Developments in West European political science journal and electronic literature during 1996

Abstract. One of the most effective mechanisms for obtaining an overview of the general direction of political science in a particular country is an examination of the output of its journal literature. This article lists the contents of the 1996 issues of selected European political science journals from a range of European countries (normally, those published by national political science associations) and comments on their content. Recent developments in three types of publishing on the world wide web are also reviewed and the relevant addresses are supplied. First, print journals increasingly maintain a minimal presence on the web, but in certain cases this extends a good deal further, to include abstracts or even the full texts of selected articles and links to related resources. Second, European governments are now all represented on the web in one form or another, though they vary greatly in terms of the range of governmental institutions covered and in the volume of documentation available. Third, the huge increase in political coverage on the web makes the indexing of this material all the more important, and we offer a listing of the major guides to national political science resources.     

LEGAL ISSUES IN EVALUATION RESEARCH*

Using a 1978 evaluation of a defensible space project which was published in the Social Science Quarterly, and later challenged by the originator of the project being evaluated this article explores the legal issues and considerations for those reporting evaluations and the journals which publish the evaluation reports. Serow outlines the information gathered in interviews with several practicing attorneys, a university press, two law school professors, a political science professor, an attorney in a University Legal Counsel's office and from a review of relevant legal references. She concludes the article with five recommendations for evaluators reporting their research.     

Eine Disziplin auf der Suche nach Wissenschaftlichkeit: Entwicklung und Stand der Methoden in der deutschen Politikwissenschaft

The article takes stock of methods use in German political science. Based on an analysis of articles published in four German political science journals it is shown that only a minority takes an explicit theory-guided empirical perspective on research. A large share of publications can be better characterized as a knowledgeable discussion of a particular topic. This finding is amended by a placement of Germany in the international context and a glance into the political science curricula at some German universities. The finding is then nuanced by exemplary references to methodologically innovative work by German political scientists in four research areas. This work, however, has only seldom been published in German scholarly journals but has been preferably sent to international ones. The article closes by referring to the specific character of research questions in political science compared to neighbouring disciplines.     

State Feminism and Women's Movements

This article offers a brief reflection on the emergence of the study of gender and politics over the past 30 years and its influence on European political science. It goes on to discuss the early results of a recently completed comparative project, the RNGS project (Research Network on Gender and the State) on the influence of women's movements on public policy decisions. The RNGS project reflects both developments in the sub-field of gender and politics and the influences of changes in approaches to the study of politics of the last 30 years or so.     

The Reputation of Political Science Journals: Pluralist and Consensus Views

Individual scholars and their departments are increasingly judged according to the alleged 'quality' of the academic journals in which they publish. This article is the first systematic attempt to measure the reputation of political science journals and is designed for comparison with American academics' evaluations. It explores academics' criteria for judging journals, the consensus of judgement on any one journal across different criteria. and the range of evaluations between different journals. A relatively strong consensus is found among academic political scientists about the relative quality of political science journals. Nevertheless the order of the ranking depends, in part, on the measure adopted. Ranking by impact scores supports the consensus theory, while the rankings by quality lend some weight to the pluralist argument that specialist journals can be highly rated by small groups of experts while having little impact in the profession as a whole. Striking contrasts between the British and American political science communities are revealed.     

A Post-Parsimonious Proposition

This article is at once a critique, a challenge, and a risk, first in the form of instructive parody, moving on to engage more seriously with the critique of “parsimonious” social science embedded within it, and finally suggesting ways to embrace and advance a legacy of new political science. Employing satire, the article begins by outlining the various methods within the field of mainstream political science currently being used to tackle the (impossible) empirical project of exploring an “ideal world.” Next, although protocol cautions emerging political scientists to tread lightly with critiques of entrenched methods, established scholarship, and renowned journals, it argues that substantive analyses of this less than “ideal world” are still urgently interwoven with provocative interrogation of this less than ideal discipline. Beyond critique however, the goal of this commentary is both to affirm the risk-taking trajectory of “new” political science that has beckoned many into the field and to insist upon the continuation of this forward move(ment): opening up space for, and claiming as political responsibility, a stake in methodological creativity and a more robust set of political associations.     

Gradgrinding the Social Sciences: The Politics of Metrics of Political Science

This article employs an interpretive approach, and in the light of contributions to this symposium by Butler and McAllister, and McLean et al ., holds that metrics of research 'quality' are socially constructed and hence are as 'subjective' as peer review. Thus it rejects the use of stand-alone metrics as an 'objective' basis to inform funding allocations. Rather, the optimum method of 'quality' assessment is a panel-based exercise with expert judgement informed by a range of discipline-sensitive metrics and peer review of publications. The article maintains that the politics of metrics of political science conceals interests about the foundations of social scientific knowledge, and so the dispute over metrics and peer review is a metaphor for the conflicting epistemological preferences of UK political scientists. It is also argued that metrics-led assessment subjects political science to 'Gradgrinding' on two fronts: that political science departments amount to less than the sum of their parts, and the audit culture strips the discipline of its humanism.     

