For a More Public Political Science

Abstract

M any scholarly journals contain Editor Introductions designed to furnish brief yet inviting summaries of each issue’s contents. Ever since June 2005, when I became Perspectives Book Review Editor, I have written Introductions that do more than summarize. I have sought to highlight common themes and promote a “problem-driven” and thematic approach to inquiry, in order to help bridge the subfield and methodological divides that have plagued the modern discipline of political science in the United States, and to foster a robust and relevant “political science public sphere.” Perspectives on Politics, by its very title and origins, is a journal that highlights the perspectival nature of political inquiry. It is a unique journal, and editing it requires a special attentiveness to the best ways of promoting productive dialogue across scholarly differences and stimulating productive debate within scholarly agreements. This is an ongoing interpretive process, involving communication with reviewers, board members, authors, and readers, and involving editorial judgments of consequence. This interpretive dimension of inquiry is not unique to Perspectives. It is, arguably, characteristic of all journals and indeed of all human living. But Perspectives is uniquely committed to foregrounding, and owning, this interpretive dimension of political science inquiry. One reason I write elaborate Introductions is to highlight the connections and synergies behind the production of every issue we publish, thereby encouraging readers to read and think broadly beyond their normal comfort zones. The second reason is because every issue bears the imprint of my editorial judgments and decisions, and it seems only right to call attention to these judgments and decisions, and to allow them to be an explicit part of ongoing discussion about the political science contained in our journal and about political science in general. Perspectives on Politics is a “flagship” journal of the American Political Science Association. As its editor, I am an important professional “gatekeeper,” and I make consequential decisions for individuals and for the discipline. Why not be explicit about this? Why make believe that I am simply enacting the anonymous and ineluctable requirements of “science?” Everyone knows that this is not the case. And yet we so often pretend. Why pretend ? This issue’s Introduction is different from any I have written before. For while it comments on the contents of this issue, it has a much broader and more candid academic-political purpose. It is an Editorial in the true sense, an effort to promote the scholarly praxis at the heart of the journal’s mission. I feel the need to explain this praxis, but also to defend it. For in my opinion it faces a number of challenges associated with what I will call a resurgent neo-positivism within the discipline. I don’t think this neo-positivism is a bad thing. A robust political science public sphere ought to be pluralistic. Intellectual vitality is a good thing, and the tendency of which I speak is a resurgent, revitalized, neo-positivism, animated by a sincere commitment to a conception of political science that has value for many colleagues and that ought to be respected. But it does not speak for all of political science, and indeed in many ways its manner of speaking is rather narrow and technocratic. As a long-time participant in discussions about the future of the discipline, as an APSA Council member and as an editor, it has become clear to me that it is important for me to use this space to reflect on the past, present, and possible futures of our discipline. My purpose is simple: to clarify, defend, and expand the spaces in political science where broad and problem-driven scholarly discussions and debates can flourish. And my goal is equally simple: to provoke critical discussion in the I have shared this piece with many colleagues, and with the entire editorial board, before publishing it. I would like to thank the following for their helpful criticisms and comments: Rick Battistoni, Michael Bernhard, Charli Carpenter, Dan Drezner, Henry Farrell, Ange-Marie Hancock, Marc M. Howard, Bryan Jones, Mary Katzenstein, Peter Katzenstein, Ira Katznelson, Bob Keohane, Marc Lynch, Samantha Majic, Liz Markovits, Anne Norton, Paul Pierson, Andy Sabl, Jim Scott, Rogers Smith, Joe Soss, Paul Staniland, Dara Strolovitch, Sid Tarrow, and Kathy Thelen. And I would like to thank especially these current and former members of my editorial staff, who are amazing in every way, for their comments: James Moskowitz, Margot Morgan, Adrian Florea, Rafael Khachaturian, Katie Scofield, Brendon Westler, Laura Bucci, Rachel Gears, Pete Giordano, Katey Stauffer, and Fathima Mustaq.