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.