Political Science Educator: volume 29, issue 2
Reflections
By Charles Crabtree (Charles.D.Crabtree@dartmouth.edu),[1] Devontae Lacasse (Devontae.Lacasse@dartmouth.edu), Eleanor Schifino (eleanorschifinodartmouth@gmail.com), Jayanth Uppaluri (jvuppaluri@gmail.com)
Introduction
Across political science departments, we’re seeing growing undergraduate interest in writing honors theses. Students view these projects as capstone experiences that offer the opportunity to pursue independent research, develop substantive expertise, and sharpen methodological skills. Completing a thesis is also increasingly a way to distinguish oneself for graduate school, policy positions, and competitive . Further, theses are a non-disposable assignment (Seraphin et al 2019), as they can be transformed into research presentations or publications in student-focused or peer-reviewed journals. Yet while student demand appears to be rising for undergraduate theses, anecdotal evidence suggests that faculty advising capacity has not.
We don’t have comprehensive data on thesis advising patterns across the discipline, but a couple broader trends offer insight: Nearly 600 honors programs had been established at U.S. institutions by the mid-2000s, with over 60% founded after 1994; [2] membership in Pi Sigma Alpha, the political science honor society, has ballooned to more than 850 chapters with over 300,000 lifetime members.[3] Taken together, these two data points suggest considerable student demand for pursuing honors (thesis or not) and for standing out from other students.
Faculty incentives to supervise undergraduate theses, however, remain weak. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most political science professors supervise no students in a given year, and those who do typically limit themselves to one. The dominant approach, the one-on-one advising model, can often be rewarding but is difficult to scale. It creates time bottlenecks and can contribute to feelings of isolation among thesis writers. We join others in believing that political science can learn from the natural sciences, where research advising is often structured through collaborative, lab-style environments (Becker 2020).
The Thesis Lab
In the 2023–24 academic year, we piloted a lab-style advising model at Dartmouth College, structured around group advising and shared infrastructure (Becker 2020; Pawlicka-Deger 2020). Our lab mirrored the general approach and structure of natural science lab model of learning, which emphasizes inquiry, experimentation, collaboration, shared infrastructure, and iterative knowledge production. included three senior thesis students, each pursuing distinct research questions but united by a shared methodology: survey .
We communicated primarily through a shared communication environment via Slack. Each student had a private channel for individualized advising, and we maintained shared channels for progress updates, literature resources, and mutual support. Regular group meetings—both scheduled and ad hoc—provided space for peer review and collaborative problem solving. We reviewed each other’s pre-analysis plans, IRB protocols, experimental designs, and drafts. This shifted thesis advising from a solitary 1:1 relationship toward a community of practice, much in the same way natural science labs replace isolated apprenticeship with collaborative inquiry.
Rather than running three separate surveys, we bundled our experiments into a single omnibus survey, which we fielded to a nationally representative Lucid sample. This collaboration allowed us to significantly increase statistical power and save on costs, while also exposing us to the full range of logistical and methodological challenges involved in professional survey research. We treated the omnibus instrument as a shared infrastructure, with each student responsible for designing and analyzing their own portion of the survey.
Why This Worked
The lab-based advising model succeeded in several important ways. First, it significantly improved efficiency. Milem et al’s (2020) study found that faculty were spending more and more time teaching, researching, and in service, a sobering fact validated by subsequent studies (Dogan and Arslan 2024). Faculty advising time under a lab model stretched further because questions and feedback could be shared in a group setting, allowing everyone to learn from each other’s experiences. Rather than repeating guidance three times, we offered it .
Second, the lab created a sense of intellectual community. Thesis writing is often a solitary endeavor. By sharing feedback, offering encouragement, and discussing common challenges, we were able to build momentum and maintain motivation. In line with work on the importance of writing groups for doctoral students, we found that the lab model provided peer support that improved writing, refined theoretical arguments, and sustained morale during difficult phases of (de Caux and Preorius 2024).
Third, the model elevated research quality. Students were exposed not only to their own project, but to two others that used similar methods but addressed different questions. This broadened our exposure to scholarship, improved design choices, and created opportunities for skill sharing. We reviewed one another’s R code, improved survey flow, and traded data visualization .
Finally, the model provided realistic professional preparation. The experience mimicked many aspects of graduate-level research or think tank work: navigating IRB approval, managing limited funding, coordinating fielding schedules, and collaborating within a structured but flexible framework. More generally, students learned about the practice of doing scholarly work, about the various crucial decisions made in the process of project management that might otherwise not be taught at the undergrad, or frequently even the graduate, level. As some might put it, they learned some of the ‘hidden curriculum’ (Cornbleth 1984) of being scholars. Students developed not just individual theses but habits of mind that will serve them in future research careers.
Challenges and Limitations
Of course, the model has limitations. Not every group of students will share methods or timelines. Faculty will need to carefully select cohorts and manage group dynamics. Moreover, institutions must recognize this model of advising as distinct from traditional one-on-one supervision and reward it . One way that they could do this is by providing equal credit to faculty for each thesis completed with this approach. Without appropriate credit, lab-style advising may still place an unequal burden on already committed faculty.
Recommendations for Implementation
We recommend that faculty interested in replicating this model begin with a small group—two to three students—who use similar methods or share thematic interests. Communication tools like Slack or Microsoft Teams can be useful for creating transparent and documented advising workflows. Group meetings, structured deadlines, and peer review assignments should be built into the advising . Where possible, joint logistics—such as omnibus surveys, shared datasets, or pooled funding—can significantly improve efficiency and research quality.
Conclusion
Lab-style thesis advising offers a promising alternative to traditional one-on-one models. It meets growing student demand, stretches limited faculty time, and builds a supportive research environment. Most importantly, it helps students produce stronger, more confident work while preparing them for the collaborative nature of real-world research. For political science departments seeking sustainable and equitable models of undergraduate research advising, this approach offers a path forward.
References
Becker, M. 2020. Importing the laboratory model to the social sciences: Prospects for improving mentoring of undergraduate researchers. Journal of Political Science Education 16(2): 212-224.
Cornbleth, C. 1984. Beyond hidden curriculum?. J. Curriculum Studies 16(1): 29-36.
de Caux, B. C., & Pretorius, L. (2024). Learning together through collaborative writing: The power of peer feedback and discussion in doctoral writing groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation 83 (101379).
Doğan, Miray, and Hasan Arslan. 2024. “Is the Productivity of Faculty Members Sustainable? The Perspective of Faculty Members.” Trends in Higher Education 3(2): 356-372.
Milem, J. F., Berger, J. B., & Dey, E. L. 2000. Faculty time allocation: A study of change over twenty years. The Journal of Higher Education 71(4): 454-475.
Seraphin, S. B., Grizzell, J. A., Kerr-German, A., Perkins, M. A., Grzanka, P. R., & Hardin, E. E. 2019. A conceptual framework for non-disposable assignments: Inspiring implementation, innovation, and research. Psychology Learning & Teaching 18(1): 84-97.
Pawlicka-Deger, U. 2020. The laboratory turn: Exploring discourses, landscapes, and models of humanities labs. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 14(3).
—
Charles Crabtree is currently a Senior Lecturer at Monash University . Devontae Lacasse is an Admissions Officer at Dartmouth College. Eleanor Schifino is a law student at New York University Law School. Jayanth Uppalari is a Fulbright Postgraduate Fellow at the University of Leeds.
[1] All authors contributed equally to the development and writing of this article.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honors_colleges_and_programs
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_Sigma_Alpha
Published since 2005, The Political Science Educator is the newsletter of the Political Science Education Section of the American Political Science Association. As part of APSA’s mission to support political science education across the discipline, APSA Educate has republished The Political Science Educator since 2021. Please visit APSA Educate’s Political Science Educator digital collection.
Editor: Matt Evans (Northwest Arkansas Community College)
Assistant Editor: Colin Brown (Northeastern University)
Submissions: editor.PSE.newsletter@gmail.com
