Interpretive Political Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. W. Rhodes
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Applied Anthropology ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Civil Service Reform ◽  
Ethnographic Fieldwork ◽  
Interpretive Approach ◽  
Summary Statement ◽  
Science Part ◽  
Interpretive Turn

This collection of essays is Volume II in a retrospective of previous publications. It looks forward and explores the ‘interpretive turn’ and its implications for the craft of political science, especially public administration. It draws together articles from 2005 onwards on the theme of ‘the interpretive turn’ in political science. Part I provides a summary statement of the interpretive approach. It provides the context for what follows. Part II develops the theme of blurring genres. It discusses a variety of research methods common in the humanities, including: ethnographic fieldwork, life history, and focus groups. Part III shows how the genres of thought and presentation found in the humanities can be used in political science. It presents four examples of such blurring ‘at work’ with studies of: applied anthropology and civil service reform; women’s studies and government departments; storytelling and local knowledge; and area studies and comparing Westminster governments. The book concludes with a summary of what is edifying about an interpretive approach, and why this approach matters. It revisits some of the more common criticisms before indulging in plausible conjectures about the future of interpretivism. The author’s main concern is to make the case for an interpretive approach by showing how it refreshes old topics and opens new empirical topics. The author seeks new and interesting ways to explore governance, high politics, public policies, and the study of public administration in general. So, the emphasis is on methods, and providing several examples of the approach ‘at work’.

What is New About the ‘Interpretive Turn’ and Why Does it Matter?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. W. Rhodes
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Tradition ◽  
Science Discipline ◽  
Puzzle Solving ◽  
Interpretive Approach ◽  
The Future ◽  
Interpretive Turn

This chapter summarizes what is new or edifying about the interpretive turn, and why this approach matters. It restates the case for drawing on the genres of thought and presentation common in the humanities, making the bold, contentious claim that the interpretive approach encourages creativity because puzzle-solving encourages imagination, even intuition, and a search for new connections. It replies to some of the more common criticisms of the interpretive approach, revisiting the claims that the author caricatures the political science discipline in Britain; accords too much importance to agency and not enough to structure; ignores the dominant political tradition in Britain; and omits institutions. Finally, it looks at the future of interpretivism in political science, focusing on the aesthetics of political science; and the importance of a tradition of scholarship free from the demands of relevance and impact. It argues that empathy, enabling conversations and edification, are equally worthy goals.

Further on Down the Road, Blurring Genres

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. W. Rhodes
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Richard Rorty ◽  
Policy Networks ◽  
The Political ◽  
British Government ◽  
Politics And Government ◽  
The Road ◽  
Interpretive Approach

Chapter 1 is a short biographical exercise describing the author’s journey from policy networks and governance (see Volume I) to the interpretive turn and ethnography. It tells the story of how the author sought to work out the implications of anti-foundational philosophy for the study of politics, especially British government and public administration. It also introduces the notion of blurring genres or drawing on the genres of thought and presentation common in the humanities. The chapter argues, following Richard Rorty, that an interpretive approach grounded in observational fieldwork is about edification—a way of finding new, better, more interesting, fruitful ways of speaking about politics and government (Rorty 1980: 360). The author believes an interpretive approach provides a new and better way of speaking about political science and public administration. The author is also convinced that observation continues to be an underused but vital part of the political scientists’ toolkit.

Differences between Feminist and Mainstream Approaches to Social Science, Most Notably in Sociology, Political Science, Anthropology and History

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-50
Author(s):  
Senka Ena Majetic
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Feminist Methodology ◽  
Feminist Writing

Abstract - It is widely accepted among feminists that feminism implies a distinctive approach to inquiry. And for some this is not just a matter of the grounds on which topics are selected for investigation, or even of the theoretical ideas that are treated as relevant. Rather, feminism is taken to carry distinctive methodological and epistemological implications (Hammersley, 1995: 45). In this paper I want to assess the arguments for a distinctively feminist methodology. My first task, though, is to provide some detail about what this is taken to entail. There are, of course, important differences among feminists who have written on this topic, and in the course of the discussion I will highlight some of these. I certainly do not want to suggest that what I am assessing is a single position, nor am I claiming to represent the basis on which most feminists actually do research. My main concern here is solely with feminist writing about methodology.

Genes, cognition, and social behavior: Next steps for foundations and researchers

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Lupia
Keyword(s):  
Social Behavior ◽  
Political Science ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Unpublished Report ◽  
Summary Statement ◽  
The One ◽  
Scientific Value

Editor's note This well circulated but heretofore unpublished report is the summary statement of an interdisciplinary meeting of scholars convened by the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia on June 28, 2010. The workshop, which was funded by the NSF's Political Science Program (Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences Grant #1037831), was convened to answer two compelling questions: Are studies of social behavior that build from discoveries about genes and/or cognition of greater social and scientific value than studies of the same topics that ignore such factors? And, how can fundable research on genes, cognition, and politics generate transformative scientific practices, infrastructure, and findings of high social value? Assembled for the workshop were a group of scholars representing diverse yet increasingly connected research areas, including genetics, cognitive science and neuroscience, decision making and risk analysis, economics, political science, and sociology. The resulting report outlines the substantial challenges facing interdisciplinary research but also describes the considerable contributions to knowledge that could result from sustained collaborations between biologists, geneticists, and brain scientists on the one hand and social scientists on the other. Following this main report are three white papers by Jeremy Freese. Elizabeth Hammock, and Rose McDermott, which address importmant considerations related to the discussion. For a download of the full report, see http://www.isr.umich.edu.cps/workshop.Welcome.html.

