THE PROFESSION

defining political science:

a cross-national survey
ronald f. king a and cosmin gabriel marian b
a

Political Science Department, San Diego State University, San Diego,

CA 92182-4427, USA.
E-mail: rking@mail.sdsu.edu
b
Political Science Department, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania.
E-mail: marian@msu.edu
doi:10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210171

Abstract
It has been nearly two decades since Gabriel Almond observed that political
scientists tend to sit at separate tables. Surprisingly, there has been no
attempt to ask extensively among the members of the profession what
they actually believe about its essential meaning, purpose, and trajectory.
This paper is based on a questionnaire sent to faculty in more than 500
political science departments worldwide. Respondents were asked to
define political science, to list three works that best represent political
science as they understand it, and to give their views regarding what
political science will be over the next twenty years.

Keywords separate tables; political science, profession; political science,

epistomology; political scientists, influential

t has been nearly two decades since

Gabriel Almond observed that political scientists tend to sit at separate
tables (Almond, 1988). We have become, he argued, a discipline dominated
by disconnected schools and sects, each
defending its own conception of appropriate research, substantively and methodologically. Academic departments exist
allegedly as mere ad hoc collections of
scholars with little to unite them other
than the security of institutional tenure
and prestige. Academic discourse has far
too often evolved into self-affirming

admiration within discrete islands of

specialisation, and bitter accusation
across them. Despite Almonds call for
dominance by a cafeteria of the centre,
widespread debate persists in the
profession regarding the meaning of
political science, the object of our study,
and the quality of our contributions to
knowledge and to society.
In a celebrated roundtable discussion in
response to Almonds challenge, held at
the American Political Science Association
1989 annual convention, Kristen Monroe
asked the participants to consider
european political science: 7 2008

(207 219) & 2008 European Consortium for Political Research. 1680-4333/08 $30 www.palgrave-journals.com/eps

207

whether there was a core to contemporary political science. If so, what is it? If
not, does the absence matter? (Monroe,
1990). It is important to note that, while
the invited panellists shared their individual perceptions and offered clever
insights, none of them had undertaken
empirical analysis, surveying the range
of political scientists in the United States
and around the world. Almond, himself,
was speaking entirely from personal
impression when he characterised the
discipline as increasingly disjointed, fragmented, and frustrated. Moreover, we
know of no attempt that asks extensively
among the members of the profession
what they believe about its essential
meaning, purposes, and trajectory. Filling
this empirical gap is the intention of the
present paper.
The authors sent a brief questionnaire
electronically to political science faculty
from departments with a webpage accessible and in English listed by the UK
Political Studies Association (www.psa.
ac.uk). This included 307 departments in
the US, seventy-eight in the UK, seventyfour in Continental Europe, forty in Canada, twenty in Australasia, ten in Asia, and
nine in the Middle East. The original
sample included more than 8,500 individuals with ostensibly working e-mail
addresses. Of this total, 61 per cent were
scholars working in the US and 39 per
cent were scholars working outside the
US. The response rate was slightly greater than 1 per cent (n 88), representing
the number of completed questionnaires
returned and useable for coding.
We requested that our colleagues construct a brief statement presenting in
your own words your personal definition/
meaning of political science, reflecting the
way you understand and teach political
science. If there is some core to our
enterprise, it should be visible in the
commonalities and coherence among
the answers given by practicing, current
political scientists. We should also be able

208

european political science: 7 2008

defining political science

ywe know of no
attempt that asks
extensively among
the members of the
profession what they
believe about its
essential meaning,
purposes, and
trajectory
to discern from the answers whether, in
general, they are satisfied or dissatisfied
with the discipline as it has evolved in
recent years. As a supplemental question,
we requested that the respondents list
the three most important works that
have helped to give definition/meaning
to political science as you understand it.
Again, any essential disciplinary core
should be reflected by correlated answers, indicating general dependence
upon a common set of influential texts
and/or authors.
Finally, the Almond roundtable discussants in 1989 were asked regarding the
issues that will concern political scientists
over the next ten years. Professor Almond
remarked that he hoped the problem of
disciplinary unity would become a motivating priority. We thus included a parallel
question. We requested that the respondents offer their views regarding how
political science might be different 20
years into the future. The answers should
allow us to identify any predicted
probable direction, and to assess the
degree of expressed optimism or pessimism regarding the disciplinary future
(the only vaguely parallel study (Somit
and Tanenhaus, 1964) is long out-ofdate, included only American scholars,
asked relatively formulaic questions, and
did not permit open-ended responses).
Coding was performed by the two
authors of this paper cooperatively. The
coding schema in general was established

