Sanford F. Schram and Brian Caterino (eds), Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method (original) (raw)

The relevance of political science and the public responsibility of political scientists

2020

The relevance of political science and the public responsibility of political scientists Political scientists face increasing demands to demonstrate the relevance of their research beyond the academy (the so-called 'impact agenda'). Matthew Flinders argues that this should be seen less a threat to the discipline's autonomy than an opportunity to rise to public responsibilities that have always accompanied a political science career. The 'noble science of politics' has changed a great deal through the 20th and 21st centuries. It has also rather (in)famously been 'a discipline divided', with tensions between warring factions and sub-fields too often dominating discussions, to the detriment of complementarity and pluralism. The 'tragedy of political science' is that it has spent too much time and energy fighting internal schisms and too little nurturing its position within the broader social context. This assertion might be challenged by some as a generalisation, yet the lively debates in the past two decades, prompted by books on the relevance of political science and making political science matter, suggest that the problem still persists. We are still waiting for 'punk political science' to explode onto the scene The 'raucous rebellion' in political science occasioned by the Perestroikan movement never actually seemed that raucous, and appeared more concerned with increasing methodological pluralism within the discipline than forging a new political science for the twenty-first century. We are still waiting for 'punk political science' to explode onto the scene.

The Future of Political Science

Political Studies Review, 2013

The role and expectations surrounding those who study and teach politics are changing rapidly, as is the general climate of higher education in the twenty-first century. It is within this context that the contributors to this symposium have reflected upon and taken forward the debate concerning the future of political science and particularly the contemporary pressure on scholars to demonstrate the impact or social relevance of their research and writing. This debate has -as might have been expected -produced a range of responses including those who decry the 'tyranny of relevance', in one camp, and those who view the pressure to engage more vibrantly beyond the lecture theatre and seminar room as an opportunity to redefine the future of the discipline, in the other. And yet, as several contributors to this symposium have highlighted, such binary -almost tribaloppositions tend to produce too much heat and far too little light while also it should not be ignored that large parts of the political science community have been engaged and relevant for decades. The argument between Matthew Flinders and Peter John that inspired this symposium has therefore been useful as an intellectual and professional tool for shaping a disciplinary debate, but it must now be stood down -like two competing factions -in favour of an emphasis on their shared view that political science must engage more visibly and coherently in political and public debate. In fact, as many observers have commented, such as Rosie Campbell and Sarah Childs in this issue, we agree on most things. The question is not so much therefore one of the future destination of the discipline or the desired final destination, but one of the mode of transport and the speed of travel that might be necessary. Flinders' position favours a more rapid and energetic shift of focus, possibly even a change in the culture of the discipline towards a public political science (discussed below); John, by contrast, is more balanced and cautious, with an emphasis on indirect modes of engagement and the need to retain a clear focus on intellectual excellence. Flinders too predicates his position on the need to place worldclass scholarship at the core of academic life which, in turn, leaves him alongside John (rather than facing him) on the vast majority of issues.

Chapter 3 Political Science and the Other Social Sciences

The discipline of political science is " ill-defined, amorphous and heterogeneous. " With this diagnosis, editors Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby open their preface to the first Handbook of Political Science (1975: 1). Twenty years later, the main features of political sciences are: specialization, fragmentation and hybridization. Its frontiers are open and moving and need not be defined. The process of specialization has generated an increasing fragmentation in subfields, which are not " amorphous " but rather well-organized and creative. The " heterogeneity " has been greatly nourished by exchanges with neighbouring disciplines through the building of bridges between specialized fields of the various social sciences. This process of cross-fertilization is achieved by hybridization. The relations between political science and the other social sciences are in reality relations between sectors of different disciplines, not between whole disciplines. It is not an " interdisciplinary " endeavor. Since there is no progress without specialization, the creative interchanges occur between specialized subfields, most of the time at the margins of the formal disciplines. The current advancement of the social sciences can be explained in large part by the hybridization of segments of sciences. It would be impossible to conceive of a history of political science and of its current trends without reference to the other social sciences.

A Normative Turn in Political Science?

Polity, 2006

Traditionally, the scientific study of politics has been associated with a valueneutral approach to the subject. One seeks to uncover what is, not what ought to be, in the political realm. This is what distinguishes a ''positive'' science from opinionizing, social engineering, or political philosophy. In recent decades, one detects a growing uneasiness with the venerable fact/value dichotomy, at least as it was traditionally understood. It is not clear, however, where this leaves us. (Is the fact/value dichotomy dead?) Against this backdrop, we present the following argument. If political science is to matter to policymakers or citizens, as most political scientists believe it should, authors must be clear about how their subject ties into some broader telos that others might share. Thus, one might fruitfully distinguish three sorts of issues. First, how does a particular subject of political science affect the broader public? (What is its relevance?) Second, how can one demonstrate this relevance empirically? And finally, how might other ways of viewing this issue change the way the ''goodness'' of the subject is perceived? The first issue is simply a matter of clarification, the second a matter of demonstration, and the third a matter normally reserved for political philosophy. All are necessary components of a relevant and useful political science discipline.

Political Science and Political Theory: The Heart of the Matter

When Bent Flyvbjerg raises a call to "re-enchant and empower social science," 1 he may be understood, at least in part, to be renewing the demand for a "new political science" 2 that had already mobilized an earlier generation. Like the members of that cohort, he rightly despairs of the disciplinary preference for studies that are designed more to display and refine techniques of analysis than to seek answers to the questions that attend efforts to respond to the political urgencies of the times. Social scientists in general and 1Bent Flyvbjerg, Making Social Science Matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) 166.