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.     

Doing development differently: Rituals of hope and despair in an INGO

Through an anthropological lens, using examples from working in an international NGO, I explore how and why a group of development workers navigated the coercive practices of aid in ways that benefitted their partners in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Rather than seeking conspiracies to explain the gaps between development rhetoric and practices, I suggest that people both contest and collude with bureaucratic systems of rule. Youth Rights reformed various rituals and created different management practices internally, as well as maintaining its long-established solidarity approach with partners, but only managed to challenge the donors’ controls to a limited extent.     

Using multiple choice questions to examine the content of the qualifying law degree accurately and reliably: the experience of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme

The Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) provides a route for lawyers from other jurisdictions and barristers from England and Wales to qualify as solicitors in England and Wales. One of the three tests in the QLTS, the Multiple Choice Test (MCT), uses multiple choice questions to examine the syllabus of the qualifying law degree together with some pervasive subjects from the Legal Practice Course. This paper examines the MCT in detail. Particular attention is paid to the format and structure of the questions. We describe the detailed editing which each question goes through before it is used, the statistical analysis and review which take place after an exam, and the rationale for these processes. An explanation is given of what reliability and accuracy mean and how they are measured statistically. There is also an explanation of the “Angoff method” by which pass marks are set. Finally, the paper reports on the first four sittings of the MCT and their statistical results including their reliability and accuracy. Use of the multiple choice test, though well established for examining applied knowledge in medicine and in law in other jurisdictions, is a radical departure for the assessment of law in England and Wales. The experience of QLTS has shown that a carefully constructed multiple choice test of a suitable length can assess the qualifying law degree content both reliably and accurately.