European Journal of Political Research

, Volume 31, Issue 1–2, pp 73–81 | Cite as

The cumulation problem

  • Gunnar Sjöblom
Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

After a discussion of possible components in a definition of ‘cumulation’ and the relative lack of cumulation in political science, a scheme for research strategies is outlined with the aim of facilitating cumulation, or at least facilitating a diagnosis of the state of political science in this respect. The scheme includes three types of studies: (1) analysis of the formal properties of theoretical approaches in political science, (2) content analyses in the form of inventories of problems, propositions and concepts in the discipline, (3) evaluational analysis, i.e. an assessment of what ‘theory criteria’ to use for evaluating the approaches and of the probable relations between these criteria.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anckar, D. (1993). Nordiska förbundet för statskunskap som komparativistisk arena och aktör, Politiikka 35: 173–186.Google Scholar
  2. Berndtson, E. (1994). Politik som vetenskap. En introduiction till det statsvetenskapliga t änkandet. Helsingfors: Statens Utvecklingscentral.Google Scholar
  3. Bryder, T. et al. (1993). Preface, in: Party systems, party behaviour and democracy. Scripta in honorem professoris Gunnar Sjöblom sexagesimum annum complentis. Institute of Political Science, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  4. Daalder, H. & Mair, P., eds. (1983). Western European party systems. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Easton, D. (1985). Political Science in the United States: Past and Present, International Political Science Review 76: 133–152.Google Scholar
  6. Johnson, N. (1989). The limits of political science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kaase, M. & Newton, K., eds. (1995). Beliefs in government, 5 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Katz, R. & Mair, P., eds. (1992). Party organizations, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Katz, R. & Mair, P., eds. (1994). How parties organize. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Lane, J-E. & Ersson, S. (1990). Comparative politics: From political sociology to comparative public policy. In: A. Leftwich (ed.), New developments in political science. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Newton, K. & Vallès, J. (1991). Introduction: Political science in Western Europe, 1960–1990, European Journal of Political Research 20(3–4): 227–238.Google Scholar
  12. Nicholson, M. (1992). Rationality and the analysis of international conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Petersson, O. (1987). Metaforernas makt. Stockholm: Carlsson Bokförlag.Google Scholar
  14. Riker, W. (1982). The two-party system and Duverger's Law: An essay on the history of political science, The American Political Science Review 6: 753–766.Google Scholar
  15. Sartori, G., ed. (1984). Social science concepts: A systematic analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Sartori, G. (1991). Comparing and miscomparing, Journal of Theoretical Politics 3: 243–257.Google Scholar
  17. Sjöblom, G. (1968). Party strategies in a multiparty system. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  18. Sjöblom, G. (1977). The cumulation problem in political science, European Journal of Political Research 5(1): 1–32.Google Scholar
  19. Sjöblom, G. (1983). Political changes and political accountability. In: H. Daalder & P. Mair (eds.), Western European party systems (pp. 369–403). London, Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunnar Sjöblom
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations