Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:20:35.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subfield Hockey: A Reaction to Matthew Moore's National Survey of Political Theorists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2010

Kennan Ferguson
Kennan Ferguson
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This survey's importance comes not from what it informs us about political theory as a field, but rather from the function it serves within debates over the component areas of the field of political science. Rather than answering whether political theory “belongs” within political science (an unanswerable question), the survey uses quantification of qualitative experience and data collection to consolidate political theory as a subfield. Thus success of this project relies upon and reinforces disciplinary norms, operating as a process that attempts to bring a normative political theory into existence. The rank ordering of departments, journals, and individual theorists proves appealing not only for the competitive, horse-race valuation of those people and institutions, but also for how they ultimately resist this project by showing the anti-normative heart of political theory: an important and useful survey indeed.

Type
The Profession Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 275 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

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

Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69 (74): 1218–31.Google Scholar
Appadurai, Arjun. 1990. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” Public Culture 2 (2): 1–24.Google Scholar
Brenner, Robert. 1998. “The Economics of Global Turbulence.” New Left Review I/229 (May–June).Google Scholar
Dean, Jodi. 2010. “Theory Survey or Survey Theory?” PS: Political Science and Politics 43 (2): 273–74.Google Scholar
Groves, Robert M. 2004. Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A. 1999. “Survey Research.” Annual Review of Psychology 50: 537–567.Google Scholar
Moore, Matthew J. 2010. “Political Theory Today: The Results of a National Survey.” PS: Political Science and Politics 43 (2): 265–72.Google Scholar
Schram, Sanford F., and Caterino, Brian, eds. 2006. Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1978. Philosophical Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Questions” American Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 579–616.Google Scholar