Political science remains central to the assurance of a functional polity. This report seeks to shed light on three major criticisms of political science as a discipline; First Robert D. Putnam highlights a first point of disagreement among scholars, presented by Charles Beard (1874–1948); indicating that a persistent bias has ensued within the field of Political Science; its criticism being that political scientists focus on studies that cater to the interests of the powerful—in hopes of gaining recognition and marking their place in history among the most distinguished political theorists. He notes Charles Beard’s words, that "[i]f the student of politics prescribes a remedy that pleases [some powerful group], he will probably be hailed as a scientist; if his suggestion is unpalatable, he is only a professor after all." Thus, Gabriel Almond (1911–2002) provides empirical data to support Beard’s theory that political science is split as a field between ideological and methodological; producing two separate fields with four quadrans. Almond believes that on the soft left is meta-methodological “[p]olitical science can only be science then, if it is fully committed to the attainment of socialism,” whereas the hard right is skeptical of institutionalism and bureaucracy, (Almond, G., pp. 830-832). Almond expounds, that the remaining two quadrants are the ideologically driven hard left and the methodologically conservative soft right; whereby diluting the potency of the field of political science to aspire to one that fits an agenda.
Share this post
The Discipline of Political Science
Share this post
Political science remains central to the assurance of a functional polity. This report seeks to shed light on three major criticisms of political science as a discipline; First Robert D. Putnam highlights a first point of disagreement among scholars, presented by Charles Beard (1874–1948); indicating that a persistent bias has ensued within the field of Political Science; its criticism being that political scientists focus on studies that cater to the interests of the powerful—in hopes of gaining recognition and marking their place in history among the most distinguished political theorists. He notes Charles Beard’s words, that "[i]f the student of politics prescribes a remedy that pleases [some powerful group], he will probably be hailed as a scientist; if his suggestion is unpalatable, he is only a professor after all." Thus, Gabriel Almond (1911–2002) provides empirical data to support Beard’s theory that political science is split as a field between ideological and methodological; producing two separate fields with four quadrans. Almond believes that on the soft left is meta-methodological “[p]olitical science can only be science then, if it is fully committed to the attainment of socialism,” whereas the hard right is skeptical of institutionalism and bureaucracy, (Almond, G., pp. 830-832). Almond expounds, that the remaining two quadrants are the ideologically driven hard left and the methodologically conservative soft right; whereby diluting the potency of the field of political science to aspire to one that fits an agenda.