prior to the answers having been received

and read, although the categories were
refined and sharpened after analysing
some of the initial responses.
Unfortunately, the response rate to our
survey was well below anticipated. The
regional distribution of responses did
match the distribution in the sample
59 per cent of respondents with completed questionnaires (52 of 88) were
self-identified as working in the US.
Slightly more than 20 per cent of respondents worked in Western Europe (19 of
88), slightly fewer than 10 per cent
worked in the UK (seven of 88), and the
remainder were distributed widely across
the globe. Political scientists are busy and
cannot be expected to answer every
survey questionnaire that arrives in their
e-mail. The low response rate, however,
constrains our ability to generalise any
findings derived on the answers supplied.
Furthermore, while many seem to have
responded from a genuine sense of professional responsibility, we cannot dismiss the proposition that our colleagues
with intense existing predispositions were
especially likely to comment.
On the other hand, the good news is
that the responses submitted to our
questionnaire were, on the whole, quite
interesting and insightful. They were
coded into three categories very sophisticated, somewhat sophisticated, or
not especially sophisticated based on
the theoretical concepts used and the
elaboration of opinions presented. Nearly
half of all responses were very sophisticated in their articulated understanding
of the discipline, its current trajectory,
strengths, and weaknesses. Another
quarter of responses were coded as
somewhat sophisticated. There was no
appreciable difference in sophistication
for responses from scholars at US
universities versus those at non-US
universities. Many of the respondents
self-identified their research interests
within the various subfields of study;

there was no appreciable difference in

sophistication for respondents across
subfields. Many respondents also selfidentified themselves by academic rank.
The terms Professor, Associate Professor, Lecturer, etc. have different faculty
meanings in different institutional contexts, yet a comparison of results showed
no association between self-identified
academic rank and the sophistication of
responses provided.
The findings from our survey thus cannot be considered statistically valid because of the low response rate, and they
cannot be assumed as randomly distributed representations of opinion across the
target population. Nevertheless, they are
certainly illuminating and interesting to
read. They contain a number of carefully
considered remarks regarding the nature
and direction of political science as a
profession, the challenges before us, and
the value attached to our scholarly output.
For that reason alone, they deserve
serious attention.

THE MEANING OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE
The most obvious way to identify commonalities across the suggested meanings of political science is to search for
similar keywords and phrases. This is
easily done by computer. We found only
one noteworthy recurring word: power.
Political science is the systematic study
of the distribution of power in society.
Who gets power and how they wield
power are perennial questions.
Any definition of politics or political
science must focus on the centrality of
power.
An attempt to assess the nature of
power relationships.
Political science is the study of the
exercise of power.

ronald f. king and cosmin gabriel marian

european political science: 7 2008

209

Nearly 36 per cent of all responses utilised

the word, power. The complication is that
respondents used the word in substantially different ways for example, power
used for social or class domination; power
over state decision-making; legitimate
power through democratic elections;
power over citizens via law enforcement.
Moreover, some respondents clearly were
referring to power relations while not
using the word for example, obtaining
obedience from large groups, establishing
binding decisions for society, reinforcing
systematic arrangements of subordination
and superordination. The implication is
that a far more careful reading of responses is necessary in order to discover
any correspondence patterns across the
contributed definitions. In doing so, we will
make an elementary distinction between
the identified subject of political science
and the identified method of political
science.

THE SUBJECT OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE
Regarding the disciplinary subject, our
reading suggests three very different foci
among the responses emphasising
political science as the study of human
processes, as the study of government
institutions, and as the study of social
outcomes. Not every response can be
categorised effectively using these three
cells; some responses can be categorised
into more than one of them. Yet there are
sufficient differences across these types
of answers, often more implicit than
conscious and intentional, to justify treating them as separate and independent
dimensions.
The first focus identifies politics as a
distinct domain of personal interaction.
Individuals have preferences, ideals,
goals, and motivations. They engage in
conflict and/or cooperation in the pursuit
of those preferences, and utilise strategy
in order to advance those preferences.

