the data; and wrote up the findings. Our analysis of 12 in-depth interviews with current and former undergraduate research assistants (RAs) found that their work in the lab challenged their perceptions of what research is and what it means to do research; shaped their path to pursue graduate studies; developed their social and professional skills; and offered an inclusive and humanizing experience with graduate students and faculty members. Challenges that the RAs mentioned included time management, bureaucratic accounting and payroll procedures, and feelings of self-doubt; the lab’s culture of inclusion and independence mitigated some of these challenges. Our findings align with the scholarly literature that suggests collaborative research opportunities can have beneficial outcomes, particularly for students from groups that are underrepresented in doctoral programs.

High-impact educational practices benefit undergraduate students in a variety of ways. These opportunities include student–faculty research, study-abroad and study-away programs, and internships, among others. This study focuses on one type of these high-impact practices: research. Research experiences foster student engagement and success, and they especially matter for marginalized and minoritized students, who all too often are underrepresented in these experiences. This article discusses creating, implementing, and experiencing equity-minded research opportunities for students from three perspectives: department head, faculty mentor, and undergraduate participants.

Education advocates lament the “leaky pipeline” in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), whereby students—especially minorities and women—drop out of STEM at successive stages of the educational system. Defining empirical political science as a branch of STEM, this article proposes that undergraduate research in political science can help to patch this leaky pipeline and expand access to scientific skills and habits of mind. I elaborate on three rationales to support my claim: (1) political science is a relatively diverse field of STEM; (2) college primes students to think like (political) scientists; and (3) students often encounter political science research opportunities for the first time as undergraduates, presenting an opportunity for faculty to “catch” those who selected out of STEM after high school. I substantiate my arguments by drawing on enrollment data, archival documents, the theories of John Dewey, and testimonials from former undergraduate researchers. I also recommend ways for political science departments to provide a meaningful STEM education by enhancing research programs.

Undergraduate students today face a more demanding and competitive labor market than their parents’ generation. In response, some pursue double majors to signal breadth to potential employers and to improve their job prospects. Some students also realize that a strong signal of workplace readiness is acquiring in-demand skills through independent and collaborative research. In this article, four professors at an undergraduate-focused public university in the United States share their experiences working with undergraduate students on research, focusing on the “supply side” of student research training and mentoring. We discuss how institutions can support differently situated faculty members, who face different career incentives and constraints, to integrate undergraduates in their research. We also address the limits of what is possible for faculty‐student research and suggest ways to overcome them.

This article discusses the origins, metrics, and methods of UCLA’s Race, Ethnicity, Politics & Society Lab, which trains cadres of undergraduate researchers, many of whom are students of color. The article focuses intently on the connections between the professionalization of undergraduate researchers and the production of greater intellectual, racial, and gender diversity in a university setting. The article also provides a blueprint to steer undergraduate students toward producing peer-reviewed publications for major political science journals. Finally, specific strategies to initiate and sustain a research lab operation with undergraduate researchers in mind are offered.

Politicians invest a lot of energy into managing their image, with the hope that the public views them favorably. In sharing details about themselves, elected officials want to be seen as people, not just as politicians. Are these efforts successful? I explore this question using an experiment inspired by a column in the celebrity entertainment magazine Us Weekly. I find that politicians who share nonpolitical autobiographical details about themselves secure warmer evaluations from the public. Reading this type of personalizing information also can contribute to ratings of elected officials that are less polarized by partisanship. While personalizing information boosts favorability toward politicians across party lines, members of the opposing party are particularly likely to report warmer affect toward the politician about whom they read. This suggests that this type of soft news coverage has the potential to depolarize partisan evaluations of politicians.

Although my evidence is anecdotal and impressionistic, my sense is that political science teaching, research, and careers are less likely to involve UK politics and the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

The 2019 UK General Election had seismic consequences for British politics. After three years of political turmoil following the 2016 referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU), the 2019 election marked a victory for the Leave side of the Brexit debate, putting to rest questions of a second referendum and any chance of Parliament blocking the Withdrawal Bill. The United Kingdom left the EU on January 31, 2020. Although there were clear consequences for Britain’s EU membership, there is debate about whether 2019 was a “Brexit election” (Prosser 2020)—even a critical election (Green 2021)—or the continuation of long-term realignments in British politics (Cutts et al. 2020; Jennings and Stoker 2017). By most accounts, Brexit dominated the 2019 election as a political issue, but whether this represents a key moment in a process of realignment of voters in Britain remains to be seen.

