Search results

The goal of this deliverable on Community Networks and Political Advocacy is the identification of how Community Networks (CNs) gain leverage on regulators and policy-makers: What are the appropriate organizational modes to engage in political advocacy in order to foster the growth of community networks as cooperative plat-forms? What are the successful mediation of their interactions with other actors in the telecom sector and the local, national and European policy environments? In short, how can a CN build political advocacy capacities? With "advocacy capacity-building" we identify the process by which CNs can upgrade the collective skills on which they rely to influence policy development, but also to develop and upgrade the procedures and organizational designs devoted to these activities.

Cover Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Introduction: What Political Science is . . . and Isn't -- A Christian Framework for Approaching Political Science -- Faithful Learning Illustrated: The Logic of Power and Attitudes Toward Risk -- Conclusion: "Dr. Horne, I Think I'm Interested in Going into Politics . . . -- Discussion Questions -- Series Afterword -- More on Faithful Learning in Academic Studies -- More from P& -- R on Political Studies -- More from P& -- R on Politics.

Like Rachel, Jacob's beloved but still childless bride, who asked herself and the Lord each morning, "Am I?," or "Can I?," so presidents of this Association on these annual occasions intermittently ask, "Are we a science?," or "Can we become one?" My predecessor, David Truman, raised this question last September applying some of the notions of Thomas Kuhn in his recent book on scientific revolutions. I shall be following in Truman's footsteps, repeating much that he said but viewing the development of the profession from a somewhat different perspective and intellectual history. My comments will be organized around three assertions.First, there was a coherent theoretical formulation in the American political theory of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.Second, the development of professional political science in the United States from the turn of the century until well into the 1950's was carried on largely in terms of this paradigm, to use Kuhn's term. The most significant and characteristic theoretical speculation and research during these decades produced anomalous findings which cumulatively shook its validity.Third, in the last decade or two the elements of a new, more surely scientific paradigm seem to be manifesting themselves rapidly. The core concept of this new approach is that of the political system.

This book traces the development of political science from ancient influences such as Plato and Aristotle to modern political shapers such as Robert A. Dahl. It covers changes to the field in both thought and practice due to the rise and fall of political regimes, world wars, colonialism, and social media. The book also includes thorough examinations of international relations, systems of government, constitutions, domestic policy, public opinion, and administration. The book ends with brief biographies of important people in the field of political science that specifies their various contributions.

TWO STREAMS OF POLITICAL THOUGHT WERE PRESENT AT THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN NATION.ONE WAS NOTABLE FOR FRIENDSHIP,BROTHERHOOD,INDIVIDUAL SPONTANEITY AND DISTAIN FOR THE MATERIAL.A FOLLOWER WAS T.PAINE,AND ITS BASIS IS IN ROUSSEAU.THE DECLARATION AND ARTICLES EXPRESSED IT.THE SECOND WAS FOR SOCIAL ORDER,RATIONALITY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS EXPRESSED IN THE CONSTITUTION BY HAMILTON AND MADISON.

Much of this essay falls within the realm of speculative thought. Since it is in the nature of speculation that one's words may appear immodest and his conclusions often eccentric, I shall state my arguments at the outset without pausing to elaborate them. The arguments themselves are quite simple. Each of them will reappear later on clothed, I hope, in more attractive dress.Two varieties of political thought contended for the allegiance of the American people at the founding of the new nation. The two seem irreconcilable in certain crucial respects.One was notable for its expression of friendship and brotherhood, for its insistence upon individual spontaneity and uniqueness, and for its disdain for material concerns; it was intuitive and unsystematic in temper. The other displayed a preoccupation with social order, procedural rationality, and the material bases of political association and division; it was abstract and systematic in temper.The exponents of the latter point of view, having put their opponents to rout, assumed the responsibility for organizing the government and politics of the country. They enacted their psychological, social, economic, and political theories into fundamental law, then erected insititutions designed to train generations of citizens to prefer certain goods and conduct over all others.