210

european political science: 7 2008

defining political science

your reading suggests

three very different foci
among the responses
emphasizing political
science as the study of
human processes; as
the study of government
institutions; and as
the study of social
outcomes
They accept mutual engagement as a
process of fashioning collective decisions.
Whether those decisions and the influences upon them are biased or balanced,
the activity of politics works to construct
both personal and societal identity, shaping the kind of world in which we will live
and the kinds of persons we will become
in that world. This is a conception of
political science that emphasises underlying political psychology and observable
political behaviour. Politics is a realm of
social conflict, of essentially contested
interactions among individuals and
groups pursuing contrary objectives. As
such, it need not be narrowly confined to
formal state structures, but exists more
broadly over a wide range of social
institutions. Approximately one-quarter
of total responses included a perspective
of this sort.
Political science, in contrast to economics, is the domain of non-market decision-making, and necessarily deals with
the issues of preference aggregation.
Political lifeyis constituted by sets of
human interactionsyfound as a multiple
aspect of human life and society.
Political science is a means to understandythe processes, activities, and
behaviors that occur across the political
system and its components.

As I practice itypolitical inquiry is the

study of these contested processes of
social self-productionywith a critical
eye toward relations of power and
domination.
Public means of interest aggregation
are among the objects of political study,
but so are the exercises of influence
outside the public sphere.
Politicsyis tied tightly to social conflict
which occurs at all levels of society and
at all times.
The second focus among the respondents
identifies the subject of political science
more narrowly, centred upon a distinct
and special arena within social life. Allegedly, we study the public as opposed to
the private sector; the state as comprised
by its formal/informal constitution and
various institutions; the government with
its officials, functions, norms, routines,
influences, and effects on society. This is
a definition that accords with Eastons
dictum, that political science is concerned
with the authoritative allocation of values,
given a pronounced accent on the role of
authority in making the allocations. The
state establishes, implements, and interprets the law. Its edicts carry inherent
legitimacy and are enforced as binding
decisions. The state rules over a specified
territory and recognises certain individuals
as having citizenship. It establishes distinct
channels for participation, and certain
required approvals as necessary for valid
policy-making. Political science therefore is
concerned not with a kind of activity, but
instead with a social location, a place
where certain kinds of decisions occur.
Approximately 45 per cent of total responses included a perspective of this sort.
It is the science about how government
behaves and the impacts of government
decisions. As for government, I
mean both the institutions and the
individuals who are in charge of the
government.

Political science to me concerns the

input, conversion, output and outcome
side of the state in all its manifestations.
We study the actions and interactions of
institutions that make collectively-binding decisions, namely governments.
Political science is the scientific inquiry
intoythe institutionalization, functions,
effects, norms and behaviour of the
bodies engaged in authoritative decision-making.
It is the study of how societies govern
themselves. How do they define power,
responsibility, citizenship? What institutions have they set up to manage their
polity? How do those institutions interact, and how does the society train its
citizens to take part in government?
Political science investigates the intervening structure between citizens and
the general will in forms of constitutions, parliaments, electoral laws, parties, and domestic and international
institutions.
Political science is the systematic study
of actors, institutions, and processes
relating to the state; i.e., the organization with a legal monopoly on the use of
coercion within a given area.
The third focus among respondents identifies the subject of political science not in
terms of the process or location of politics, but instead in terms of its products.
Approximately one-quarter of total responses were coded as including this
general category. Some emphasised the
non-market provision of public and collective goods, items not supplied by
private market competitive forces. Some
mentioned comparative study to understand differences in policy outcomes
across regimes. Others referred to
Lasswells definition of politics based on
the assigned distribution of benefits and
costs.

ronald f. king and cosmin gabriel marian

european political science: 7 2008

211

Political science is the study of politics.

