Curricular Design, American Political Development, and the Future of the Undergraduate Political Science Major
Saved in:
| Title: | Curricular Design, American Political Development, and the Future of the Undergraduate Political Science Major |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Joshua Plencner (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Political Science Education. 2025 21(1):67-83. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 17 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Curriculum Design, Political Science, Undergraduate Study, Majors (Students), Political Issues, Democracy, Core Curriculum, Sequential Learning, Change Strategies, Intellectual Disciplines, Expertise, Specialization, Universities, Barriers |
| Geographic Terms: | New York |
| DOI: | 10.1080/15512169.2024.2353694 |
| ISSN: | 1551-2169 1551-2177 |
| Abstract: | Structural questions about the undergraduate political science major have spurred debates in the field for more than thirty years. Today, resurgent growth of unusually sharp threats to American democracy fuel familiar curricular questions with new urgency. However, the combined effects of inertia, bureaucratic hurdles, and resource constraints often limit the ability of departments to respond with meaningful programmatic changes. In this article, we describe our experience creating a "loosely sequenced" core curriculum within one subfield -- implemented without making any changes in official major requirements and with the support of only two faculty members -- and provide a model for how interested faculty might design a cohesive curriculum that leverages extant local expertise and disciplinary specializations to offer students rigorous, timely tools for interpreting the contemporary political world. We explore the benefits and limitations of this approach through a case study highlighting our core curriculum in the subfield of American Political Development. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1458817 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Structural questions about the undergraduate political science major have spurred debates in the field for more than thirty years. Today, resurgent growth of unusually sharp threats to American democracy fuel familiar curricular questions with new urgency. However, the combined effects of inertia, bureaucratic hurdles, and resource constraints often limit the ability of departments to respond with meaningful programmatic changes. In this article, we describe our experience creating a "loosely sequenced" core curriculum within one subfield -- implemented without making any changes in official major requirements and with the support of only two faculty members -- and provide a model for how interested faculty might design a cohesive curriculum that leverages extant local expertise and disciplinary specializations to offer students rigorous, timely tools for interpreting the contemporary political world. We explore the benefits and limitations of this approach through a case study highlighting our core curriculum in the subfield of American Political Development. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1551-2169 1551-2177 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/15512169.2024.2353694 |