Media and politics in French political science

Abstract. The study of the relationship between media and politics has long been marginal in French political science. The take–off of research has been stimulated by the impact of the Presidential election under the Fifth republic and by the increasing role of television and spin–doctors in this new electoral context. If French studies on political communication converge with international research, they are also characterised by strong peculiarities. The material of case–studies is not campaign–centred, but gives room to various TV programmes, to a wide range of media uses by French politicians. The contribution of historians, the influence of a literary tradition of 'textual' analysis of political speech are important. The publishing of books on this topic also reveals a surprisingly intense participation from spin– doctors, journalists and even politicians. Three main 'schools' are contributing to the dynamics of French research. Linked to the tradition of semiological and literary studies the first one focuses on the study of political discourse in the media. Merging the legacy of English–speaking studies and the French tradition of electoral studies a second one develops an analysis of the campaigning process and of its effects. More recently, a new generation of researchers has widened the object of research to the complex network of relations between politicians, journalists and consultant. Linking successfully the most recent developments or international research and the peculiarities of academic tradition, research on political communication appears as one of the most dynamic areas of French political science.     

COLLECTIVE DELUSION IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES: PUBLISHING INCENTIVES FOR EMPIRICAL ABUSE

The implications o f the editorial bias of academic journals for the selection of articles with apparently statistically significant findings are widely recognized but largely ignored. Few worry about the incentives the publishing bias presents to researchers for empirical abuse that brings into question the basis of social science knowledge. One possible solution, desirable but probably impractical, is to review articles with statistical results and conclusions omitted. Another, more practical, approach is to guarantee journal space for replication of previously published research. Finally, editors should take greater care in warning readers about findings that implicitly make unfounded statistical claims.     

Gordon Tullock: His journal and his scholarship

The results presented here suggest that Public Choice is broadly cited by economists and political scientists. The journal currently ranks, approximately, in the middle of the pack with respect to various citation measures. Also, since the late seventies, the journal's ranking has improved significantly relative to both social science journals and to comparable economics journals. Some of the papers published in Public Choice are well cited and several made a significant impact on the thinking of scholars in both economics and political science. Either through his work as editor or through his articles, the thought of Gordon Tullock is well represented in the elite group of articles published in Public Choice.The analysis of citations in Section 4 shows that Tullock's ideas and writing have had considerable impact on the thinking of economists. His contributions are substantial, often multi-disciplinary, and certain to be enduring.     

Romanian political science since 1989

Abstract. In a relatively short period of time, Romanian political science has made considerable progress, moving from virtual obscurity to unchallenged local prominence. This article examines the efforts to date to institutionalize political science as a separate teaching and research discipline by presenting recently established political science university–level programs, the major groups of authors carrying out research on political phenomena and the recurrent themes emerging from relevant literature. Though the present article is concerned mainly with current developments, occasional references to the political science's position during the communist period are also made.     

Secrecy in Europe

Abstract

This article introduces a collection of papers devoted to the study of secrecy in European politics across a range of EU and national settings and policy domains. Academic interest in secret politics – those aspects of public activity intentionally concealed from the public eye – and the governance of secrecy – the political processes and regulatory frameworks governing secret keeping – is growing. This interest reflects technological, social and political developments that appear to signal the end of privacy and the rapid expansion of political secrecy in European multi-level settings. As a consequence, the tensions between democratic accountability, with its transparency requirements, and political secrecy, which is typically justified on grounds of effectiveness of state action, have become more marked and more politicised. Engaging with these developments, the contributions to this collection draw on actor- and interest-centred perspectives that focus on actors’ motivations in secret politics; institutional perspectives that focus on contestation over secrecy norms; and organisational perspectives that emphasise the diversity of secrecy cultures. Further research will benefit from paying special attention to a diverse range of inter-institutional and inter-organisational secrecy settings; to political contestation over secrecy and the regulatory regimes that govern it; and to the refashioning of public-private secrecy architectures.     

Comparative Journal Ratings: A Survey Report

The expert survey and bibliometric methods of assessing the quality of work in political science are complementary. This project builds on previous surveys of academic political science journals conducted among US political scientists. The current wave extends the survey to political scientists in Canada and the UK. Preliminary results suggest both similarities and differences across the three countries. These results matter for policy debate in any country that is considering channelling flows of funds to universities in proportion to the quality of their research, and in helping to supply objective evidence about the research quality of work submitted by candidates for academic appointments and promotions.     