Politics is the distribution of important
things who gets them, in what proportion, when, how, and with what
justification.
To me, being a political scientist means
being interested in who gets what and
why (in all sorts of societies).
Yet most of the respondents who explicitly linked political science to political
outcomes instead emphasised normative
rather than empirical themes. Political
scientists allegedly have an obligation to
engage contemporary issues, to educate
citizens, and to investigate and promote
the common good.
I believe the task of political science is
both reactive, namely making sense of
events in the real world, and pro-active
(or normative), suggesting ways to
improve the organization of political
life, in Aristotelian terms to search for
the good life.
To contend with the larger questions of
policy and the good society.
After describing what political phenomena is occurring and why, the third goal
is to evaluate political processes
against some normative standards of
judgment.
A responsible science of politics should
be concerned to promote political
health and a robust civic life, while
diagnosing and seeking remedies for
political pathology.
Some respondents mentioned explicit
social goals to be promoted freedom,
self-determination, escaping war, oppression, and tyranny. Surprisingly, few
among those emphasising the practical
obligations of political science could be
identified easily as sitting on the political
right (e.g., referring to Greek ideals
of civic justice) or the political left
(e.g., referring to hegemonic domination

212

european political science: 7 2008

defining political science

against the possibilities for mass empowerment).

THE METHOD OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE
Approximately half of all respondents
included in their definitions of political
science explicit reference to methodological issues. By folding in the answers
supplied to the other questions in the
survey, we were able to clarify and code
approximately two-thirds of respondents
regarding their opinions on methodology
and its importance to the discipline. The
assertions here tended to be somewhat
more impassioned and polemical, compared to those addressing substantive
issues. We sorted the responses into
three categories those that stressed
methodological pluralism and diversity,
those that stressed formal modelling and
rigorous testing, and those that stressed
humanistic studies, usually accompanied
by a condemnation of excess quantification and the pretence of science.
Nearly one-quarter of total responses
can be assigned to the first category,
understanding political science as a complex field that requires a number of
diverse methodological approaches. It is
a big tent, wrote one respondent, able to
hold various kinds of scholars and theoreticians under one roof. It is like a tavern
in old days, wrote another, filled with
different travellers all in pursuit of effective knowledge. To some, the good scholar is comfortable working in various
methodologies. To others, the good department achieves broad representation
among them. Allegedly, the profession is
eclectic. Some topics might be amenable
to a more scientific approach and others
less so. There are many ways to generate
political insight, respondents taking this
approach seem to claim, and we should
be more concerned with the value of the
insight than the technique by which it was
reached.

Methods for study vary, depending on

the particular topic, availability of information, and other circumstances.
It encompasses a variety of methodological approaches, including historical,
philosophical, and quantitative.
There are a variety of ways in which
politics can be studied: through the
gathering of evidence and rigorous
testing of models in order to understand
causal relations between political
events, or through contextualized interpretation of meanings of political acts
and discourses, or through critical,
even deconstructive unmasking of
power relations.
I do believe that political science must
be analytical and open to evidence of
many different kinds.
Slightly more than one-quarter of responses can be assigned to the second
category, those giving serious weight to
the science of political science. The object
is sophisticated empirical inquiry, using
rigorous epistemological standards to
establish robust causal linkages and reveal the systematic patterns that exist
across separate observations. Some of
the responses placed in this category
emphasised positivist methods, mathematical expressions, and nomothetic conclusions.
Others
emphasised
the
importance of theoretical model-building
to avoid mindless number-crunching. Virtually all in this category insisted on the
need to go beyond mere description and
interpretation, in the pursuit of formalisation, generalisation, explanation, and
prediction. Allegedly, our scholarship
must rest upon a firm methodological
insistence regarding precise hypothesis
specification, variable operationalisation,
measurement, and testing. This is what
gives discipline to our discipline. Otherwise we risk falling victim to impressionistic commentary and private opinion.
The value of political science, to under-

