This article introduces the symposium titled “Political science perspectives on the emerging eco-social policies, politics and polity in the European Union” that brings together the eco-social debate with mainstream theories and concepts from the political science discipline with the aim of encouraging a mutually and reinforcing theoretical and empirical exchange between the two fields. Before presenting the other contributions to the symposium, this article unpacks what “eco-social” is by presenting the existing definitions followed by a bottom-up identification of the “eco-social” essence retrieved through a systematic review of this literature. Furthermore, it takes stock and identifies areas of deficiency of the eco-social literature along the three dimensions of policy, politics, and polity while also outlining potential contributions of political science’s approaches to this field.

Bibliometric measures, as provided by the Social Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information, certainly represent a useful tool for librarians and researchers. However, although librarian scientists have shown that the use of journal impact factors to evaluate the performance of academics is misleading, some authors continue to promote bibliometric metrics to assess the productivity of academic departments and even the entire European academic community. Taking an ambitious ‘global ranking of political science departments’ as a reference, this article questions both the reliability and desirability of bibliometric performance indicators. The article concludes that the development of a panopticon-like audit culture in universities will not enhance their quality, but rather undermine the classical idea and purpose of the university.

This article maps the state of political science since the turn of the millennium. It begins by reviewing the influential description of the discipline in Robert Goodin’s (2011 [2009]) introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Political Science. It then introduces an alternative approach, based on citation indexes, to generate a comparative list of influential authors for the same time period. After comparing Goodin’s list with our own, we use the same method to generate a list of the most influential books and articles of the 2009–2018 period and describe how the discipline has changed over the intervening decade. Two of the more interesting findings include the continued importance of books (in addition to articles) in political science citations and an apparent trend towards increased pluralism in recent years.

This article analyses the content and processes of reforms in the university sector in Denmark. It reveals radical reforms combining governance reforms, research policy reforms and educational policy reforms anchored in New Public Management ideas. The reforms introduce values that are alien to prevailing university values. They change decision-making processes and may have problematic constitutive effects on academic practice. The challenge to political science lies in the difficulty of documenting accountability, while still meeting the demand for economic value.

Over the past twenty years, the field of “gender and politics” has flourished in European political science. An example of this is the growing number of “gender and politics” scholars and the increased attention paid to gender perspectives in the study of the political. Against this backdrop, we take stock of how the “gender and politics” field has developed over the years. We argue that the field has now entered a stage of “consolidation”, which is reflected in the growth, diversification and professionalization of the subfield, as well as in the increased disciplinary recognition from major gatekeepers in political science. But while consolidation comes with specific opportunities, it also presents some key challenges. We identify five such challenges: (1) the potential fragmentation of the field; (2) persisting hierarchies in knowledge production; (3) the continued marginalization of feminist political analysis in “mainstream” political science; (4) the changing link between academia and society; and (5) growing opposition to gender studies in parts of Europe and beyond. We argue that both the “gender and politics” field and political science in general should address these challenges in order to become a truly inclusive discipline.

This symposium makes a first step in bridging the emerging eco-social debate and the established political science theories and concepts, indicating the mutually beneficial analytical perspectives and common research pathways that may arise. In addition to identifying several aspects in the policy, politics and polity dimensions that appear to be particularly relevant in view of the emerging eco-social policies, this collection of articles points out two cross-cutting themes, namely the transformation of the welfare state set-ups, and new cleavages and power relations, which pose new questions and open a promising research agenda for political scientists.

This article aims to address the social and political role of political scientists in Greece, which has been at the centre of the Eurozone crisis, resulting in the most troubled period in the country’s recent political history, namely the campaign week of the July 2015 bailout referendum. To that end, the article relies, on the one hand, on the PROSEPS survey data to identify the extent to which Greek political scientists engage in public debate in general and how they view the social role of their discipline. On the other hand, we used a content analysis of the leading national TV media during the aforementioned week to examine how much Greek political scientists participated in the public debate in comparison with other social scientists, and what were their stances on specific issues and dimensions, such as the framing of the European Union. In addition, we also delve into the stance of Greek political scientists who participated in the public debate regarding the referendum itself. The study results revealed a potential bias; political scientists who pronounce themselves in favour of the status quo seem to receive more invitations to participate in televised debates.

The ERC has been a pivotal innovation in the set of funding instruments that the European Commission has established for fostering research and innovation in the European Union. With more than 8000 projects funded so far, it is worth asking about empirical evidence regarding the ERC’s specific impact on the social sciences. This article provides some basic data, along with descriptive statistics, on the social scientists who have been sitting on ERC evaluation panels, and on ERC-funded research projects from the social sciences. The article ends with a discussion of the data and poses questions for further investigations.

In this article, we present an inventory of the published articles in two German political science journals: the Politische Vierteljahresschrift (PVS) and the Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (ZPol, formerly Jahrbuch für Politik) from 1960 to 2003 and from 1994 to 2003, respectively. Our focus is on the methodological orientations of the articles and the coverage of thematic subfields of political science. The resulting analysis shows that until the 1990s, German political science (as presented in these journals) was mainly non-comparative, non-quantitative, theoretical and inward-oriented. For one of the two journals, this long-term trend has significantly changed since the 1990s.

