American Political Science Research Articles

International Representation in US Social-Science Journals

In this paper we examine the publication of international articles in the two leading journals in sociology, the American Sociological Review and the American Journal of Sociology. The most prominent journals in several other social-science fields, namely economics, demography, political science and education, are included for purposes of comparison. “International” is defined alternatively with respect to topics and authors. The journal with the least representation of international topics is the American Educational Research Journal, followed by the two leading sociology journals. The journal Demography is also more international in focus than are ASR and AJS. Economics, as represented by the American Economic Review, and political science, as represented by the American Political Science Review, are the most international of this set of fields. The rank order of journals follows largely the same pattern when the focus shifts to international authorship rather than international subject matter. Foreign first authors are not uncommon, but many of these authors received their PhD degrees from a university based in the US or held a faculty position in the US. Co-authorship teams are most likely to be all US authors, but cross-national teams are not at all uncommon. Our findings suggest that a disproportionate focus on the U.S. may limit the sociological imagination and result in an impoverished sociological toolkit that is ill-suited for understanding the global reality of deeply diverse and divided societies. In addition, the opportunity structure available to sociologists around the globe is somewhat skewed. Foreign sociologists who rely upon publication in US journals for career advancement may find themselves at a disadvantage.

SCIENCE AND POLITICS

A translation of a paper by the Austrian philosopher and lawyer Hans Kelsen devoted to the conceptual understanding of the principle of objectivity in hu ma ni tarian knowledge is presented. The paper was published in The American Po li tical Science Review in 1951.

What Did They Wish For? Party Government, Polarization and the American Political Science Association

In tracing the development of increased polarization in the United States, numerous scholars have noted the apparent importance of the American Political Science Association's (APSA's) Committee on Political Parties. The committee's influential (and often criticized) report,Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System, called for a wholesale transformation of political parties in the United States. On its publication in October 1950, political scientists quickly concluded that, taken together, the committee's recommendations represented a reworking of a distinct approach, usually known as “party government” or “responsible party government.” (The origins of responsible parties dated back to Woodrow Wilson's classic 1885 textCongressional Government.) Since then, the notion of party government has become a core issue in the study of American political parties, albeit a contentious one. A recent survey ranked the APSA document at seventh as a canonical text in graduate syllabi concerning parties.

Jessica Blatt. Race and the Making of American Political Science.

Jessica Blatt. Race and the Making of American Political Science.

Does Proximity to Nazi Concentration Camps Make Germans Intolerant? Modeling Spatial Heterogeneity and Historical Persistence

In a recent article in the American Political Science Review entitled “Legacies of the Third Reich: Concentration Camps and Out-group Intolerance,” Jonathan Homola, Miguel M. Pereira, and Margit Tavits argue that Germans who live nearer to former Nazi concentration camps are more likely to display out-group intolerance. We argue that their statistical findings are the product of unobserved regional heterogeneity. Using publicly available European Values Survey data and electoral results from 2017, we replicate their results, and then extend them using simple fixed effects specifications as well as more elaborate multilevel models. Our approach finds no consistent evidence that distance to camps is related to contemporary values. We also preregister our plan to replicate and extend their analyses using restricted-access data from the German General Social Survey. Our findings have important implications for the new literatures on historical persistence and the deep origins of contemporary politics, as well as for the fields of Holocaust studies, German politics, and out-group tolerance. Our approach to modeling spatial heterogeneity in historical persistence studies—investigating spatial variation and diagnosing why unmodeled heterogeneity can produce misleading inferences—can serve as a template for future studies.

Gender and Status in American Political Science: Who Determines Whether a Scholar Is Noteworthy?

We investigate gender disparities in status construction in American political science, focusing on three questions: 1) Do institutions within the discipline of political science—including departments, APSA, editorial boards, and academic honor societies–reflect or remedy gender disparities that exist in many forms of recognition, including appointments to top leadership and citations? 2) Are institutions with centralized and accountable appointment mechanisms less gender skewed compared to networked and decentralized selection processes where implicit bias may go unchecked? 3) Does leaning in help? Does the effort of women to publish and to claim a seat at leadership tables increase the likelihood that higher-level status positions will follow? We find that the distribution of highest-status positions is still gender skewed, that women are over-represented in positions that involve more service than prestige, that “leaning in” by serving as section chair, on editorial boards, or on academic councils is not necessarily a gateway to higher-status appointments, and that accountability promotes greater gender parity. The study raises questions about the goal of gender parity when it comes to lower-status service, and about the types of contributions our discipline rewards.

