Suchergebnisse

'Political science' is a 'vanguard' field concerned with advancing generic knowledge of political processes, while a wider 'political scholarship' utilising eclectic approaches has more modest or varied ambitions. Political science nonetheless necessarily depends upon and is epistemologically comparable with political scholarship. I deploy Boyer's distinctions between discovery, integration, application and renewing the profession to show that these connections are close woven. Two sets of key challenges need to be tackled if contemporary political science is to develop positively. The first is to ditch the current unworkable and restrictive comparative politics approach, in favour of a genuinely global analysis framework. Instead of obsessively looking at data on nation states, we need to seek data completeness on the whole (multi-level) world we have. A second cluster of challenges involves looking far more deeply into political phenomena; reaping the benefits of 'digital-era' developments; moving from sample methods to online census methods in organisational analysis; analysing massive transactional databases and real-time political processes (again, instead of depending on surveys); and devising new forms of 'instrumentation', informed by post-rational choice theoretical perspectives.

Analysis of the pre-1989 situation and of the years of transformation, 1989-1991; Development of the discipline since 1992; Core research areas, theoretical and methodological approaches; Public space and academic debates; International cooperation and funding situation; Views on further development.

This article first reviews the history of political science teaching in Europe before going on to consider a range of recent developments in the teaching of political science, including cross-national joint programmes; technologically enhanced learning; placement learning and problem-based learning. The last section considers a range of issues facing political science teachers, including financial pressures; EU and national government policies; Bologna and quality assurance. The article concludes by suggesting that particular attention needs to be paid to what is taught at master's and doctoral levels. Adapted from the source document.

What is the utility of classical political theory and modern writing about it for current-day positive (that is, explanatory) political science? By "classical," I mean works from Plato through at least Weber.In modern American political science, the conventional answer to this question has been that classical theory offers normative illumination. It helps out with certain "should" questions—that is, recommendations about how political systems should be constructed or how individuals acting as political beings should behave. Important as this line of thinking may be in its own terms, I believe that it has worked to marginalize or trivialize classical theory for many writers and teachers in the positive sectors. It has allowed the kind of dismissal that Ayer (1948), writing at the high tide of logical positivism, gave to normative concerns. Classical theory scholars made a tactical mistake a few generations back, if they had any choice in the matter, to let themselves become labeled "normative."It is much better to see classical theory as a source of ontological illumination—that is, as a window to the nature of political reality. What is the nature of the political reality that political scientists should be studying? If we members of the profession possessed a clear, singular answer to this question, we might not feel the need to keep classical theory alive. But we do not possess a clear, singular answer, or at least we do not agree on any.

Throughout my life, politics and political science have been intertwined. I handed out leaflets for Adlai Stevenson at age 12, participated in protests at Oberlin and Berkeley, and, as I developed professional expertise, worked with national security agencies. Conflict has been a continuing interest, particularly whether situations are best analyzed as a security dilemma or aggression. In exploring this question, I was drawn into both political psychology and signaling, although the two are very different. I have continued to work on each and occasionally try to bring them together. My thinking about strategic interaction led to a book-length exploration of system effects, a way of thinking that I believe is still insufficiently appreciated in the discipline and among policy makers. My research continues to be stimulated by both developments in the discipline and unfolding international politics.

Should political science be publicly relevant? Instead of furnishing a direct answer, I propose to complicate the question. Yet in doing so, I will indicate an answer. And the answer is yes, political science should be publicly relevant – but not in any simple sense, since 'political science', 'should' and indeed 'publicly relevant' are less straightforward than they might seem. In what follows I will first complicate the questions posed to political science. I will proceed to reflect on the connection between publication – one of the central activities of all science, including political science – and publicity. I will then briefly tell a story about the journal that I edit, Perspectives on Politics, and the distinctive mission of this journal, which is to serve as 'a political science public sphere'. I will conclude with some brief reflections on the best ways of thinking about how political science can and should be 'publicly relevant'.

"For the suggestions and advice contained in theses pages the staff of the Department of Political Science is responsible."--Page 3. ; Title from cover. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article presents an overview of the development of political science as a discipline in the Soviet Union over the last 20 years. Such an overall perspective is not easily accessible to political scientists who do not read Russian because only a small percentage of the work appears in translation. Furthermore, many scholars believe that restrictions on publication in the USSR make Soviet academic writing unworthy of perusal—a view I strongly refute here. Trends in growth and influence of Soviet political science have a bearing on the intellectual climate of the USSR and, to a certain extent, on the politics practiced there.

Leo Strauss's article "An Epilogue" is made up of many different critical arguments about political science. The guiding principles of these arguments are not revealed clearly enough. One can even get the impression that "An Epilogue" is an unfinished article. Only after finding the guiding principles we can understand the Strauss's critique. He emphasized the difference between the philosophical and scientific approach to politics. "An Epilogue" shows that he understood political science as philosophy.

1. Foundations of Political Science - 2. The State and its Elements - 3. The Concept of Sovereignty - 4. Classification of Constitution - 5. Law,Justice,Liberty,Equality - 6. Franchise and Representation - 7. The Democracy - 8. Political Party System - 9. Democratic Decentralization - 10. International Political Order

The defence of political science rests on a starting proposition that practitioners of political science need to embrace relevance rather than fear. Defending the role of politics in resolving societal dilemmas is in part a responsibility of those who study it and the challenge is significant given evidence of disenchantment with the political process in many established and mew democracies. Political science needs to offer not only an understanding of politics that is theoretical, sophisticated and empirically rigorous but also an approach that is not just problem‐focused but solution‐seeking. Defending political science means defending politics and taking on the challenge of improving its practice.