The decision by a narrow majority of British voters to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016 was a political earthquake that few had seen coming. It produced new political divisions, not only between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe but also within the United Kingdom. In particular, the referendum campaign and the outcome generated two new political identities: “Leavers” and “Remainers.” These Brexit identities crosscut partisan identities and voters formed deep emotional attachments to them (Curtice 2018; Evans and Schaffner 2019). Moreover, this Brexit divide led to affective polarization in the form of out-group animosity and discrimination (Hobolt, Leeper, and Tilley 2021). It also shaped perceptions of the economy (Sorace and Hobolt 2021), attitudes toward immigration (Pickup et al. 2021), vote choices (Hobolt and Rodon 2020), and losers’ consent (Schaffner 2021; Tilley and Hobolt 2023a). Brexit identities have been shown to be salient and politically consequential. Yet, we know much less about whether these new identities are rooted in policy norms that go beyond preferences about the desirability of leaving the EU. In this article, we thus explore the nature of Brexit identities and how they relate to policy norms.

In post-Brexit and post-devolution Britain, relationships among the four nations appear fragile. This article aims to discover where British citizens draw the symbolic boundaries that define in-group and out-group members between nations—in particular, England, Scotland, and Wales—and within England. Within England, we also examine class divides and the North–South divide. We operationalize symbolic boundaries through a set of new innovative measures administered in an online survey in 2019. Questions ascertain agreement that the various groups “share my values,” are “people I could get on with,” and are “straightforward and honest.” Results of our descriptive analysis suggest that boundaries are blurred between the British and the Welsh but sharper for the Scottish. We also find sharp but asymmetrical boundaries within England, between the working class and the middle class, and between Northerners and Southerners. Regional differences in perceptions of Southerners map closely onto those of how well Westminster looks after regional interests, which suggests that power imbalances reduce social cohesion.

Rhetoric surrounding the United Kingdom’s 2016 referendum on continued European Union (EU) membership frequently has invoked the “will of the people.” Addressing the House of Commons in March 2019, then–Prime Minster Theresa May stated that “my sense of responsibility and duty has meant that I have kept working to ensure that we deliver on the result and the will of the people” (March 27, 2019).1 May’s successor, Boris Johnson, appealed to the same notion when suggesting in the Daily Telegraph (September 15, 2019) that opposition parties were “united in wanting to cancel the referendum result…and overturn the will of the people.” On the other side of the debate, Caroline Lucas (currently the sole Member of Parliament for the UK’s Green Party) stated that “[e]very recent opinion poll shows that the will of the people has changed since [the referendum]” (December 4, 2018).

The 2016 referendum on UK membership in the European Union (EU) led to a realignment of voters along their referendum position (Fieldhouse et al. 2021; Sobolewska and Ford 2020). By December 2019, both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party received approximately 80% of their support from voters who had been on “their” side during the referendum (Fieldhouse et al. 2021). Brexit identities were akin to partisanship, with affective polarization and perceptual screening (Sobolewska and Ford 2020; Sorace and Hobolt 2021). Research also traces the Brexit vote to a growing values divide (Evans and Menon 2017), with ethnocentric attitudes found on opposing sides of the referendum (Sobolewska and Ford 2020). The views of ethnic minority voters, as traditional victims of white ethnocentrism, have been seen largely in this debate as the same as the identity of liberal Remainers. However, despite the assumption that minorities naturally would fall on the side opposing white ethnocentrism, the referendum marked the biggest departure from the traditional ethnic minorities bloc vote since 2005, when a substantial minority of Muslim voters deserted Labour over the Iraq War (Curtice, Fisher, and Steed 2005). The Leave side in the 2016 referendum received approximately one third of the votes of ethnic minorities (Martin, Sobolewska, and Begum 2020), despite Leave also drawing a majority of its support from “UKIP-curious” voters (Evans and Mellon 2019) who had voted for or considered supporting the anti-immigrant radical-right United Kingdom Independence Party.

A pessimistic view of the potential of deliberative mini-publics to effectively contribute to democratic decision making on highly contested issues in deeply divided places asserts that (1) deliberative quality would be low due to the bitterness prompted by discussion of divisive issues, and (2) levels of opinion change would be low given the stubbornly enduring nature of political attitudes in divided places. We empirically examined this pessimistic view using a quasi-experiment involving mini-publics on two separate issues in Northern Ireland: (1) the contentious ethno-national question of Northern Ireland’s constitutional status, and (2) the much less contested and non-ethno-national issue of social care. Contrary to the pessimistic view, we find evidence that from the perspective of the participants themselves, deliberative quality was higher in the mini-public on an ethno-national issue. However, in line with the pessimistic view, levels of self-reported opinion change were significantly lower in the ethno-national mini-public. Overall, the findings highlight the potential for carefully designed deliberative mini-publics to address divisive ethno-national issues: they provide a space for participants to engage with such issues in open and respectful discussion—even if the prospects for attitudinal change are more limited.