The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political Science

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 673-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin R. Graham ◽  
Charles R. Shipan ◽  
Craig Volden
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Policy Diffusion ◽  
Network Analyses ◽  
The Past ◽  
Political Science Journals

Over the past fifty years, top political science journals have published hundreds of articles about policy diffusion. This article reports on network analyses of how the ideas and approaches in these articles have spread both within and across the subfields of American politics, comparative politics and international relations. Then, based on a survey of the literature, the who, what, when, where, how and why of policy diffusion are addressed in order to identify and assess some of the main contributions and omissions in current scholarship. It is argued that studies of diffusion would benefit from paying more attention to developments in other subfields and from taking a more systematic approach to tackling the questions of when and how policy diffusion takes place.

Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis of International, American, and Comparative Politics

1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen V. Milner
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International System ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Strategic Interactions ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Separate Discipline

International relations has often been treated as a separate discipline distinct from the other major fields in political science, namely American and comparative politics. A main reason for this distinction has been the claim that politics in the international system is radically different from politics domestically. The degree of divergence between international relations (IR) and the rest of political science has waxed and waned over the years; however, in the past decade it seems to have lessened. This process has occurred mainly in the “rationalist research paradigm,” and there it has both substantive and methodological components. Scholars in this paradigm have increasingly appreciated that politics in the international realm is not so different from that internal to states, and vice versa. This rationalist institutionalist research agenda thus challenges two of the main assumptions in IR theory. Moreover, scholars across the three fields now tend to employ the same methods. The last decade has seen increasing cross-fertilization of the fields around the importance of institutional analysis. Such analysis implies a particular concern with the mechanisms of collective choice in situations of strategic interaction. Some of the new tools in American and comparative politics allow the complex, strategic interactions among domestic and international agents to be understood in a more systematic and cumulative way.

Politics: American and Non-American

1984 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 545-548
Author(s):  
Suzanne Berger
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
American Politics ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
The Past ◽  
Foreign Governments

Tocqueville, considering how Americans compare their nation with others, observed that general ideas about politics testify to the weakness of human intelligence. “The Deity does not regard the human race collectively.… Such is, however, not the case with man. … Having superficially considered a certain number of objects, and remarked their resemblance, he assigns to them a common name, sets them apart, and proceeds onwards.”As it is for human beings, so, too, for political scientists. And of the generalizations which have helped Americans and American political scientists organize the confusing mass of differences and similarities between this country and others, none has been more important and enduring than the notion of the uniqueness of the American political community. This conception is reflected in the split within the discipline between those who study the U.S. political system and those who study comparative politics, a field understood to encompass various foreign countries. The rubric that in theAmerican Political Science Reviewuntil the 1950s used to read “Foreign Governments and Politics” has been replaced by a subsection of the book reviews that is entitled “Comparative Politics.” But today as in the past, it is rare to find teaching or research in political science that truly integrates the analysis of American politics within a comparative framework.Why this should remain the case is difficult to understand, for over the past half-century there have been many shifts in the discipline and in the world that challenged the premises of research based on American exceptionalism. Already in the interwar period, significant work in political science was moving beyond configurative case studies of individual countries. C. J. Friedrich's importantConstitutional Government and Democracy(1937), indeed, included the United States in its examination of how well certain general political theories explained the experiences of major political systems. Whatever reservations one might have had about the methodologies of comparative research on which Friedrich relied, the broad influence of his work promised a new integration of American politics into an expanded field of comparative politics.

Structures Do Not Come with an Instruction Sheet: Interests, Ideas, and Progress in Political Science

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 695-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Blyth
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Historical Institutionalism ◽  
The Past ◽  
Instruction Sheet

This article questions the centrality of interest-based explanation in political science. Through an examination of the “turn to ideas” undertaken in the past decade by rationalist and nonrationalist scholars in both comparative politics and international relations, it seeks to make three points. First, interests are far from the unproblematic and ever-ready explanatory instruments we assume them to be. Second, the ideational turn of historical institutionalism and constructivist international relations theory marks a substantive theoretical shift in the field precisely because it problematizes notions of action that take interest as given. Third, such scholarship emerged from, and in reaction to, the inherent limits of rationalist treatments of interests and ideas. That it did so suggests that progress in the discipline may be more dialectic—rather than linear or paradigmatic—than we realize.

