No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 May 2020
Acrimonious and seemingly interminable debates have surrounded the introduction and dissemination of systematic empirical methods in political science. Nevertheless, for better or worse, these methods and this mode of analysis are here to stay in political science and the other social science disciplines. No one can deny the general leaning towards behavioralism that is evident in the programs of the major PH.D. granting institutions. Scholars may debate the ultimate validity of these approaches for understanding politics, but all must agree that a thorough understanding of today's social science requires at least some familiarity with the behavioral approach, even if this familiarity were to be conceived of as “self defense” in the struggle to keep up with the literature in the major journals, and even if that familiarity were to breed contempt.
1 DEA News, No. 9, Spring, 1976, p. 8.Google Scholar
2 For example, in the 1978-79 academic year, 74 percent of teaching political scientists were members of a department that had ten or fewer members; 52 percent were in departments having five or fewer members. See APSA Department Services Program, 1978-79 Survey ,of Department.Google Scholar
3 For an explanation of this concept, see Stern, Mark, “Hands-On Problem Solving in Introductory Political Science,” Improving College and University Teaching, Vol. 26, No. 4 pp. 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar