Suchergebnisse

Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) achieved arguably the most sophisticated philosophical understanding of politics in recent times. His characteristic skepticism extended to the possibility of creating a genuine science of politics. This chapter sketches the development of his conception of political understanding. It begins with his early elaboration of the modal character of all knowledge, discusses his criticism of rationalism & reflections on the appropriate curriculum for studying politics in a university. It concludes by examining the theoretical basis of his rejection of the idea that politics could be analyzed as a field governed by natural laws. 23 References. Adapted from the source document.

This comprehensive reference examines the history and importance of youth participation in politics, suggests reasons for their disengagement, and discusses efforts to increase the interest of young voters in the political process--a process in which they could be a controlling factor.

"In this thought-provoking book, Paulo Ravecca presents a series of interlocking studies on the politics of political science in the Americas"--

The bad news is that critics of the quantitative movement in policy and political science are right (so far). Widely accepted quantitative models of politics promote cynicism and counter‐productive uses of government power. Mainstream social science provides a perverse basis for policy analysis. The good news is that there is no sound scientific reason for the schism between so called "empirical" and "normative" theories of politics. Traditional theories of politics, which show how government power can be used to serve the public interest, can be quantified and tested as empirical theory. The resulting scientific normative theory provides a constructive foundation for policy analysis.

Political science is in decline because it has become too focused on methodological precision, has lost contact with public policy, and recruits only among academics. To become more vital and relevant, it must use a wider range of methods, recover a voice on policy issues, and expect much more government experience from its recruits.

"Professor David Kettler commented at the time of initial release, that this book is "writing with great poise and clarity, the author says important things in a deceptively simple way about a problem of paramount significance. A fine piece of clarification, blending just the right mixture of respect and impiety toward the important heroes of contemporary political science, this is the kind of book I look forward to having available for our courses in political theory."Ideology, though long pronounced moribund, continues to play a central role in contemporary political inquiry. In this reevaluation of the true function of political science, the author lays down guidelines for the construction of fruitful political interpretations in the large areas where ideological assumptions and claims cannot be adequately tested. He analyzes two representative theories of power in American society-those of the "pluralists" who affirm and the "elitists" who dispute the case for democracy-and demonstrates how personal preferences and group-oriented interests enter into the development of these concepts. Speaking to all social scientists and students engaged in the study of political processes, Connolly details the methods by which the investigator-who inevitably brings his own beliefs and values to the task-can lay bare and control the ideological aspects of his own work and that of others.A critical examination of the writings of some of the leading figures in recent and contemporary political inquiry, such as Karl Mannheim, C. Wright Mills, Robert Dahl, Daniel Bell, and Seymour Martin Lipset leads him to assign a decisive role for the political scientist in the creation of carefully formulated ideologies. An original mind, drawing upon an exceptionally rich store of knowledge, has here produced an important book which will be of immediate-and challenging-relevance to the work and studies of all scholars, graduate students, and majors in the field"--Provided by publisher.

Each year we have the honor to publish an article version of the APSA Presidential Address. In the six years we have done this John Ishiyama is the first comparativist whose work we have featured in this capacity. He presently holds an appointment as University Distinguished Research Professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas. John has long been a fixture in the subfield of comparative politics for his contributions on democratization, political parties, and ethnic politics in both the post-Soviet region and Africa. He has also written extensively on teaching, publishing, and assessment in political science. He has published over 150 articles. And while the outlets and subject matter are too diverse to summarize succinctly, we do want to mention that "The Politics of Intercountry Adoption: Explaining Variation in the Legal Requirements of Sub-Saharan African Countries," coauthored with Marijke Breuning, won the 2010 APSA Heinz Eulau Award for Best Journal Article published in Perspectives on Politics during the previous year (2009).

What do political scientists study? As part of a larger project, we
coded every article in 25 leading journals between 2000 and 2007. We
then created a word cloud of the 6,005 titles using http://www.wordle.net. The 150 most-used words appear in
the word cloud. The size of each word is proportional to the number
of times the word is mentioned. Draw your own conclusions.