Biology and Political Science. By Robert H. Blank and Samuel M. Hines, Jr. New York: Routledge, 2001. 183p. $80.00.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-799
Author(s):  
John Strate
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Equal Importance ◽  
Political Science Journals

What is biopolitics? The authors are well-published scholars in this field, and their answer to this question supplied in this book should give hope to those who are disappointed with the direction and progress of political science. Many of the questions about politics that biopolitics addresses were first asked by ancient political philosophers, such as Aristotle. The field of biopolitics, however, is only 30 or 40 years old. Over that time the field has strengthened its institutional base. Of equal importance, it has produced a growing body of scholarship in such fields as political theory, comparative politics and international relations, methodology, political behavior and decision making, and public administration and public policy. Unfortunately, largely because the field is interdisciplinary, only a small portion of this scholarship has been published in the major political science journals, so that most political scientists and other social scientists are largely unaware of what this field is and what it has to offer.

scholarly journals Geographical Coverage in Political Science Research

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Matthew Charles Wilson ◽  
Carl Henrik Knutsen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North America ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strong Focus ◽  
Political Science Journals

We describe and analyze patterns in the geographical focus of political science research across more than a century. Using a new database of titles and abstracts from 27,690 publications in eight major political science journals from their inception, we demonstrate that, historically, political scientists concentrated their studies on a limited number of countries situated in North America and Western Europe. While a strong focus on Western countries remains today, we detail how this picture has changed somewhat over recent decades, with political science research becoming increasingly “globalized.” Still, several countries have received almost no attention, and geographical citation patterns differ by subfield. For example, we find indications of a greater focus on the United States and large Western European countries in international relations than in comparative politics publications. We also analyze several correlates of a country being the focus of political science research, including the country’s predominant languages, income, population size, democracy level, and conflict experience, and show systematic variation in the geographical focus of research. This unequal focus, we argue, has important implications regarding the applicability of extant descriptive and causal claims, as well as the development of theories in political science.

scholarly journals The Communication of Ideas across Subfields in Political Science

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (02) ◽  
pp. 468-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin R. Graham ◽  
Charles R. Shipan ◽  
Craig Volden
Keyword(s):  
Network Analysis ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Diffusion Processes ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Levels Of Integration

ABSTRACTWhat factors inhibit or facilitate cross-subfield conversations in political science? This article draws on diffusion scholarship to gain insight into cross-subfield communication. Diffusion scholarship represents a case where such communication might be expected, given that similar diffusion processes are analyzed in American politics, comparative politics, and international relations. We identify nearly 800 journal articles published on diffusion within political science between 1958 and 2008. Using network analysis we investigate the degree to which three “common culprits”—terminology, methodological approach, and journal type—influence levels of integration. We find the highest levels of integration among scholars using similar terms to describe diffusion processes, sharing a methodological approach (especially in quantitative scholarship), and publishing in a common set of subfield journals. These findings shed light on when cross-subfield communication is likely to occur with ease and when barriers may prove prohibitive.

The Second Great Debate Revisited: Exploring the Impact of the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide in International Relations

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-476
Author(s):  
Quan Li
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Recent Decade ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Academic Communities ◽  
Great Debate ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Political Science Journals

Abstract Half a century after the “Second Great Debate” in international relations (IR) started, scholars still perceive the qualitative versus quantitative division as their principal divide, and yet we do not have a good grasp of the impact of this divide. My research explores how the divide shaped the incentives and behaviors of scholars and influenced the organization of our academic communities and knowledge production. The impact of the divide expressed itself in the distribution of research among methodologies in terms of relative quantity and impact. Less obviously, and yet more importantly, the divide influenced the distribution of quantitative research among different institution types, across fields and journals, and with respect to policy engagement. Using the TRIP database of 7,792 IR articles in twelve top journals from 1980 to 2014, I classify journal articles into three categories—quantitative-only, qualitative-only, and mixed-methods—and categorize author institutions into similar types—publishing quantitative research only, producing nonquantitative work only, and publishing various proportions of quantitative research. Notably, qualitative and quantitative works switched positions over time in terms of relative quantity and impact, with quantitative research more likely published but only slightly more cited in the recent decade. More importantly, the divide produced other less obvious but more serious outcomes. Among 1,111 institutions that ever published IR research in twelve top journals over thirty-five years, two-thirds published nonquantitative research only; fifty-three institutions published more than half of all quantitative articles; institutions publishing quantitative-only or nonquantitative-only research constituted two modal categories. Political science journals published more quantitative research, persistently and with growing convergence; IR journals also evolved toward publishing more quantitative research though with persistent divergence and forming two clusters. Quantitative articles and political science journals were significantly less engaged in providing policy prescriptions than qualitative articles and IR journals. To overcome this lasting and self-perpetuating divide, we must better understand its impact, learn to appreciate alternative approaches, and change the way we train future scholars.

Studying Contemporary Europe

2000 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Wallace
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Review Article ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
Opening Up

The study of contemporary Europe has attracted growing attention in mainstream political science and international relations. Both studies of the European Union and cross-country comparisons of various political phenomena in different European countries are beginning to enrich our understanding of the process and limitations of integration. This growth of interest has also been stimulated by the opening up of central and eastern Europe which has encouraged scholars to address the issues of transformation using the tools of comparative politics. In addition, studies of Europeanisation are now being more systematically related to broader international developments and to the process of globalisation. British scholars, and British-based scholars, are making important contributions to the debates in political science and international relations. This review article traces some of the strands of this development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document