The article analyses the nature and prospects of political science in a country where a number of historical and cultural constraints have so far hampered a broad presence of the discipline. The article focuses in particular on the last twenty years, a period in which there has been a radical transformation of the Italian university system. After assessing the penetration of political science in recent academic programmes, the article provides an analysis of the internationalization of the products of Italian political science. The final section discusses the recent achievements and the persisting problems that continue to plague this academic discipline in Italy.

Starting from the first ‘Women in Politics’ workshop, Berlin 1977, the article looks at the development of this new research field within the framework of the ECPR. From a young gender blind political science in the 1950–1970s until today's situation, where papers applying a gender perspective are presented in almost every ECPR workshop, and as many as 300 scholars participated in the First European Conference on Gender and Politics’, organised by the ECPR Standing Group on ‘Women/Gender and Politics’. The article scrutinises the discussion about ‘the male oligarchs of the ECPR’ and the accusation of ‘separatism’.

What have been the losses and the gains of the shift from women’s studies to gender studies for political science in The Netherlands? What are present-day opportunities and how should we move forward? Our systematic analysis of the Bachelor programmes offered by four Dutch political science departments shows that gender is not a central feature in the current curricula. Gender in political science has become dependent on personal interests and engagements at the individual level rather than being sustained by structural commitments at the departmental level. This article argues that a gender perspective should be part of the analytical toolkit of anyone trained as a political scientist. Students should be made aware that gender is a fundamental aspect of the organisation of power and therefore unambiguously political. Gender awareness impacts upon both students’ academic development and Dutch politics given that many graduates take up jobs in or close to the political environment. With this in mind, being equipped with a ‘gender lens’ will enable students to identify and explain gender inequalities and more importantly stimulate them to develop innovative strategies to close the gaps.

Although American political science is, as Bernard Crick emphasised, in many respects a distinctly American science of politics, its evolution has been deeply informed by European ideas. This was quite obviously the case during the nineteenth century, when the German concept of the state dominated the discourse of the field, as well as in the early part of the twentieth century, when English scholars made significant contributions to the theory of democratic pluralism. By the middle of the century, German émigrés had contributed to a fundamental transformation in political theory which challenged the mainstream vision of political enquiry; but what is less well understood is the extent to which the reaction to this challenge in behavioural political science was also based on ideas that were the product of the European exodus.

French political science remains an enigma for the rest of our discipline. Despite its early involvement in establishing the study of politics, today it is relatively small, fraught with internal difficulties and largely unknown in the rest of the world. Notwithstanding these traits, this article argues that, over the last three decades, political science in France has institutionalized, internationalized and deepened its engagement with the public sphere. Indeed, not only are student numbers expanding, but colleagues in our discipline consistently produce original and robust data and publications. Based upon statistics and participatory observation over the last 30 years, this piece’s central claim is that although much could of course be improved, contemporary French political science is now well positioned to make more sustained contributions to our discipline as a whole. Understanding better and highlighting the positive aspects of its trajectory provide ways of striving towards this goal.

This article compares political science to another discipline, with which it has much in common. That discipline is architecture. The political-science-as-architecture analogy has a long history in political thought. It also has important implications for the ends, means, and uses of political science. It follows from the political-science-as-architecture analogy that political science is necessarily a heterogeneous and pluralistic discipline. It also follows that political scientists have a common purpose, which is to conceive of institutional structures that allow humans to live together in societies, just as the purpose of architecture is to conceive of physical structures in which humans can live together.

In political research and everyday politics, Finland is often presented as one of the gender-equal countries. The Nordic countries, Finland included, top a number of gender equality indices indicating that women’s societal position is particularly advanced. Feminist research, however, seeks to highlight the issue specificity of such evaluations. While Finland comes out on top in terms of a number of indicators, there are other areas where Finland is a laggard. Gender equality in the Academy is a case point. About a quarter of professors are women in Finland but their numbers fluctuate a lot from one discipline to another. Political science has traditionally been very male dominated, and the notion of politics is perceived as masculine. This article provides a brief overview of the current status of women in political science in Finland. It revisits earlier findings about how political science as a discipline is gendered in Finland and evaluates their pertinence today. The article then discusses the current situation and evaluates the changed institutional context. Despite progress made in numbers, gender continues to shape the political science discipline in Finland.

European Political Science (EPS) has been a leading political science journal since its launch in 2001. This article examines the contribution of European Political Science over its 20-year history. The bibliometric analysis draws on Web of Science data and VOSviewer software. These tools help detect collaboration networks, bibliographic coupling and co-citations to identify the most relevant topics and knowledge appearing in European Political Science. The evaluation of EPS reveals four areas of interest: migration, education, comparative politics and democracy. Recent interests include the current debate on populisms, social media and political parties, with antecedents and implications that transcend national boundaries.

Journals are currently ‘ranked’ by their influential ‘impact factor’ and their ‘total number of cites’ – both published by Thomson, the company producing and selling the (Social) Science Citation Index. This article suggests an alternative view and ranks political science journals according to the number of articles published within a period of time that have ‘frequently’ been cited.