The Problem of Political Science and Practical Politics

Abstract

We reflect on the reasons why there is not a greater and more fruitful relationship between those who seek to understand policy and the political process from academia and those with a similar task in ‘practical politics’. We attribute this lack of engagement to three core factors: (1) from without, instrumental government visions of political science perpetuate the view that the discipline exists to serve those with power; (2) from within, scientism and abstraction diminish the discipline's stock of ‘usable’ product for ‘practical politics’; and (3) where relevant research exists, its uptake is hampered by limited communication between these spheres.

Los Estudios cuantitativos en América Latina

“…Su presencia e intensidad suelen ser utilizadas como criterio para establecer el grado de modernización de la disciplina en diferentes regiones del mundo (DiSalvo, 2013). Por otro lado, el abordaje cuantitativo suele ser considerado una de las fuentes (sino la fuente) de los principales desvíos, distorsiones y limitaciones que son atribuidos a la disciplina (Donovan y Larkin, 2006). Las ansias de medición habrían exacerbado el tecnicismo, el formalismo y la especialización fragmentadora, perdiendo de vista al propio fenómeno político (Kingsley, 2018).…”

Towards a More Collaborative Political Science: A Partnership Approach

“…The general effect is to shift the research enterprise toward issues that are meaningful to diverse actors at a practical level, ensuring affected actors have a say in how they are addressed. This includes policy practitioners, NGOs, industry and the broader public, as well as culturally diverse stakeholders (Donovan and Larkin, 2006). As we discuss below, designing research partnerships that ensure voice for Indigenous peoples is critical in research affecting them (Smith, 1999).…”

“…A multi-sector partnership may not be suitable to every problem. But against a chorus of voices clamouring for a more socially relevant contribution from political science (Donovan and Larkin, 2006; Lupia, 2014; Wood, 2014), there appear to be some domains where this approach can pay considerable dividends.…”

Interdisciplinarity as a Source of Relevance for Political Science

“…Pelinka 1996, Sickinger 2004, Ehs 2010, König/ Ehs 2012, the present study embeds the case of Austrian PS and its predecessors in a broader international context. 2 Thereby we engage with the current debate on the societal relevance of PS (Smith 2015, Donovan/ Larkin 2006Wood, 2014;Cherney et al 2013;Capano/ Verzichelli 2016) and the discipline's engagement in interdisciplinarity (Warleigh/Cini 2009, Ashworth 2009. The latter can be viewed as a response to multiple pressures including the demand for problem-orientation in the allocation schemes for research funding and the prominence of "new issues that cross established disciplinary boundaries" such as politics of public health, climate change, cyber security, and so forth (Warleigh/ Cini 2009, 4).…”