Political science: looking to the future. v.1: The theory and practice of political science; v.2: Comparative politics, policy, and international relations; v.3: Political behavior; v.4: American institutions

1992 ◽  
Vol 30 (01) ◽  
pp. 30-0535-30-0535
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Future

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 166-167
Author(s):  
Bo Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-169
Author(s):  
Philippe C. Schmitter
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-164
Author(s):  
Milja Kurki
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

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.

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pippa Norris
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

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 Art of Comparative Politics. By Ruth Lane. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. 147p. $32.46.

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-242
Author(s):  
Ronald H. Chilcote
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
History Of ◽  
Peasant Politics ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Development State ◽  
Political Realities ◽  
Concrete Model

In both these short volumes, Ruth Lane assumes an optimis- tic stance, generally within the mainstream of political sci- ence, and attempts to synthesize past and present trends in an effort to show progress. She argues in The Art of Comparative Politics that, despite the disparate approaches, real advances have occurred within the field. Her interpretative essay focuses on the recent history of the field, with an assessment of the behavioral movement during the 1960s and subsequent emphases on development, state, grassroots and peasant politics, and the new institutionalism. In Political Science in Theory and Practice she affirms that a core consensus has appeared in the independent investigations of prominent political scientists. Thus, a coherent working model of polit- ical behavior guides political scientists to understand political realities. She argues that this concrete model coincides with scientific realism and the current understanding of a philos- ophy of science.

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.

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