Abstract
The paper deals with a couple of speculations by John E. Trent with respect to the state and impact of contemporary political science. It particularly takes issue with the Trent claim that political science must become more relevant and instead emphasizes the need for an independent science system. Furthermore, it accepts the notion that there is a problem with respect to overspecialization but regards this as a necessity if science and research want to move ahead. The Trent argument about schisms in political science theorizing and research methodology must be taken seriously, but can and should be counteracted by the good will of scholars to seek regular intellectual exchanges also in fields where controversy rages. Finally, it is argued in the paper that the Trent worldview is very much a North American one that should be balanced by looking also at other political science communities around the world.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This is also quite representative of the individual membership of IPSA. In 2008, according to the IPSA Secretariat, 3.1 per cent of the individual members came from Africa, 17.1 per cent from Asia, 33.8 per cent from Europe, 37.3 per cent from North America and 7.1 per cent from South America.
See Belanger (1998). A supportive voice for RANN-like new programs is Green and Lepkowski (2006); little wonder, though, if one keeps in mind that Green used to be the Deputy Director of RANN.
One important contribution in the qualitative realm is King et al (1994). For a positive assessment of the King et al Book's impact in the USA and the resulting methodological discussion, see Kittel (2009: 588–591).
References
Belanger, D.O. (1998) Engineering and the National Science Foundation, Purdue: Purdue University Press.
Bull, M.J. (2007) ‘Is there a European political science and, if so, what are the challenges facing it?’ European Political Science 6 (4): 427–438.
Calise, M. and Lowi, Th.J. (2010) Hyperpolitics. An Interactive Dictionary of Political Science Concepts, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Green, R.J. and Lepkowski, W. (2006) ‘A forgotten model for purposive science’, Issues Online in Science and Technology, (Winter).
Heinze, R.G. (2009) ‘Staat und Lobbyismus: Vom Wandel der Politikberatung in Deutschland’, Zeitschrift fuer Politikberatung 2: 5–25.
Hix, S. (2004) ‘European universities in a global ranking of political science departments’, European Political Science 3 (2): 5–23.
King, G., Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (eds.) (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
King, G., Schlozman, K.L. and Nie, N.H. (eds.) (2009) The Future of Political Science: 100 Perspectives, New York and London: Routledge.
Kittel, B. (2009) ‘Eine Disziplin auf der Suche nach Wissenschaftlichkeit’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 50 (3): 577–603.
Klingemann, H.-D. (ed.) (2007) The State of Political Science in Western Europe, Opladen and Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Klingemann, H.-D. (2008) ‘Capacities: Political science in Europe’, West European Politics 30 (1–2): 370–396.
Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1950) ‘The obligations of the 1950 pollster to the 1984 historian’, Public Opinion Quarterly 14: 617–638.
Nye Jr., J.S. (2009) ‘The Question of Relevance’, in G. King, K.L. Schlozman and N.H. Nie (eds.) The Future of Political Science: 100 Perspectives, New York; London: Routledge, pp. 252–254.
Streeck, W. (2009) ‘Man weiss es nicht genau: Vom Nutzen der Sozialwissenschaften fuer die Politik’, MPIfG Working Paper 09/11, Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaase, M. Should Political Science be More Relevant? A Comment on the Paper by John E. Trent. Eur Polit Sci 10, 226–234 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.50
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.50