Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Donovan, Claire ♦ Larkin, Phil
Source CiteSeerX
Content type Text
File Format PDF
Subject Domain (in DDC) Computer science, information & general works ♦ Data processing & computer science
Subject Keyword Political Science ♦ Practical Politics ♦ Sussex Editorial Team ♦ Political Process ♦ Limited Communication ♦ Core Factor ♦ Fruitful Relationship ♦ Reverse Order ♦ Discipline Stock ♦ Perennial Problem ♦ Wider World ♦ Relevant Research ♦ Instrumental Government Vision ♦ British Politics ♦ Usable Product ♦ First Issue ♦ Similar Task
Abstract We reflect on the reasons why there is not a greater and more fruitful relationship between those who seek to understand policy and the political process from academia and those with a similar task in ‘practical politics’. We attribute this lack of engagement to three core factors: (1) from without, instrumental government visions of political science perpetuate the view that the discipline exists to serve those with power; (2) from within, scientism and abstraction diminish the discipline’s stock of ‘usable ’ product for ‘practical politics’; and (3) where relevant research exists, its uptake is hampered by limited communication between these spheres. In the first issue of Politics under their management, the Sussex Editorial Team chose to highlight two perennial problems in the study of British Politics: (1) ‘what do we understand by the discipline of political science? ’ and (2) ‘what is the place of the discipline in the wider world? ’ (The Sussex Editorial Team, 2000, pp. 51–52). Six years later these questions still hang awkwardly in the air, and are central to the concerns of this article. To take these points in reverse order, the team qualified what they perceived to be the lack of impact of political science beyond academia:
Educational Role Student ♦ Teacher
Age Range above 22 year
Educational Use Research
Education Level UG and PG ♦ Career/Technical Study