stand and possibly affect the political

world, depends on its scientific commitment. Rigorous and systematic study
provides the foundations necessary for
any valid contribution to knowledge.
Application of the scientific method to
political data. This requires testable
theory development, specification of
hypotheses that would test the theory,
and use of data (quantitative or otherwise) to test the hypotheses.
Using scientific methods to understand
politics and draw inferences about
cause and effect in political life. Research should be question-driven, with
cycles of deduction and induction, hypothesis generation and hypothesis
testing.
Political science is a discipline whose
practitioners are engaged in the search
for methods of empirical inquiry that
will provide replicable refutation (or
validation) of non-trivial propositions
and generalizations about the political
process and political institutions.
Political science largely adheres to the
standards of scientific methodythat
emphasizes theory development and
hypothesis testingyThese standards
place higher value on prediction than
description.
The least number of responses, less than
one-fifth of the total, can be coded as
falling into the third category, which
identifies political science as a humanistic
pursuit that is diverted and distorted by
the pretence of scientific method. Allegedly, empirical research is somewhat
myopic and crude, confined solely to what
can be easily observed and measured.
Useful political commentary, by contrast,
needs to interpret and not just report
reality. Proper political analysis should
attend to reasons, motives, concepts
and meanings, not all of which are conscious among the actors. Responsible

ronald f. king and cosmin gabriel marian

european political science: 7 2008

213

political scholarship must probe beneath

and beyond present relationships, questioning received wisdom and proposing
visions of social improvement. The responses in this category often were
among the most aggressive in tone,
expressing a frustration with political
science in its current format. The articulated fear is that we have become a
discipline of superficial understanding
and irrelevant scholarship, neglecting
the critical issues affecting real political
societies.
I place political science into the Humanities; thus I believe it is not, nor should
it aim to be a hard science working
with closed models for the purpose
of generating predictions and policy
advice.
Social sciences seek to understand not
just behavior but also the role of ideas,
reasons, and social structures, and
hence political science needs to avoid
relying merely on observational methods and put adequate emphasis on
conceptual and interpretive inquiry.
I am deeply skeptical about the whole
notion of political science. Whereas
there are few areas of political life that
obviously are measurable, many are
not; and even those aspects that
are measurable do not always follow
law-like relationships.
I avoid the term it gives aid and
comfort to those who practice what
might more appropriately be referred
to as political pseudo-science. I prefer
the expression political studies, which
I see as informed reflection upon
current and historical political issues.
A quixotic attempt to apply the tools of
the natural sciences to the complexities
of the realm of politics. A perverse form
of physics envy.
We cross-tabulated the various meanings
of political science by country and by

214

european political science: 7 2008

defining political science

subfield within the profession. By country,

scholars working in the United States
were slightly more likely to define political
science methodologically as a rigorous
science, whereas those working outside
of the United States were more evenly
divided among the three categories.
Scholars working outside the United
States were slightly more likely to define
political science substantively as focused
on the state as an institution, whereas
those working in the United States were
more evenly divided among the categories. By subfield, political theorists
were slightly less likely to define political
science methodologically as a rigorous
science. International relations specialists were slightly less likely to define
political science substantively in terms of
the institutional state whereas American
politics specialists were slightly more
likely to define political science as a
behavioural process. The findings are in
the directions expected. Nevertheless, in
all cases, the differences are relatively
small. It should be remembered, however, that these various meanings of
political science and the observed distributional patterns among them reflect
only the answers submitted to our questionnaire; they cannot be generalised
automatically as indicative of opinion
across the political science profession at
large.

WORKS THAT GIVE

DEFINITION TO POLITICAL
SCIENCE
Respondents were asked to list the three
most important works that have helped to
give definition/meaning to the phrase,
political science, as they understand it.
Not all respondents submitted a list of
works; not all who submitted works
recommended three. Because of complications regarding exact wording, especially for titles in translation or published
by multiple sources, we report our

findings in terms of authors. Of 212 total

submissions, we found 132 different
authors listed (multiple-authored works
were counted as one authorship). The
absence of overlap is quite remarkable.
Of the authors whose works were listed
more than once, the greatest number are
classical political philosophers Aristotle
(nine times), Machiavelli (eight), Plato
(six), Max Weber (five), Hobbes (three).
Some of the other philosophers mentioned included Thucydides, Marx, Hegel,
Rousseau, Montesquieu, Locke, Mannheim, Gramsci, and Adorno. Among
more contemporary political theorists,
Wolin (three times), Connolly (two), and
Rawls (two) appeared more than once.
There is some sense of established
cannon with respect to political theory.
Virtually all students in the profession are
trained upon the great books. No such
commonality exists in other fields of
the discipline.
Harold Lasswell and David Easton were
each mentioned six times by respondents. This is not surprising, as they are
the authors of the two most often cited
phrases used to define political science.
Gabriel Almonds name appeared seven
times, but only once for his commentary
about the state of the discipline. Of the
many other methodological commentators cited Popper, Lakatos, Feyerabend,
King-Keohane-Verba, Kuhn, Brady-Collier, Gerring, Ricci, Przeworski-Teune no
name occurred more than twice. Of all the
rational choice commentators cited, Mancur Olsen (six times), Anthony Downs
(three), and Thomas Schilling (two) were
the only names found repeated.
An enormous number of scholars of
comparative politics were mentioned
including Duverger, Ostrogorski, Sartori,
Rokkan, Rothstein, Huntington, Schmitter, Berger, Polanyi, Inglehart, Skocpol,
Gourevitch, and Powell. Yet only AlmondVerba (four times), Barrington Moore
(four), James Scott (three), and Albert
Hirshman (two) were referenced more