Innovative Approaches of Political Education in Ukraine: On the Example of Developed Western Democracies

This article was composed to discuss the particular traits of the contemporary political education of students in Ukraine. A system of political education is introduced to develop the fundamental political knowledge and skill-set of students, as well as aiding in the formation of their civic consciousness. The innovative modernization approaches are represented by American Political Science Association. The main purpose of the research to show modernization methods of political education what is the basis for the formation of democratic values of Ukrainian society. Much attention is paid to the correlation between civic and political education. The need for value content of political education adds to the urgency of the study. This involves making greater use of the tools of political education to support the dialogue of cultures in the modern world. Ensuring that society is prepared to solve global problems by developing the active position and individual responsibility of each young person should be an equally important result of political education in the 21st century. Political education now requires a walkthrough approach of implementation (through project initiatives, socio-cultural activities, networking and various types of cooperation between those who get education in the socio-political sector). The authors emphasize that it is worth rethinking the new opportunities of social networks, the Internet era to build youth initiatives and teams for project work. However, one of the challenges of the information society is the dominance of different types of data (“information noise”), which requires young people to have a higher level of media literacy and more developed critical thinking. Systematization literary sources and approaches for solving the problem indicates that the new systems of political values have been formed, which are essential for the democratization. Two groups of mutually perceived values were approved. The first group is dominant. It is associated with values such as security, sovereignty, patriotism, freedom, human rights, justice, political stability. The second group of established values is evolving: legality, responsibility, equality, political pluralism, legitimacy. This article reveals the understanding of these values of Ukrainian citizens on the basis of Ukrainian and European sociological research.

Wendy Brown. In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West. New York: Columbia University Press, 2019. Pp. 264. $75.00 (cloth).

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewWendy Brown. In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West. New York: Columbia University Press, 2019. Pp. 264. $75.00 (cloth).William M. CurtisWilliam M. CurtisUniversity of Portland Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Political Thought Volume 9, Number 2Spring 2020 Published in association with the American Political Thought organized section of the American Political Science Association and the Jack Miller Center Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/708297 Views: 294Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Dan Moller. Governing Least: A New England Libertarianism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. 336. $35.00 (cloth).

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsDan Moller. Governing Least: A New England Libertarianism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. 336. $35.00 (cloth).Bob Pepperman TaylorBob Pepperman TaylorUniversity of Vermont Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Political Thought Volume 9, Number 2Spring 2020 Published in association with the American Political Thought organized section of the American Political Science Association and the Jack Miller Center Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/708291 Views: 44Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Marilyn Fischer. Jane Addams’s Evolutionary Theorizing: Constructing “Democracy and Social Ethics.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019. Pp. 264. $45.00 (cloth).

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewMarilyn Fischer. Jane Addams’s Evolutionary Theorizing: Constructing “Democracy and Social Ethics.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019. Pp. 264. $45.00 (cloth).Patricia M. ShieldsPatricia M. ShieldsTexas State University Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Political Thought Volume 9, Number 2Spring 2020 Published in association with the American Political Thought organized section of the American Political Science Association and the Jack Miller Center Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/708292 Views: 303Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Review of Whatever Happened to Party Government? Controversies in American Political Science

Review of Whatever Happened to Party Government? Controversies in American Political Science

Jessica Blatt. Race and the Making of American Political Science. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018. Pp. 216. $55.00 (cloth).

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewJessica Blatt. Race and the Making of American Political Science. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018. Pp. 216. $55.00 (cloth).Nick DorzweilerNick DorzweilerWheaton College Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Political Thought Volume 9, Number 1Winter 2020 Published in association with the American Political Thought organized section of the American Political Science Association and the Jack Miller Center Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/707031 Views: 103Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Neil Roberts, ed. A Political Companion to Frederick Douglass. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2018. Pp. 490. $80.00 (cloth).

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewNeil Roberts, ed. A Political Companion to Frederick Douglass. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2018. Pp. 490. $80.00 (cloth).Leslie F. GoldsteinLeslie F. GoldsteinUniversity of Delaware Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Political Thought Volume 9, Number 1Winter 2020 Published in association with the American Political Thought organized section of the American Political Science Association and the Jack Miller Center Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/707032 Views: 39Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Sophia Rosenfeld. Democracy and Truth: A Short History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018. Pp. 224. $22.50 (cloth).

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewSophia Rosenfeld. Democracy and Truth: A Short History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018. Pp. 224. $22.50 (cloth).Keith E. WhittingtonKeith E. WhittingtonPrinceton University Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Political Thought Volume 9, Number 1Winter 2020 Published in association with the American Political Thought organized section of the American Political Science Association and the Jack Miller Center Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/707035 Views: 135Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Jamie Susskind. Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. xvi+544. $27.95 (cloth).

Previous article No AccessBook ReviewJamie Susskind. Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. xvi+544. $27.95 (cloth).Kyong-Min SonKyong-Min SonUniversity of Delaware Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Political Thought Volume 9, Number 1Winter 2020 Published in association with the American Political Thought organized section of the American Political Science Association and the Jack Miller Center Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/707073 Views: 279Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

James T. Schleifer. Tocqueville. Medford, MA: Polity, 2018. Pp. 192. $69.95 (cloth); $24.95 (paper).

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewJames T. Schleifer. Tocqueville. Medford, MA: Polity, 2018. Pp. 192. $69.95 (cloth); $24.95 (paper).Raul RodriguezRaul RodriguezUniversity of Notre Dame Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Political Thought Volume 9, Number 1Winter 2020 Published in association with the American Political Thought organized section of the American Political Science Association and the Jack Miller Center Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/707033 Views: 46Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Political Science in Latin America: A Scientometric Analysis

Studies of Latin American political science are centered on analyses of national cases and are based on intellectual narratives about the institutional development and teaching of the discipline. In this article we take a different, more comprehensive and comparative approach. We distinguish and contrast two Latin American political sciences: one native to Latin America and published in journals from five countries in the region, and one foreign and published in journals from five countries outside the region. We use three types of bibliometric measures: 01. reciprocal citations in 23 academic journals indexed in the Scopus database; 02. co-occurrence of terms in titles and abstracts of 5,880 research articles published between 2006 and 2018; and 03. co-citations of authors in the bibliographies of said articles. The network of journals forms a well-defined archipelago with three clusters separated by language (English, Spanish and Portuguese). The community is divided along two main axes: political approaches versus sociological approaches. The study also points out that themes, authors, and methodologies are not significantly different between these two political sciences.

Deegan-Packel & Johnston spatial power indices and characterizations

In this paper, we propose two spatial power indices in political games, taking into account ideological preferences of players. To do this, we develop an explanatory spatial model linked to the asymmetry Deegan-Pakel index introduced by Rapoport & Golan [Rapoport, A., Golan, E., 1985. Assessment of political power in the israeli knesset. American Political Science Review 79 (3), 673-692], which is the original Deegan-Packel index readjusted for measuring power according to the spatial preferences of players in real political games. In addition to extending such a readjustment for the original Johnston index | transforming it concomitantly into the Johnston spatial power index | this paper presents both the general versions of these two spatial indices, and their axiomatic characterizations through new axioms such as the vetoer property and others mainly inspired from Lorenzo-Freire et al. [Lorenzo-Freire, S., Alonso-Meijide, J. M., Casas-M´endez, B., Fiestras-Janeiro, M. G., 2007. Characterizations of the deegan-packel and johnston power indices.

Феномен кризиса идентичности американской политической науки в ее дискурсе и историографии

The paper’s analysis is aimed at the phenomenon of identity crisis in contemporary political science being revealed by the author at the different stages of historical development of American political science, in its discourse and historiography. Interpretation of the history of political science as a search for its identity suggested here makes it possible to trace historical metamorphoses of politico-scientific identity crisis through the prism of the notions of scientific soundness and political relevance of the science of politics. Incomplete or inadequate embodiment of such necessary requirements of political science repeatedly caused the identity crises of American political science in the course of its historical development. Historical analysis of ontological-epistemological, methodological and politico-institutional factors of emergence of the identity crises in American political science presented here might be significant for comprehending problems and crisis phenomena in contemporary political science as a whole.

Archiving and Re-using of Qualitative Data as a Path to Development of Public Administration Research

In response to the assumptions of new public management models and public or good governance, practical aspects of research in the area of public admin­istration and the development possibilities of qualitative research methods are presented in the article. Due to the fact that qualitative research has become increasingly popular in the above disciplines, data archiving and trans­parency is discussed (Moravcsik), (Yom et al.) and guidelines and principles are established (American Political Science Association). However, there is a lot of controversy among scholars (Monroe), and some examples are missing. This paper presents the challenge of ‘openness’ in the empirical activities (or empirical practice) of researchers. Its purpose is to present the archiving data potential from in-depth interviews on the example of a small set of qualitative data from research in the field of public administration. Firstly, the basic assumptions of new models of functioning of public administration and related consequences for researchers are described. In the second part, the challenges related to openness in contemporary public administration models are briefly mentioned. Next, the method of creating an archive from existing data, individual stages, documents, and data is outlined; it is based on the au­thor’s best practice on Qualidata (American Political Science Association; Van den Eynden et al.) and DA-RT principles.1 The summary includes examples of probable opportunities and challenges related to usage of data archiving for the research in public administration and political science development.