Suchergebnisse

Traditionally, the scientific study of politics has been associated with a value-neutral 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? & 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, & the third a matter normally reserved for political philosophy. All are necessary components of a relevant & useful political science discipline.

Can the WTO survive the US-China trade rivalry? Is the Russia-Ukraine war the beginning of the end of the multilateral trade regime? And how can Europe respond to these tensions?

Does power corrupt or are corrupt people drawn to power? Are tyrants the products of bad systems or are they just bad people? And why do we give power to awful people?

This seminar brings together three speakers involved with previous high profile inquiries: Lord Phillips, chair of the BSE Inquiry (1998-2000); Sir Brian Leveson, chair of the Inquiry into Press Regulation (2011-12); and Margaret Aldred, secretary of the Iraq Inquiry (2009-16) chaired by the late Sir John Chilcot.

Introduction to the Symposium by Thibaud Boncourt The following contributions stem from a roundtable held in Poznan, Poland in July 2016 at the International Political Science Association's Congress. The roundtable was put together by IPSA's Research Committee 33, which focuses on the history of political science as a discipline. Contributors produced a stimulating debate on Robert Adcock's award winning Liberalism and the Emergence of Political Science: A Transatlantic Tale. As its title suggests, this important book weaves two narratives together. First, it sheds a new light on the history of liberalism, by highlighting the way in which liberal political thought changed between the early 19th century and the early 20th century. Adcock highlights the transition from "democratised classical liberalism" to alternative conceptions of the liberal tradition such as "progressive liberalism" and "disenchanted classical liberalism". Second, the book documents the history of the emergence of American political science. By studying the pioneers of this discipline, Adcock analyses the progressive spread and institutionalisation of political science in America until the landmark creation of the American Political Science Association (APSA, 1903). These two stories are interesting in themselves but what makes Adcock's argument more so is that he weaves these two trends together. He shows convincingly how the development of one of the biggest political discourses and the institutionalisation of political science fuelled one another. By linking the history of the discipline to that of political power, Adcock's impressive study resonates with other great work on the subject such as those of Sonja Amadae (2003) and Nicolas Guilhot (2005). Another of the book's strengths lies in the choice of adopting a transatlantic perspective. In line with recent literature, Adcock goes beyond narratives of intellectual history as shaped by "national traditions" to emphasise the transnational exchanges that shape the history of political thought. Thus, Adcock first traces the history of liberalism in Europe, before analysing how it was imported in American academia. The book tells the story of the "Americanisation" of liberalism, understood as the way in which European liberal beliefs were adapted by American scholars to address American political and economic realities. In order to discuss several aspects of this stimulating, multi-layered book, the roundtable gathered specialists in the history of political thought, history of political science as a discipline, and the internationalisation of the social sciences. The following three contributions raise some of the topics that were discussed at the roundtable, as well as new ones. Robert Adcock's rejoinder discusses these topics by expanding on the book's argument.

Political historians traditionally privileged the political activities of men and masculine political institutions. This vision of political history was revised from the early 1970s, first by "women's history" and later due to the influence of the "gender turn". The latter encompassed a recognition that conceptions of masculinity and femininity contribute to the shaping of political power. Both developments challenged but ultimately reinvigorated political history. However, as this article will argue, political history and feminist history remain to an extent quarantined from one another, despite the radical potential for feminist scholarship to change the way politics is conceived.

Dear Colleague:This letter provides information about a recompetition of the American National Election Studies (ANES).