Exploration of the technocratic mentality among European civil servants

2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232199642
Author(s):  
Ringa Raudla ◽  
James W. Douglas ◽  
Zachary Mohr
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Performance ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Positive Interactions ◽  
Technical Knowledge ◽  
High Level ◽  
Proper Balance

Civil servants vary in the degree to which they hold technocratic attitudes. We explore whether bureaucrats’ exposure to politics and politicians is associated with the depoliticization dimension of the technocratic mentality. We use survey data of high-level executives in 19 European countries to explore factors that are associated with executives’ perceptions that removing issues and activities from the realms of politics leads to more farsighted policies. We find that respondents’ level of exposure to politics and politicians is indeed negatively associated with technocratic mentality. Bureaucrats have studied political science or public administration, work closer to politicians (in terms of type of organization), interact with them more frequently, and have more positive perceptions of these interactions tend to have lower levels of technocratic attitudes. Points for practitioners Beliefs affect behaviors and behaviors affect outcomes. Technocratic attitudes may limit the ability of civil servants to work effectively with politicians. We show that educational degrees that promote democratic values and exposure to politicians (particularly positive interactions) are associated with lower levels of technocratic attitudes. Given that a proper balance between political and technical knowledge can enhance organizational performance (Krause et al., 2006), these findings should be taken into account when staffing and structuring public organizations.

A Note on “Public Policy”

1973 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Vaison
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The Social ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
Policy Analysts ◽  
Government Body

Normally in political studies the term public policy is construed to encompass the societally binding directives issued by a society's legitimate government. We usually consider government, and only government, as being able to “authoritatively allocate values.” This common conception pervades the literature on government policy-making, so much so that it is hardly questioned by students and practitioners of political science. As this note attempts to demonstrate, some re-thinking seems to be in order. For purposes of analysis in the social sciences, this conceptualization of public policy tends to obscure important realities of modern corporate society and to restrict unnecessarily the study of policy-making. Public policy is held to be public simply and solely because it originates from a duly legitimated government, which in turn is held to have the authority (within specified limits) of formulating and implementing such policy. Public policy is public then, our usual thinking goes, because it is made by a body defined somewhat arbitrarily as “public”: a government or some branch of government. All other policy-making is seen as private; it is not public (and hence to lie essentially beyond the scope of the disciplines of poliitcal science and public administration) because it is duly arrived at by non-governmental bodies. Thus policy analysts lead us to believe that public policy is made only when a government body acts to consider some subject of concern, and that other organizations are not relevant to the study of public policy.

Political Science and Public Administration: A Note on the State of the Union

1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 660-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roscoe C. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Russell Sage Foundation ◽  
Special Study ◽  
Woodrow Wilson ◽  
State Of The Union ◽  
The Social ◽  
Original Essay ◽  
The Subject

By tradition public administration is regarded as a division of political science. Woodrow Wilson set the stage for this concept in his original essay identifying public administration as a subject worthy of special study, and spokesmen for both political science and public administration have accepted it since. Thus Leonard White, in his 1930 article on the subject in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, recognizes public administration as “a branch of the field of political science.” Luther Gulick follows suit, observing in 1937 that “Public administration is thus a division of political science ….” So generally has this word got around that it has come to the notice of the sociologists, as is indicated in a 1950 report of the Russell Sage Foundation which refers to “political science, including public administration….” “Pure” political scientists and political scientists with a public administration slant therefore are not alone in accepting this doctrine, which obviously enjoys a wide and authoritative currency.But if public administration is reckoned generally to be a child of political science, it is in some respects a strange and unnatural child; for there is a feeling among political scientists, substantial still if mayhap not so widespread as formerly, that academicians who profess public administration spend their time fooling with trifles. It was a sad day when the first professor of political science learned what a manhole cover is! On their part, those who work in public administration are likely to find themselves vaguely resentful of the lack of cordiality in the house of their youth.

Administrative elites and the crisis: what lies ahead for the senior civil service in Greece?

2014 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 709-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calliope Spanou
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Civil Service Reform ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Elites ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

The nature of the relationship between the public administration and politics and the subsequent role of the administration appear to be incompatible with the emergence of an administrative elite. After analysing the reasons for this incompatibility, the article explores the impact of the measures taken in the wake of the economic crisis on the civil service and its reform, and also the prospects for the development of a senior civil service. The key, and also the challenge, to any change in this direction remains the rebalancing of the relationship between the public administration and politics. Points for practitioners What might interest practitioners is the issue of the conditions of effectiveness of civil service reform in times of economic crisis and significant pressure.

scholarly journals Why Political Science Is an Ethical Issue

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 425-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Bevir ◽  
Jason Blakely
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Methods ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Ethical Issue ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Historical Past ◽  
Interpretive Turn

Many advocates of interpretive approaches to the study of politics emphasize that what is at stake is a conflict between “quantitative” versus “qualitative” methods. By contrast, we begin by suggesting that political scientists are free to use whichever method they find most useful for their research purposes. Instead of methodological reasons for making the interpretive turn, political scientists have ethical reasons for adopting this paradigm. In particular, interpretive approaches give political scientists a better account of the nature and role of values in human life, a sense for how the historical past is ethically relevant, the ability to advance politically engaged sociologies, and a deliberative critique of technocracy. Political scientists should be free to critically engage, scrutinize, and even normatively evaluate human ethical positions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document