Poli Sci profs: from studying revolt to starting one

"When people are pushed to the brink, the leaders go, the regime goes, the country changes!" read the message. The sender was identified only as "Mr. Pe-restroika"—a reference to the Soviet restructuring of the mid-1980s—and he wrote to 17 likely sympathizers, urging some sort of popular revolt. Within days, the original e-mail had been forwarded to 100 people, and professors who had devoted their entire careers to studying revolutions suddenly found themselves swept into one.

SARAH ENGLAND/YH

Although one might be hard-pressed to tell by its polemic tone, "Mr. Perestroika's" message did not address a centuries-old ethnic conflict or a nation's struggle for freedom. Rather, the mysterious sender brought to the surface a simmering dispute at the heart of the field of Political Science over whether professors should teach their students a technical, mathematical approach to the subject or instead use a more qualitative, substantive method.

"Mr. Perestroika" aired a list of grievances with the discipline's professional organization, the American Political Science Association (APSA), and its main journal, the American Political Science Review (APSR). Two of the most important issues in academia, tenure and intellectual prestige, are on the line. Yet the discipline is so sharply divided, many cannot even use the same terms to describe their disagreement. Last week, The New York Times attempted to qualify the revolt as a dispute between "pronumber versus nonnumber folks"—terms to which many objected. So what exactly is at issue?

"Most people believe the core issue is that the reviewing process at the APSR tends to favor articles that make a contribution to more technical and methodological issues as opposed to more substantive issues of politics," explained Rogers Smith, professor of government and member of the Political Science department at Yale.

The technical group and the substantive group take radically different approaches to the study of politics. In analyzing the same situation, for example, the technical group might draw on statistics and rational choice theory while the substantive group might draw on primary sources and historical events. Most political science professors fall into the substantive group rather than the technical one, but the journal's editor recently admitted that 75 percent of the articles published over the last four years have been of the technical variety.

Substantive scholars are not upset simply because their work is underrepresented—though academic prestige is clearly at stake. Journal subscription is mandatory for members of the APSA, so all political scientists are helping to subsidize the APSR. Jobs are also on the line. "The fact of publication in the journal is regarded by most departments and universities as a big plus in the review process and in promotions to tenure," Smith said.

Professors on the substantive side cannot exactly agree on why their work is underrepresented. "Mr. Perestroika," for one, said he believes that a "coterie of faculty [has] dominate[d] and control[led] APSA and the editorial board of the APSR." He reiterated his hope that "his anonymous letter leads to a dismantling of the Orwellian system that we have in APSA." Smith was more cautious, however, saying that technical articles dominate "partly because in such work the contribution is clearer and less controversial. There are clear technical standards."

"Because publication in this journal is such a professional asset, editors feel great pressure to justify every decision about what goes in and what doesn't," Smith added. "They tend to go with articles where the reviewing process produces great consensus. But those are often articles that are substantively not very controversial and not very interesting. They do produce some technical innovation—and that is valuable. But the flagship journal of the profession should include more than that."

Out of the online discussions that evolved from "Perestroika's" original message, a broad sense of dissatisfaction emerged. "Although `Perestroika' is clearly a somewhat audacious personality, there are lots of people who share these feelings," Smith said. "So he really is representative of a broader group."

Responding to that dissatisfaction, Professor Smith drafted an open letter to the leadership and members of the APSA. Over 125 other political scientists joined him in signing it, including Yale professor James C. Scott and Ian Shapiro, GRD '80, GRD '83, LAW '87, chair of Yale's Political Science department. Alistair Smith, a Yale professor who has been published in the APSR recently and has been criticized by some as an example of its problems, did not sign the letter and refused to comment.

"We believe strongly that the profession [of Political Science] is in danger of alienating a larger and larger number of those who should be its active members," read the letter. "[It is] contributing less and less to the kind of understanding of politics that it is our responsibility to advance."

Although the letter was just sent last week, there are already signs of a response. In late August the APSA promised "more integrative" essays in an expanded print or electronic journal by 2003. It now may be stepping up those efforts. Jeffery Biggs, a spokesman for the APSA, said the December issue of Political Science and Politics (another APSA publication) "will include Rogers Smith's letter, as well as a response from [APSA] president Robert Jervis." Jervis was out of town and could not be reached for comment, but acknowledged last week that "almost everyone agrees the journal does not reflect the breadth of high-quality work being done throughout the discipline."

Meanwhile, the fight continues. As "Mr. Perestroika" urged his colleagues, "Head for the Parliament folks! (just as they did in Belgrade)."

Back to News...