Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:24:47.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Dynamic Labor Market: How Political Science is Opening Up to Methodologists, and How Methodologists are Opening Up Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2007

Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Anand E. Sokhey
Affiliation:
Ohio State University

Extract

If disciplines can be likened to living things, then perhaps political science is best characterized not by familiar symbols—e.g., the elephant, the donkey, or the eagle—but by a small sea creature: the hermit crab. Rather than generating its own protective cover, the hermit crab adopts the foreign shells that it comes across; it makes a home for itself by utilizing the previous works of other crustaceans. For many years, the discipline of political science—like other areas within the social and behavioral sciences—built its own frameworks using the analytical tools found in outside disciplines. Borrowing heavily from econometrics, psychometrics, and biometrics, political scientists examined empirical data as they tested theories about individual behavior, organizational dynamics, and governmental processes. The substantive ends were of primary interest, and therefore less attention was paid to the means of inquiry.The authors wish to thank Michael Brintnall for sharing the American Political Science Association's data on job postings, and David Campbell, Tom Carsey, Suzanna DeBoef, Jeff Gill, John Jackson, Jonathan Nagler, Herb Weisberg, and Sarah Wilson for helpful comments and suggestions on previous versions of this article.

Type
THE PROFESSION
Copyright
© 2007 The American Political Science Association

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. 1985. “Editorial.” Political Methodology 11.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 2002. “EITM.” Political Methodologist 11 (1): 710.Google Scholar
American Political Science Association. 2006. www.apsanet.org.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 2002. “ Political Methodology: A Welcoming Discipline.” In Statistics in the 21st Century, eds. Adrian E. Rafferty, Martin A. Tanner, and Martin T. Wells. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Brintnall, Michael. 2005. “Academic Jobs in Political Science: A Review of Listings with the APSA Jobs Service.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (1): 1257.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 2006. “ Forty Years of Publishing in Quantitative Methodology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry Brady, and David Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marks, Amber, Karen Partlow, and Catherine M. Player. 2006. “CourseShare: A Report to the CIC Deans of Arts & Sciences.” http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jbox/ITV/CIC_courseshare.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2006.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Philip A. 1991. “Political Methodology Explained.” Political Methodologist 4 (2): 19.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2003. “Is This the Curriculum We Want? Doctoral Requirements and Offerings in Methods and Methodology.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (3): 37986.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee. 2005. “Report of the Editor of the American Political Science Review, 2003–2004.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (1): 13740.Google Scholar
The Society for Political Methodology. 2006. http://polmeth.wustl.edu/index.php.Google Scholar