Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:28:13.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Putting European political science back together again

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

Michael Keating
Michael Keating*
Affiliation:
Department of Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute, Badia Fiesolana, Domenico di Fiesole, Italy
*
E-mail: keating@eui.eu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political science is the product of modernity and the nation-state. A dominant tradition within it has striven for a positivistic and universal form of understanding, based on the individual actor. Developments in recent years have questioned our understanding of modernity, universalism, science, and the nation-state. Political science has responded in two ways: by reinforcing the positivist approach, or by adopting various forms of intepretivism. This has created an artificial division within the discipline. Political scientists can overcome this artificial divide by looking outside the discipline. There are promising developments in this direction but these are inhibited by trying to confine them within the dominant positivist mode. They have also responded by borrowing from neighbouring disciplines, but in doing so, they have too often appropriated concepts in simplified form or coined empty concepts. They need to take neighbouring disciplines more seriously and work across disciplinary boundaries. A pluralistic approach is possible, which neither seeks a grand synthesis of all the social sciences, nor sees them as independent and self-standing, but which encourages cross-fertilization and combinations of approaches. The existence of distinct European national and disciplinary traditions, far from being an obstacle to the development of the discipline, gives European political scientists an advantage.

Keywords

political scienceinterpretive approachesepistemology
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 297 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abélès, M. (1989), Jours tranquilles en 89: ethnologie politique d’un département français, Paris: Editions O. Jacob.Google Scholar
Adams, J., Clemens, E.S.Orloff, A.S. (eds) (2004), ‘Introduction: social theory, modernity, and the three waves of historical sociology’, in Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology, Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 1–74.Google Scholar
Almond, G.A.Verba, S. (eds) (1980), The Civic Culture Revisited, Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Bache, I.Flinders, M. (eds) (2004), ‘Multi-level governance: conclusions and implications’, in Multi-level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banting, K.Kymlicka, W. (eds) (2007), Multiculturalism and the Welfare State, Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartolini, S. (2006), Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Structuring between the Nation State and the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauböck, R. (2008), ‘Normative political theory and empirical research’, in D. della Porta and M. Keating (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 40–60.Google Scholar
Bevir, M. (2000), ‘On tradition’, Humanitas 13: 28–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, M. (2008), ‘Metamethodology: clearing the underbrush’, in J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady and D. Collier (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 48–70.Google Scholar
Bevir, M.Rhodes, R.A.W. (2003), Interpreting British Governance, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bevir, M.Rhodes, R.A.W. (2006), Governance Stories, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, R. (2002), Reflections on Meta-reality: Transcendence, Emancipation and Everyday Life, New Delhi and London: Sage.Google Scholar
Brady, H.E.Collier, D. (eds) (2004), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Braudel, F. (1986), L’identité de la France, Paris: Arthaud.Google Scholar
Bray, Z. (2008), ‘Ethnographic approaches’, in D. della Porta and M. Keating (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 296–315.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. (1988), ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American Journal of Sociology 94(Suppl): 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delanty, G. (1999), Social Theory in a Changing World, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Erne, R. (2007), ‘On the use and abuse of bibliometric performance indicators: a critique of Hix’s “global ranking of political science departments” ’, European Political Science 6(3): 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, A. (1966), An Essay on the History of Civil Society, 1767, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Y.H.Mansbach, R.W. (1996), Polities: Authority, Identities, and Change, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001), Making Social Science Matter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzese, R. (2003), ‘Quantitative empirical methods and context conditionality’, APSA-CP Newsletter 14(1): 20–24.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. (1992), The End of History and the Last Man, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fulbrook, M. (2006), ‘Why historical accounts are inevitably theoretical; but why some accounts are preferable to others’, in A.L. Macfie (ed.), The Philosophy of History, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 201–202.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
George, A.L.Bennet, A. (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1976), The New Rules of Sociological Method, London: Hutchison.Google Scholar
Grofman, B. (2007), ‘Toward a science of politics?’, European Political Science 6(2): 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1999), The social construction of what?, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, P.A.Taylor, R.C.R. (1996), ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’, Political Studies 44(5): 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, C. (2002), Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1988), ‘The renaissance of political culture’, American Political Science Review 82(4): 1203–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P.T. (2006), ‘A statistician strikes out: in defense of genuine methodological diversity’, in S.F. Schram and B. Caterino (eds), Making Political Science Matter, New York: New York University Press, 86–97.Google Scholar
Jenkins, K. (2006), ‘Postmodernism, the end of history and Frank Ankersmit’, in A.L. Macfie (ed.), The Philosophy of History, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 138–154.Google Scholar
Jordan, G. (1990), ‘Policy community realism versus “new” institutionalist ambiguity’, Political Studies XXXVIII(3): 470–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, M. (2001), Plurinational Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R.O.Verba, S. (1994), Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, F. (2008), ‘Constructivism: what it is (not) and how it matters’, in D. della Porta and M. Keating (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80–98.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, W. (1995), Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, J.-E.Ersson, S. (2005), Culture and Politics. A Comparative Approach, 2nd edn. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Lewis, O., Steinmo, S (2008), ‘Taking evolution seriously’, mimeo, Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
Lichbach, M.I. (1997), ‘Social theory and comparative politics’, in M.I. Lichbach and A.S. Zuckerman (eds), Comparative Politics. Rationality, Structure, and Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 239–276.Google Scholar
Lustick, I.S. (1996), ‘History, historiography and political science: multiple historical records and the problem of selection bias’, American Political Science Review 90(3): 605–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J.Rueschemeyer, D. (eds) (2003), ‘Comparative historical analysis: achievements and agendas’, in Comparative Historical Research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–40.Google Scholar
March, J.G.Olsen, J.P. (1984), ‘The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life’, American Political Science Review 78: 734–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.Olsen, J. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, D.Stoker, G. (eds) (1995), Theory and Methods in Political Science, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D.C. (2005), Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paasi, A. (2002), ‘Place and region: regional worlds and words’, Progress in Human Geography 26(6): 802–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierre, J.Peters, B.G. (2000), Governance, Politics and the State, London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2004), Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pizzorno, A. (2008), ‘Rationality and recognition’, in D. della Porta and M. Keating (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Portes, A. (2001), ‘Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, A.Teune, H. (1970), The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, M.H. (1997), ‘Culture and identity in comparative political analysis’, in M.I. Lichback and A.S. Zuckerman (eds), Comparative Politics. Rationality, Culture, and Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steinmo, S., Thelen, K.Longstreth, F. (eds) (1992), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Langenhoven, L. (2007), Innovating the Social Sciences. Towards more Useable Knowledge for Society, Vienna: Passagen Verlag.Google Scholar