What is remarkable
is the enormous number
of works and authors
submitted by our
respondents as
representative of the
meaning and purpose
of professional political
science. The absence
of coincidence for the
submitted lists is
dramaticy
than once. A similar result was found for
American politics. James Madison was
listed three times. Of all the other names
submitted, only Robert Dahl (seven
times), Campbell-Converse-Miller-Stokes
(four), E.E. Schattschneider (four), and
V.O. Key (three) received more than one
mention. Of all the cited contributors to
the international relations subfield, no
scholar received more than one mention.
Of the cited contributors to public policy
and public administration, no scholar
received more than one mention.
There is a fine line between diversity
and disorganisation. What is remarkable
is the enormous number of works and
authors submitted by our respondents as
representative of the meaning and purpose of professional political science. The
absence of coincidence for the submitted
lists is dramatic, not just across the
subfields of the discipline but within them
as well. On the one hand, this suggests
the complexity of politics as a subject for
academic study and the creativity of
contemporary scholars as they seek to
analyse and understand this complexity.
On the other hand, it suggests the potential absence of a central intellectual core
upon which students are trained and
new knowledge is built. For the political

ronald f. king and cosmin gabriel marian

european political science: 7 2008

215

science profession, this has been a topic

of concern ever since Almond explicitly
raised the issue of separate tables
almost two decades ago. Our final question thus asked respondents to comment
about the future for the discipline. The
object is to discover whether or not they
anticipate greater convergence, and the
degree to which this matters.

THE FUTURE OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE
The exact wording of the question was to
present your own views regarding what
political science will be over the next 20
years. While most respondents predicted
change, a little more than 10 per cent said
that the future of political science would
be like its present. These offered, however, quite different perspectives regarding the disciplinary features allegedly that
will remain constant. To some, it will still
be a science that contributes usefully to
the analysis of political phenomena. To
others, it will persist in the current
pseudo-scientific cult of triviality and
irrelevance practiced by tenured academicians who ignore the issues critical to
modern society. Coded here were also the
respondents who prophesised continuation of the ongoing professional debate
within our magpie discipline, with periodic cycles that raise certain topics or
techniques into fashion or drop them from
interest. Some seemed annoyed, while
others enjoyed watching how islands of
concurrence will appear and disappear in
a fog-shrouded sea of controversy.
A similar range of disagreement afflicted the respondents anticipating
change over the next 20 years. Most
optimistic were those who foresaw the
profession shifting to include new voices
and new substantive concerns. More than
one-quarter of responses believe that the
study of political science will be influenced
by events occurring in the real world.
They envision the profession attending

216

european political science: 7 2008

defining political science

increasingly to such issues as globalisation, migration, environmental change,

democratisation, terrorism, failed states,
biological engineering, social capital,
internet participation, human rights, world
health, nuclear proliferation, religious and
ethnic political movements. Some predict
somewhat greater focus upon non-state
actors and non-profit institutions. Some
note that globalisation will lead to increased concern with non-western political arenas, since 61 per cent of the
planets people live in Asia, although
nothing like that portion of political
science has been devoted to study of that
continent. The composition of the discipline might even shift as political science
departments are established and develop
in more countries than today. The discipline will become less Euro- and American-centred as people from other regions
will have more and more influence on how
politics is understood and studied.
Inherent to all such comments is the
suggestion that political science, albeit in
quite different ways, is adaptive and
responsive in its analysis of contemporary
politics, as opposed to inflexible and
negligent. At the other extreme were
those pessimists who see the profession
as inherently institutionalised, bureaucratic, and rigid. The future direction of
political science, wrote one respondent,
will be determined by the sources of
available funding. Government pressure
and the corporatisation of the university,
wrote another, will stifle more original and
dissenting approaches. Political science
allegedly can be viewed as an organised
practice undertaken by professors and
students who respect and mutually recognise each other as belonging to a
specific academic label. Trained in and
legitimated by their formal identity, according to this viewpoint, political scientists are biased strongly toward adopting
and rewarding the established standards
for acceptable research, forms of discourse, divisions among subfields, and

