In this book review of Foundations and American Political Science: The Transformation of a Discipline, 1945-1970 by Emily Hauptmann, political science professor Lee Trepanier talks about how “the discipline of political science has been almost completely colonized by mathematical models, data analysis, and numeric reasoning.” The analysis is important in light of the fact that, in the US, “[s]ince 2017, the economics major has surpassed the political science major in popularity—something that last happened 56 years ago in 1961.”
According to Trepanier, “Hauptmann shows how private philanthropic foundations like Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller played an instrumental role in changing the practice and values in political science.”
The effect that the resulting “predominance of behavioralism” has had on the discipline is described by Trepanier as:
“Political science consequently has become boring to students. Professors see the fulfillment of their academic lives in scholarly publications that only a few people read rather than introducing students to the study of politics or explaining to communities why political science is a public good. Because of their training, professors want to teach hyper-specialized and esoteric topics that almost nobody is interested in, other than their five academic friends. Topics that students get most excited about, like political theory and public administration, are marginalized because they cannot be quantified and therefore do not qualify for political analysis. Instead, students are required to enroll in more courses in Bayesian analysis. But, if you are going to do that, then you might as well study a field that is entirely mathematized, like economics, and work on Wall Street.”
Read the full book review here.
Reblogger 