Recipient of the JCPA and ICPA-Forum Award for Best Comparative Paper, The International Francophone Political Science Conference, Grenoble, 2009

Author(s):  
Carole Clavier
1985 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 15-17
Author(s):  
Fred Dallmayr

Anyone attending a political science conference these days is likely to be overwhelmed by the extreme heterogeneity of viewpoints and approaches, a heterogeneity sometimes resembling a hopeless Babel of tongues. For decades there had been talk of paradigm changes and of the erosion of “mainstream” assumptions in the discipline; more recently, this ferment has been heightened by the influx of novel perspectives whose vocabulary and intellectual style bear a distinctly continental cast. Professional reaction to these perspectives has been varied: greeted by some as instant remedies they are bemoaned by others as alien intruders threatening an already fragile consensus. I perceive them as idioms in an ongoing conversation whose lines of argument are not merely whimsical and deserve the attention of political science teachers.


1966 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 538-540
Author(s):  
Martin Lowenkopf

This conference brought together over 70 social scientists from the Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ugandan constituent Colleges of the University of East Africa (with visitors from Zambia, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, and Rhodesia) for their annual inter-disciplinary, or rather trans-disciplinary, deliberations. Why ‘trans-disciplinary’? Because the historians discussed nationalism, politics, and church movements; political scientists discoursed on economics, rural settlement, agriculture, and education; sociologists criticised political decisions and economic criteria which hampered their investigations into resettlement programmes; and the economists, while speaking mostly about economics, were represented at virtually all panels, apparently to guard their disciplinary preserve against intrusions, presumptions and, in one case, elision with political science.


2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (03) ◽  
pp. 811-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shauna L. Shames ◽  
Tess Wise

ABSTRACT At a recent major political science conference, Tamara (not her real name) presented an in-depth qualitative study several years in the making, only to have the panelist speaking after her begin his remarks by saying, “And now back to the hard-core data.” By this, he meant quantitative, large-n data, which his work utilized. This moment highlights a series of tensions in our field relating to gender and methodology, and their effects, which this article explores and elucidates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document