venues for publication, all of which constrain our ability to offer meaningful
intellectual and social contributions.
Opinion is similarly divided for those
responses that emphasised methodological rather than substantive developments. More than a quarter of total
respondents predict increased domination within political science by scientific
ideals, formal models, and statistical
techniques. To some, this would be a
disagreeable occurrence, leading to
research that will be abstruse, sterile,
inaccurate, and out of touch with reality.
Political science will increasingly move
toward methodological homogeneity
focused on quantitative and mathematical approaches to the study of politics.
Description and understanding of political institutions and political dynamics
will be increasingly devaluedy.With
the increasing hegemony of these
methods, political science will become
less and less relevant to the popular
political discourse, political commentators, and policy makers.
To others, this would be a desirable occurrence, for an increasing reliance upon
assumptions, models, empirical tests,
and proofs will add sophistication to our
studies, incorporate modern technologies,
and make the findings more objective, selfconscious, authoritative, and influential.
On the other hand, about one-sixth of
respondents predict reduced emphasis
upon quantitative political science. Again,
some foresee this as a positive development, toward the acceptance of various
non-empiricist theoretical understandings of the political. Others foresee it
more negatively, as relaxing professional
safeguards against bias, prejudice, and
personal opinion.
Political science is likely to become less
rigorous and more partisan in the next
two decades. The field seems to be
becoming more ideological and less
analytical as time passes.

Finally, we reviewed all the submitted

responses to distinguish those believing
that political science will become more
coherent and united over time, from
those asserting that it will become more
dispersed and divergent. Nearly 30 per
cent of respondents explicitly asserted
the latter; another 10 per cent indirectly
implied persistent differences within the
discipline. Emerging unity was explicitly
asserted by none of the respondents; it
was implied by some in the course of their
condemnation of mathematical hegemony within the profession or in their
celebration of improved integration of the
theoretical and empirical forms of study.
The predominant sort of answer was thus
of the following type:
I think that, broadly speaking, political
science as a field of research will
grow in importance vis-a
`-vis other
disciplines, and that understandings
regarding the meaning and purposes
of political science will become more
diverse.
A large, diffuse field held loosely together by a fascination with the political
and debates about what politics is and
how best to study it.
Absent a schism, which I expect in the
future, political science will become
increasingly fragmented and fractionalized, divided by method and intellectual orientationsy. I expect these
trends to continue, and the result to
be an increasingly rancorous internal
kulturkampf.
Political science will be as divided a
discipline as it is today, with different
people pursuing different methodologies to answer some of the enduring
questions in politics.
Political science will be more highly
polarized along political views than ever
previously.

ronald f. king and cosmin gabriel marian

european political science: 7 2008

217

Political science was never a discipline

with clearly defined boundaries to
other disciplinesyand I think these
boundaries will become even fuzzier.
The discipline will be more divided.
There will be differences about theoretical approaches, methodology, and
motivation to conduct research.
The main disagreement is the degree to
which such separation within political
science is harmful or not. According to
one respondent, Political science is a
house semi-divided, which is both a
strength and a weakness. For some,
there is virtue in the plurality of approaches that comprise contemporary
political science, as we learn increasingly
to tolerate these different perspectives
and to translate between them. It is only
through inclusion and understanding that
the profession can address adequately
the complexity of political life and appreciate the multiple forms of investigation. For others, by contrast, there is
danger inherent to pervasive acrimony,
as it deflects our attention from the pursuit of knowledge, toward scholastic and
confusing internal paradigm battles of
interest to none but ourselves. Members
of the former group indicate confidence
about the ability of political science to
manage its diversity. Members of the
latter worry that no overriding synthesis
across divergent perspectives is now in
sight. While these are not irreconcilable
positions, a respondent concluded, they
are not currently reconciled, and the next
twenty years will probably be consumed
with this effort.

