Suchergebnisse

What is objectionable in the `new look' in pol'al sci is not quantification as such, but false quantification. From the objective voting behavior of Supreme Court justices,. Schubert & Kort (See SA 4978) have drawn certain uniformities & posited mathematic principles enabling prediction of future action of the Court. This is to confuse the sci'st with the bookmaker, trying to predict behavior of individual units. Moreover, using content analysis to set up a scale of mathematical determinants is here a petitio principii as in the first place it should be proved that judges think in that way. Until behaviorists concern themselves with this level of analysis, their labors remain marginal to the essence of the discipline. IPSA.

I want to dissent initially from the rather constricting frame of reference that Schubert has established in his paper. He has every right in the world to set rhetorical snares, but I have no intention of walking into them. If I may summarize, Schubert asserts that he is a spokesman for a radical new direction in the study of public law, claiming that the old ways are moribund. He further urges that we should look with envy at the creative function of the social psychologists who supplied the Supreme Court with the banners it carried in Brown v. Board of Education while we were bumbling around with historical and philosophical trivia. He concludes that instead of wasting our time with talmudic disputations on whether the Supreme Court reached the "right" or the "wrong" decisions in specific cases, we should settle down to build a firm "scientific" foundation for our discipline.Not the least amusing aspect of this indictment is that I find myself billed as the defender of the ancien régime, as the de Maistre of public law. Therefore, for the benetfit of the young and impressionistic, let me break loose from Schubert's rhetorical trap: I too think that much of the research done in public law—and, for that matter, in political science generally—has been trivial.

The author presents and introduces with comments the following article of the known Russian global problems researcher M. Cheshkov. It is assumed that working with ideal theoretical objects is fundamental for a scientific knowledge specificity, that the experience of recent years points to a dramatic connection between the growing interdependence of different regions and spaces in the modern world, and the increasing intensity of local and global antagonisms and passions.

"Political science is for everybody is the first intersectionality-mainstreamed textbook written for introductory political science courses. While political science and politics are for everybody, political institutions (and the discipline of political science) are neither neutral nor unbiased. When we write political science textbooks that obscure the differences in how groups experience and interact with political institutions, we do students a disservice. This book exposes students to these differences while also bringing marginalized voices to the fore in political science, allowing more students to see their lived experiences reflected in the pages of their political science textbook. Bringing together a diverse group of contributors, political science is for everybody teaches all the basics of political science while showing that representation matters--both in politics and in the political science classroom."--

"This book offers for the first time a conceptual history of compromise. Alin Fumurescu combines contextual historical analysis of daily parlance and a survey of the usage of the word from the end of the sixteenth century to the beginning of the eighteenth century in both French and English with an analysis of canonical texts in the history of political thought. This book fills a significant gap in the literature about compromise and demonstrates the connection between different understandings of compromise and corresponding differences in understandings of political representation. In addition, Fumurescu addresses two controversial contemporary debates about when compromise is beneficial and when it should be avoided at all costs. A better understanding of the genealogy of compromise offers new venues for rethinking basic assumptions regarding political representation and the relationship between individuals and politics"--