社会科学期刊编辑基本素养探析

一个合格的社会科学期刊编辑,需要具备社会科学的基本素养,其中,政治素养始终是第一位的。社会科学期刊编辑的基本素养,还表现在讲原则、讲公平上;表现在具有高尚的职业道德、良好的文化修养上;表现在具有扎实的编辑技能和广博的学科知识上。同时,学习进取、开拓创新也是社会科学期刊编辑重要的基本素养。     

Konjunktur und Krise des Europäischen Sozialmodells. Ein Beitrag zur politischen Präexplantationsdiagnostik

The article sheds light upon the political and scientific career of the conception of a “European Social Model”. In a first step, it gives a comprehensive review of the literature to answer the question for the common characteristics of the European societies. The authors claim that the European Social Model as realised in these societies is characterised by structures and processes of ordered diversity and social compensation. In a second step, the development of the political integration project which is also referred to as the “European Social Model” is lined out. The authors focus on the idea of a regulated capitalism by Jacques Delors, which in the 1990s has been reformulated into a eurokeynesian strategy, as well as on the discussion about a “Third Way” which finally led to the promotion of a ‘new’ European Social Model. It is shown that the principles of the ‘new’ European integration model conflict with and indeed contradict the old structures of the European Social Model, i.e. the shared characteristics of the European societies.     

Die Politische Vierteljahresschrift im Urteil der Profession: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage unter den Mitgliedern der DVPW

The authors present results from a survey conducted among members of the German Political Science Association (?Deutsche Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft“, DVPW) pertaining to the usage and evaluation of the Politische Vierteljahresschrift in the context of other national and international political science journals. The results show that 50 years after its inception the PVS is an accepted part of the profession in Germany. Its articles are widely read, although mostly in a selective manner, differentiated by subdisciplines. As a place for publishing research findings it is of interest for almost all respondents. The journal’s evaluations are overall positive. From the perspective of its addressees the PVS fulfils its professional mission. However, in some respects its performance is seen as improvable.     

Reconceptualizing European Union regulatory networks: A response to Blauberger and Rittberger

This article responds to Michael Blauberger and Berthold Rittberger's article “Conceptualizing and theorizing EU regulatory networks,” published in Regulation & Governance in 2015. Blauberger and Rittberger challenged our previous work on the politics of Eurocracy, disputing our argument that political considerations, not functional ones, explain the choice of bureaucratic structure in the European Union (EU). Blauberger and Rittberger suggest that functional considerations do indeed explain why policymakers sometimes prefer governance through European Regulatory Networks rather than through more centralized EU agencies, and argue that we have misunderstood the preferences of EU legislative principals. In this article, we argue that there are significant flaws in Blauberger and Rittberger's analysis on both theoretical and empirical grounds. We show that a proper interpretation of developments in both telecoms and competition lends support to our theoretical claims and not those offered by Blauberger and Rittberger.     

Political Science as a Broad Church: The Search for a Pluralist Discipline

In 1996 Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann published an edited collection of essays, A New Handbook of Political Science , that provides probably the best overview of the discipline of political science, at least as seen through the eyes of the mainstream of the profession. Goodin is an American working at the Australian National University, while Klingemann is a German working in Berlin. Nevertheless, their overview represents an American view of political science, which is hardly surprising as more than 75 per cent of living political scientists are American. Overall, they present a picture of the discipline as professional, pluralistic and improving rapidly. Here, we take issue with that view, not as an ambition, but as a reality. In contrast, we argue that political science, particularly US political science, is still dominated by a positivist epistemology and, particularly, by behaviouralist and rational choice approaches that are underpinned by that positivism. We begin by outlining Goodin and Klingemann's argument and critiquing it. Subsequently, we take issue with them empirically, using evidence drawn both from their own edited collection and an analysis of the contents of the two foremost US and UK journals; in the US the American Political Science Review , the American Political Science Association's main journal, and the American Journal of Political Science , and in the UK the British Journal of Political Science and Political Studies , the Political Studies Association's main journal. The methodology adopted is discussed below. In the last section, we consider the consequence of our findings for the future of political science in Britain.     

Planning for substainable development: Insights from the literatures of political science

Abstract. Over the past decade European political leaders have increasingly come to refer to 'sustainable development' as a legitimate focus of government activity. Starting from the premises that sustainable development is a complex and contested ideal, and that experiences with state planning in the twentieth century have been deeply ambiguous, this article reflects on the insights which political science can shed on the new social project of 'planning for sustainable development'. The discussion centres on three relevant political science literatures — meta critiques of planning, 'new governance' debates, and enquiries into policy related learning. Consideration of these perspectives suggest that to the extent that it is possible for 'planning for sustainable development' to attain its declared objectives this will depend upon the integration of sustainable development norms into existing planning structures and modalities, the extensive development of co–operative management initiatives, and vigorous debates about alternative futures. Coordination among the inevitably disjointed and partially contradictory efforts of multiple agencies will rely upon the integrative potential of the sustainable development norm, central government initiatives, and collision, negotiation and mutual adjustment.     

A Global Ranking of Political Science Departments

Rankings of academic institutions are key information tools for universities, funding agencies, students and faculty. The main method for ranking departments in political science, through peer evaluations, is subjective, biased towards established institutions, and costly in terms of time and money. The alternative method, based on supposedly 'objective' measures of outputs in scientific journals, has thus far only been applied narrowly in political science, using publications in a small number of US-based journals. An alternative method is proposed in this paper – that of ranking departments based on the quantity and impact of their publications in the 63 main political science journals in a given five-year period. The result is a series of global and easily updatable rankings that compare well with results produced by applying a similar method in economics.