Sixty Years of Political Science at Political Research Quarterly

2008 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy G. Mazur ◽  
Cornell W. Clayton
Author(s):  
Sumeer Gul ◽  
Sangita Gupta ◽  
Sumaira Jan ◽  
Sabha Ali

The study endeavors to highlight the contribution of women in the field of Political research globally. The study is based on the data gathered from journal, Political Analysis which comprises a list of articles published by authors for the period, 2004-2014. The proportion of the male and female authors listed in the publication was ascertained. There exists a colossal difference among male and female researchers in the field of Political Science research, which is evident from the fact that 88.30% of publications are being contributed by male authors while as just 11.70 % of publications are contributed by female authors. Furthermore, citation analysis reveals that highest number of citations is for the male contributions. In addition, the collaborative pattern indicates that largest share of the collaboration is between male-male authors. This evidently signifies that female researchers are still lagging behind in the field of Political Science research in terms of research productivity (publications)and thus, accordingly, need to excel in that particular field to overcome the gender difference. The study highlights status of women contribution in the Journal of Political Analysis from the period 2004-2014. The study provides a wider perspective of female research-contribution based on select parameters. However, the study can be further be enriched by taking into consideration various other criteria like what obstacles are faced by female researchers impeding their research, what are the effects of age and marital status on the research-productivity of female authors, etc.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (04) ◽  
pp. 739
Author(s):  
Gregory J. Kasza

The purpose of the present symposium was to evaluate Perestroika's impact. Since theAmerican Political Science Review(APSR), theAmerican Journal of Political Science(AJPS), and theJournal of Politics(JOP) were all targets of criticism in the movement, whereas other national and regional association journals such asPerspectives on PoliticsandPolitical Research Quarterlywere not, I looked for change in the former. Comparable data on the past contents of theAPSRandAJPShad already been published, so I focused my recent surveys on those two. This focus implies no judgment as to the relative prestige of these journals. They pretend to represent the discipline as a whole and are paid for by all association members, and these are sufficient reasons to address their editorial biases.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-262
Author(s):  
Matthew Wood

Political scientists are wary of engaging with ‘the public’ on mainstream and social media because they fear those mediums fail to get across the deep and nuanced argument they develop in their own research. This article suggests a way of justifying public engagement that begins not with debates about the ethical and political concerns of doing this in practice (of which there are many), but how we as political scientists justify public media engagement to ourselves on the basis of the ethical and political process of ‘doing’ political science. As such, this article identifies the disciplinary basis upon which we may justify media-driven public engagement as an integral part of political science as an academic enterprise. Drawing on current epistemological debates in political science, the article characterises moments of political research as impressionistic exercises, which require public engagement. This means making the public aware of the deep and valuable insights of political science, in a way that sketches out how the discipline can shed light on important social and political phenomena, thereby informing our own scholarly thinking, and that of those we engage with.


2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Whitfield

In this article, I develop a critical view of the development and state of research ethics in political science. The central problem is that political scientists have inappropriately followed the lead of clinical biomedical research ethics in thinking about their own designs. Specifically I argue that the focus on institutional and group decision-making contexts distinctive to political research presents normative problems not well-addressed by clinical biomedical approaches. First, I make the case that research ethics as it has been conceived won’t capture all that might be wrong in political research designs because some of the potential harms/wrongs will be to political norms and institutions and thus will violate political (although not individual ethical) rights/values/and so on. Second, I rebut the challenge that principles of justice and equipoise standard to biomedical research ethics might be suitable for political research. And third, I argue that political theorists and philosophers must involve themselves in empirical political science research ethics if we are to effectively communicate the stakes of these research designs to practitioners, consumers, funders, and editors who remain steeped in the norms of biomedical research ethics.


1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 701-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Sapiro

Recent years have witnessed an increasing demand by women for political representation of women. This demand points the way toward a number of important problems for political research, many of which remain unsolved primarily because of the segregation of women's studies from the dominant concerns of political science. This discussion focuses on the problem of group interests and representation, drawing on and suggesting further research on public opinion, interest groups, social movements, international politics, political elites, and public policy.


2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Holden

Political science is two realms, the intellectual and the organizational, and the task is to consider how the organizational realm might be adapted to the highest improvement of the intellectual realm. Political science has a certain competence (domain) in the study of politics as the organization of power. It also seeks to expand competence as capability. Charles Merriam provides a point of departure Merriam's most successful idea has been that of enhancing competence through improvements in “the field of method.” Competence, however, now demands methodological flexibility, so as to probe more into theexerciseof power. Four fields are strategic: public administration, political interests, urbanization, and the interpenetration of politics and economics. Competence also leads into unorthodox subjects, such as force and foolish, irrational, and pathological decision making (or “the Oxenstierna-Mullins Effect”). Finally, competence demands (and is enhanced by) the reach of political science into serious practical problems of human affairs.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (04) ◽  
pp. 751-752
Author(s):  
Joanna Vecchiarelli Scott ◽  
Rogers M. Smith

A decade ago, we were among the scholars in political science who proudly associated ourselves with the Perestroika movement and its calls for greater respect for a range of productive methods, more substantively significant political research, and a more internally democratic profession. We retain those commitments. But Perestroikans have failed to focus on some broader trends in political science and the modern American academy that pose threats that are arguably still deeper, still more unjust, and still harder to overcome. In regard to what political scientists do that this society values most—teaching—we have a significant and growing equity deficit in the discipline.


2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 460-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan T. Moore

Political scientists use randomized treatment assignments to aid causal inference in field experiments, psychological laboratories, and survey research. Political research can do considerably better than completely randomized designs, but few political science experiments combine random treatment assignment with blocking on a rich set of background covariates. We describe high-dimensional multivariate blocking, including on continuous covariates, detail its statistical and political advantages over complete randomization, introduce a particular algorithm, and propose a procedure to mitigate unit interference in experiments. We demonstrate the performance of our algorithm in simulations and three field experiments from campaign politics and education.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document