In any field today it is vastly
important to understand what forms of communication exist and how they are
utilized. In political science one needs to understand how communication works
and specifically how it is utilized in order to understand the field of
political science itself. The diverse forms of communication exhibited in the
world of political science influence how information is shared, gathered and
processed. The process in which political science is communicated dictates the
manner in which the political world is studied. When an entire field approaches
the same questions with the same context as its predecessor, political axioms
attempt to emerge. Allegiance to political axioms not only shapes the field of
study; they contribute considerable influence on the entire world and all who
live in it. Axioms however rarely exist, and those that do exist are still
commonly challenged. Understanding how communication works in the field of
political science is necessary to understanding the political and social realms
of today’s societies.
In
order to understand how communication works today it is necessary to first
understand why it is the way it is by analyzing the history of the study of the
field of political science, and the resulting application of these findings. While
there is great importance in the study of politics dating back to many millennia
before the emergence of the field of political science itself; the focus will
reside with political science as of the 1960’s to the present day. The 1960’s
proved to be a pivotally influential era for politics which would dictate how
the field itself was approached for the foreseeable future. During the 1960’s
the last major hegemonic struggle was in full swing; this struggle today is
known as the cold-war. The cold-war did more than pit the two potential
hegemons against one-another; it also served as a platform for a war of
ideologies. These two ideologies served as the forefront for the conflict, and
led people to the conclusion there can only be one hegemonic state. The
cold-war was the power struggle between the capitalist, liberal democracy of
the United States and the communist, authoritarian regime of the Soviet Union.
The two nations served as temporary and short lived allies in the fight against
the fascism of Nazi-Germany, which resulted in a power vacuum of two very
opposing ideologies on the nature and implementation of politics. As everyone
knows the U.S. was the victors, so therefore so was liberal democracy.
The field of
political science began to change to reflect the personal ideological
viewpoints of those studying it. Before the cold-war there was a wide array of
ideological viewpoints being analyzed and criticized; the field questioned all
ideology’s claims to legitimacy in the pursuit of knowledge, but as the Soviets
and Americans began to challenge one-another’s legitimacy, scientists found it
to be there civic duty to trade their previously ubiquitous analysis for a
parochial, more patriotic one. “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.”1 The field of political science had
provided exposure to the systematic flaws of a liberal democracy, however no
longer is the legitimacy of liberal democracies challenged. There is no
substantial challenge to liberal democracies claim to legitimacy; rather the
field focuses on how liberal democracies are pursued or influenced and the
ramifications of these pursuits. This unwavering support for liberal democracies
has become one of the largest contributors to the way the current hegemon views
and interacts with the world. Communication in the field of political science
has changed equally with the field itself, and now that a historical context
has been established we may analyze what the different forms of communication
are, and how they have evolved in the last five decades.
There are two primary schools of thought on
how to analyze and pursue knowledge through research; qualitative and
quantitative. The quantitative school of thought focuses on large scale
statistics and probabilities; whereas qualitative involves a greater depth of
analysis with regards to all stimuli surrounding or influencing the subject. I will delve into greater detail about the
role each of these plays and how this has influenced the field, but first a
brief example of the difference. While purely quantitative research studies the
emergence of Islamist extremism by way of numerical data, many have used this
research to suggest Islamist extremism is the result of their religious
ideology and its unwillingness to adapt. For example if 30 of the states being
analyzed are Islamist majority and 24 out of the 30 are home to known Islamist
extremist organizations, a conclusion associating the problem to be with Islam
itself may be drawn. Whereas through qualitative research the same example, 24
out of 30 Islamist states being home to known Islamist extremist organizations,
would draw the conclusion that the Islamist extremism prevalent in these states
are the result of post-colonialism, American imperialism, MNC’s and
socio-economic disparity and instability. Qualitative research would classify
Islamist extremists as being a product of their environment, and their violent behaviors
are the result of a cause and effect relationship, they are products of their
environment, as opposed to the fore mentioned conclusion that violence is a
product of the Islamic faith.
The field of
political science had once focused most heavily on qualitative research, but
has shifted, and with the age of technology has come the age of quantification.
The emergence of a dominantly qualitative approach is a direct result of
technological advances; statistical data can now be produced, compared and
analyzed at a much faster rate and with “greater accuracy” every year. However
this over quantification, as some experts in the field would consider it, has
tarnished the legitimacy of the field itself. An absolute reliance on
quantitative data has had a negative effect on several aspects of domestic and
foreign policy; the field in its search for political axioms has allowed itself
to operate on a system of assumptions. This is not to be mistaken as a complete
condemnation of quantitative research; it serves a limited purpose in most
aspects of the field. It provides considerable contributions to polling and demographic
data as well as invaluable support to the in depth qualitative research. In the field today over quantification is
over evident in the forms of higher learning “This has drastically impacted the
field because some graduate degrees in political science are now essentially a
graduate in statistics.”2 Technological advances have
influenced more aspects of how this field communicates than just its influence
on quantitative and qualitative research. These advances have completely
changed the flow, production and exposure of information; information that may
have taken hours or days to be received now can be dispersed among the world in
a matter of minutes. Communication in every aspect of the field has been
altered by technological advances; massively decreasing the amount of time
dedicated to producing new information and therefore increasing the amount
produced. This especially applies to statistical data; with the field focusing
more heavily on it as well as advances in technology to increase accuracy and
accessibility; predictive outcomes and analysis of probability have a much
larger role in the field than ever before.
The question to ask may not necessarily be how communication works in
this field; rather what is communicated and how this field has changed to
dictate the nature of communication in it. The two most influential changes in
this field have come in the form of the unwavering support for liberal
democracies and quantitative research. These two devolutions to the field have
more in common than many would assume. They are simply the byproduct of a
system actively regulating the field that regulates the system itself.
