Jacob
Robinson
ENG
250
Summary
assignment
In
Daniel DiSalvo’s The Politics of Studying
Politics: Political Science Since the 1960’s he describes the evolution of
the study of politics; the shifting paradigms and research methods of the
1960’s to current. He explains that until recently political science was not
commonly studied at universities; now most universities have a political
science program. One would think that with this vast change in the number of
people studying political science that the field would therefore gain
legitimacy through peer review and the considerable amount of research being
done. DiSalvo then delves into the philosophical difference between liberal
democracies and true political research and analysis. He focuses heavily on the
moral obligation of a true scientist to be willing to challenge liberal
democracy, and pulls into question the validity of the majority of political
scientists and their research because of this inability to ask real questions. With
the field favoring liberal democracy there has formed illegitimacy in the way
research is done and what is focused on.
The author believes that around the 1960’s the field of
political science began to change; primarily the focus of political research
devolved from the analytical methods of qualitative research to quantitative
research. This focus on quantitative research is still overwhelmingly present
today. The change in political study during that era can be understood through
the context of it being a post-WWII world. After the war there was a power vacuum
for political ideologies, the prevailing ideology preferred by most of the
western world was liberal democracy. The author asserts that at the end of the
Cold war several developing nations began adopting and utilizing democratic
systems of government, so the focus on qualitative criticism of liberal
democracy has nearly disappeared altogether
As a political scientist you are stuck with
the dilemma of critical analysis of liberal democracy, which may, and in many
cases did, lead to findings that are in direct contradiction with the scientists’
love of democracy; in which case many scientists would either approach the
findings with a prejudicial bias or not publish their research in an attempt to
keep their precious liberal democracy
from coming into question. Or on the other side of the dilemma one must cast
aside their intransigent thought process’, and cognitive dissonance that
inhibits critical ideological analysis “Hence if one were a good scientist one
might be a bad citizen; and if one were a good citizen, one might be a bad
scientist” (DiSalvo,135).
This war of ideologies has had a considerable
effect on the field of political science today, pre 1960’s many had begun
calling into question the legitimacy of liberal democracies, and exposing
several of the systems flaws, but with the war of ideologies political
scientists became defensive of their ideologies and so the field changed with
them. Now rarely is critical analysis of a democracy seen. Instead the field
focuses on how democracies change or how other ideologies change into a
democratic system. This one sided way of viewing politics excludes one of the
two most largely recognized political perspectives, realism. Political
scientists today favor the perspective of liberalism over realism twenty to
one. This is a problem because it restricts critical thought, so debates are no
longer right vs. left; rather left vs. far left. The author believes that when
you lack legitimate critical analysis, then the “reigning political regime” will
survive unchallenged, and therefore its possible corruptions unscathed. In the
1980’s political scientists placed an abundant focus on behavioral predictions
in an attempt to discover or establish a set of laws like that of Newton. Today
there is only theory, yet the search for political axioms continues, the
emergence of a school of thought concerning individual actors has made it that
much more difficult, but that’s kind of the point.
In
conclusion writing in the field of political science is highly controversial,
and has undergone several ideological and philosophical changes in the last
five decades. These changes have not only set guidelines for political
scientists today, but actively restrict knowledge and research in the field.
Some scientists seek to “develop “laws” of political behavior” (DiSalvo,133);
while others seek the furtherance of liberalism and the avidly defend liberal
democracies regardless of their research’s findings. DiSalvo argues that this
field has become oversaturated with parochialism which leads the majority
involved with or affected by this parochialism to be subject to the reigning
ideology. While most of this field has abandoned the concepts of true science
and instead prefer biased conclusions, not all do especially in the fields of
comparative and international politics; where qualitative research is still
utilized.