CONCLUSION
There is nothing unique to the claim that
political science is a disparate discipline.
There is no established concurrence regarding the boundaries of the field and its
internal subdivisions, regarding the subject matter to be investigated and the

218

european political science: 7 2008

defining political science

In general, there
seemed to be only
limited insistence upon
the quest for
overarching unity
within political
science
methods appropriate for that investigation, regarding the core works produced and the central findings achieved,
regarding the intellectual purpose of our
enterprise and trajectory we should be
pursuing. This disjunction is clearly visible
in the retrospectives published on the
current state of the discipline (Greenstein
and Polsby, 1975; Finifter, 1993; Goodin
and Klingemann, 1996; Katznelson and
Milner, 2002), in the various histories of
the discipline (Dryzek and Leonard,
1988), and even in proposals for an
effective
undergraduate
curriculum
(Wahlke, 1991). It is a topic of regular
commentary and assessment, some of
which are deeply incisive and articulate.
The contribution of this article is that it
reports how members of the political
science profession from a number of
academic departments in a number of
different countries speak for themselves, in their own words. Given the
importance of the topic, the surprise is
that there exists no similar effort to the
best of our knowledge.
The response rate to our questionnaire
unfortunately was too low to permit valid
generalisation to the initial sample and its
underlying population. Nevertheless, the
qualitative analysis of the data is noteworthy, revealing how certain of our
colleagues wish to express themselves
about political science and the political
science profession. The respondents were
articulate and often impassioned in their
answers, as they characterised their chosen field of academic study. There was

also a strong normative component to the

answers supplied. Many respondents
were prescribing what they wanted
political science to become, not just
describing what it has become. There
were clear disagreements, only part of
which concerned methodology. With
regard to Almonds assertion of separate
tables, the respondents are visibly
diverse when addressing the substantive
meaning of political science, the future
direction of political science, and the
authors whose works give definition to
the field. There was some indication of
hard and soft positions; less indication
of left and right. Some of the respondents were intentionally combative; more

appeared resolved, even respectful, of

different perspectives. In general, there
seemed to be only limited insistence upon
the quest for overarching unity within
political science. The propensity to dispute apparently does not contradict the
willingness to include.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We express our thanks to colleagues
at San Diego State University (USA)
and Babes-Bolyai University (Romania),
and to the Council for the International
Exchange of Scholars whose support was
responsible for the conversation out of
which this project grew.

References
Almond, G.A. (1988) Separate tables: schools and sects in political science, PS: Political Science and
Politics 21: 828842.
Dryzek, J.S. and Leonard, S.T. (1988) History and discipline in political science, American Political
Science Review 82: 12451260.
Finifter, A.W. (ed.) (1993) Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, Washington, DC, American
Political Science Association.
Goodin, R.E. and Klingemann, H.-D. (eds.) (1996) New Handbook of Political Science, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Greenstein, F.I. and Polsby, N.W. (eds.) (1975) The Handbook of Political Science, Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Katznelson, I. and Milner, H.W. (eds.) (2002) Political Science: The State of the Discipline, Centennial
Edition, New York: W.W. Norton.
Monroe, K. (ed.) (1990) The nature of contemporary political science: a roundtable discussion, PS:
Political Science and Politics 23: 3443.
Somit, A. and Tanenhaus, J. (1964) American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline, New York:
Atherton Press.
Wahlke, J.C. (1991) Liberal learning and the political science major: a report to the profession, PS:
Political Science and Politics 43: 4860.

About the Authors

Ronald F. King is currently Professor and Chair of the Political Science Department at San Diego
State University. His research focuses on US politics and policies, and his most recent papers
have concerned the expansion and contraction of democratic rights over time.
Cosmin Gabriel Marian is lector universitar (Assistant Professor) in the departamentul de stiinte
politice, Universitatea Babes-Bolyai of Cluj-Napoca, Romania. His field of specialisation is
research methods in the social sciences.

ronald f. king and cosmin gabriel marian

european political science: 7 2008

219