Advertisement

Choices for Chinese Political Science: Methodological Positivism or Methodological Pluralism?

  • Jon R. Taylor
Chapter

Abstract

Over the past few decades, American political science has placed increasing emphasis on its relevance as a discipline. Like its American counterpart, Chinese political science is experiencing a similar concern regarding its societal relevance as it attempts to assess and focus on China’s unique political and social concerns. Should Chinese political science pursue a purely methodological positivist approach or should it engage in a more holistic and methodologically pluralistic approach such as that found in public administration? A mixed-methods approach, which includes both problem-driven research and theory-driven research, might be a better way to serve both the discipline and China.

Keywords

Political Science Public Administration Chinese Communist Party Political Knowledge Comparative Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adcock R (2009) Making making social science matter matter to us. J Theoret Polit 21:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond GA (1988) Separate tables: schools and sects in political science. PS Polit Sci Polit 21(4):828–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barilleaux RJ (2004) The restoration of political science. The Catholic Soc Sci Rev 9:129–146Google Scholar
  4. Barrow C (2007) Political science. In WA Darity, Jr., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: MacMillan Library ReferenceGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellman J, Ford P (2008) Trendy. Dial “M” for musicology blog: http://musicology.typepad.com/dialm/2008/07/hey-everyone-im.html
  6. Brugger B (1986) The revival of political science in China: a review of the journal zhengzhixue yanjiu. Aust J Chin Aff 15(January):125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ceaser JW (1990) Liberal democracy and political science. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox R (1993) Why it is difficult to teach comparative politics to American students? PS Polit Sci Politics 26(1):68–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL (2006) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  10. Easton D (1969) The new revolution in political science. Am Polit Sci Rev 63(4):1051–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Easton D (1985) Political science in the United States: past and present. Int Polit Sci Rev/Revue internationale de science politique, The Future of the State 6(1):133–152Google Scholar
  12. Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gettell RG (1922) Introduction to political science. Ginn and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Golembiewski RT (1977) Public administration as a developing discipline. Part I: perspectives on past and present. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Gunnell J (2003) Telling the story of political science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, 27 August 2003Google Scholar
  16. Gunnell J (2006) The founding of the American political science association: discipline, profession, political theory, and politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 100(4):479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hume, D (1777) Essays moral, political, and literary. EF Miller (Ed.) 2nd edition Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund (1987)Google Scholar
  18. Khodr H (2005) Public administration and political science: an historical analysis of the relation between the two academic disciplines. Doctoral dissertation, The Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. King G, Keohane RO, Verba S (1994) Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Laitin DD (1995) Disciplining political science. Am Polit Sci Rev 89(2):454–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Little D (1998) Microfoundations, method and causation: on the philosophy of the social sciences. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  22. Loewenberg G (1984) The division of political science into American and Non-American politics: the case of legislatures. PS Polit Sci 17(3):561–563Google Scholar
  23. Lowi T (1992) The state in political science: how we become what we study. Am Polit Sci Rev 86(March):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Monroe KR (ed) (2005) Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in political science. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  25. Pierson P (2004) Why Americanists should be buyers in the marketplace of ideas. Newsl Organized Sect Comp Polit Am Polit Sci Assoc 15(1):7–9Google Scholar
  26. Schram S (2006) Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith R (1997) Still blowing in the wind: the American quest for a democratic, scientific political science. Daedalus 126(Winter):253–287Google Scholar
  28. Smith RM (2002) Should we make political science more of a science or more about politics? PS Polit Sci Polit 35(2):199–201Google Scholar
  29. Somit A, Tanenhaus J (1967) The development of American political science. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  30. Topper K (2005) The disorder of political inquiry. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Yanow D (2003) Practicing discipline. PS Polit Sci Polit 36(3):397–399Google Scholar
  32. Zedong M (1957) On the correct handling of the contradictions among the people. Speech at the Eleventh Session (Enlarged) of the Supreme State Conference: People’s Daily, 27 February 1957Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of St. ThomasHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations