Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:58:41.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engaged Pluralism: The Importance of Commitment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2022

Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier Open the ORCID record for Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Engaged pluralism entails active interaction, debate, and learning from each other. I argue that individuals need to undertake the challenges arising from engaged pluralism to ensure a healthy, vibrant disciplinary future, and for a democracy that thrives. I consciously extend the term “engagement” to apply not only to understanding across sub-disciplines and different grounds of knowledge, but also to addressing research to the needs of society. There are golden opportunities centered around the benefits of a more open, rigorous, and contentious science that can be maximized through focused engagement around methodologies and methods. In short, two primary themes encapsulate my views on where our discipline should be heading. First, the pursuit of engaged methodological pluralism in our scholarship is critical. Second, supporting democratic principles and civic engagement, which is at the core of the American Political Science Association and has continued, in ebbs and flows, throughout the discipline’s life, is necessary.

Type
Presidential Address
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 9 - 21
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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

Abi-Hassan, Sahar, Carder, Garrett, Christenson, Dino P., and Srivastava, Enan. 2020. “Time, Place and Scope: A Journey through the U.S. Supreme Court & Its Friends.” Presented at the 2020 Politics and Computational Social Science (PaCSS) Conference, virtual meetings, August 9–13.Google Scholar
Alexander, Titus. 2017. Practical Politics: Lessons in Power and Democracy. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.Google Scholar
American Political Science Association. 2020. “Election Assistance Task Force.” (https://apsanet.org/Democracy-2020-Campaign/ElectionAssistanceTask-Force). Retrieved September 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Australian National University. 2019. “Interpretivist Methods in the Digital Age: Methodology and Epistemology in the Social Sciences.” (https://www.ipsa.org/na/event/interpretivist-methods-digital-age-methodology-and-epistemology-social-sciences). Retrieved September 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Avery, Paul C., and Desch, Michael C.. 2014. “What do Policymakers Want from Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Decision Makers.” International Studies Quarterly 58(2): 227–46.Google Scholar
Bowers, Jake, and Testa, Paul F.. 2019. “Better Government, Better Science: The Promise of and Challenges Facing the Evidence-Informed Policy Movement.” Annual Review of Political Science 22: 521–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. (lead editor), Brady, Henry, and Collier, David, eds. 2008. Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Christenson, Dino P., and Craig, Alison. 2019. “Cue-Taking in Congress: Interest Group Signals from Dear Colleague Letters.” American Journal of Political Science. 63:168–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Christenson, Dino P., and Hitt, Matthew P.. 2013. “Quality over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 107(3): 446–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Moses, Laura. 2021. “Meaningful Messaging: Sentiment in Elite Social Media Communication with the Public on the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Science Advances 7(29) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261655/).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Christenson, Dino P., Sinclair-Chapman, Valeria. 2020. “Promoting Pluralism: 2021 Theme Statement.” https://connect.apsanet.org/apsa2021/theme-statement/. Accessed Sept. 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Christenson, Dino P., Sinclair-Chapman, Valeria. 2022. “Introduction.” The Handbook of Engaged Methodological Pluralism in Political Science. Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Brown, Nadia. 2016. “The Legacy of Leadership: Dianne M. Pinderhughes.” Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession. (https://web.apsanet.org/cswp/the-legacy-of-leadership-dianne-m-pinderhughes/). Retrieved September 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Buyalskaya, Anastasia, Gallo, Marcos, and Camerer, Colin F.. 2021. “The Golden Age of Social Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(5): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casas, Andreu, and Williams, Nora Webb. 2019. “Images that Matter: Online Protests and the Mobilizing Role of Pictures.” Political Research Quarterly 72(2): 360–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, Dino P. 2021. “Engaged Methodological Pluralism.” 26th World Congress of Political Science, July 10.Google Scholar
Cohen, Elizabeth F. 2018. The Political Value of Time: Citizenship, Duration, and Democratic Justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, Katherine. 2016. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darmofal, David, Kelly, Nathan J., Witko, Christopher, and Young, Sarah. 2019. “Government Ideology, Federalism, and Union Weakness in America.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 19(4): 428–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, Bryce J., Hayes, Matthew, and O’Brien, Diana Z.. 2019. “Pitch Perfect: Vocal Pitch and the Emotional Intensity of Congressional Speech on Women.” American Political Science Review 113(4): 941–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dionne, Kim Yi, and Turkman, Fulya Felicity. 2020. “The Politics of Pandemic Othering: Putting COVID-19 in Global and Historical Context.” International Organization 74(S1): 213–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2005. “A Pox on Perestroika, A Hex on Hegemony: Toward a Critical Political Science.” In Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick, 509–25. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Evidence in Governance and Policy. 2021. “Methods Guides.” (https://egap.org/methods-guides/). Retrieved September 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Executive Order 3 CFR 13707. 2015. “Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People.” September 15. (https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2016-title3-vol1/CFR-2016-title3-vol1-eo13707/summary). Retrieved September 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, Jeff. 2021. “Political Science Is a Data Science.” Journal of Politics 83(1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, and Stewart, Brandon M.. 2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis for Political Texts.” Political Analysis 21(3): 267–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer L. 2005. “APSA Presidents Reflect on Political Science: Who Knows What, When, and How?” Perspectives on Politics 3(2): 309–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute for Civically Engaged Research. 2021. “About the Institute.” (https://tischcollege.tufts.edu/civic-studies/american-political-science-association-institute-civically-engaged-research-icer). Retrieved August 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Ishiyama, John, Breuning, Marijke, Thies, Cameron G., Van Vechten, Renee, and Wallace, Sherri L.. 2021. “Rethinking the Undergraduate Political Science Major: An Introduction to the Symposium.” PS: Political Science & Politics 54(2): 353–7.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M., Büthe, Tim, et al. 2021. “The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications.” Perspectives on Politics 19(1): 171–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappe, Heather Barry, Toma, Mattie, Balu, Rekha, Burnett, Russ, Chen, Nuole, Johnson, Rebecca, Leight, Jessica, Omer, Saad B., Safran, Elana, Steffel, Mary, Trump, Kris-Stella, Yokum, David, and Debroy, Pompa. N.d. “Lessons for COVID-19 Vaccination from Eight Federal Government Direct Communication Evaluations.” Behavioral Science and Policy. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Lazer, David. 2021. “APSA Announces the Formation of the Careers Diversity Committee.” Political Science Today 1(2): 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, David, Baum, Matthew, Ognyanova, Katherine, Perlis, Roy, Santillana, Mauricio, Druckman, James, Volpe, John Della, Chwe, Hanyu, Gitomer, Adina, Green, Jon, Lin, Jannifer, Quintana, Alixi, Radford, Jason, Simonson, Matt, and Uslu, Ata. 2021. “The Covid States Project.” (https://covidstates.org/about-us). Retrieved August 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, George, Musante, Kathleen, and Tucker, Joshua A.. 2019. “Future Directions in Social Science.” (https://basicresearch.defense.gov/Portals/61/Future%20Directions%20in%20Social%20Science_Final%20Report_12%20Aug%202019.pdf?ver=2019-09-24-114011-603) Retrieved October 20, 2021.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 2017. “Now Is the Time: How to Increase the Value of Social Science.” Social Research 84(3): 669–94.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 2019. “Why Social Science? Because Social Science Is a Form of Service that Improves Quality of Life for People Around the World.” (https://www.whysocialscience.com/blog/2019/8/27/because-social-science-is-a-form-of-service-that-improves-quality-of-life-for-people-around-the-world). Retrieved August 1, 2021.Google Scholar
McClain, Paula D. 2021. “Crises, Race, Acknowledgement: The Centrality of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics to the Future of Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 19(1): 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking. January 27, 2021. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/memorandum-on-restoring-trust-in-government-through-scientific-integrity-and-evidence-based-policymaking/). Retrieved September 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Monroe, Burt L., Colaresi, Michael P., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2008. “Fightin’ Words: Lexical Feature Selection and Evaluation for Identifying the Content of Political Conflict.” Political Analysis 16(4): 372–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, J. Donald. 2006. “Book Symposium on Political Methodologies: The Disorder of Political Inquiry.” Journal of Politics 68(3): 733–43.Google Scholar
Moore, Ryan T., and Reeves, Andrew. 2020. “Defining Racial and Ethnic Context with Geolocation Data.” Political Science Research and Methods 8(4): 780–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moses, Laura, and Box-Steffensmeier, Janet. 2022. “Machine Learning: A First Introduction for Political Research. Oxford Handbook on Engaged Methodological Pluralism. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. “What We Have Learned from Multiple Challenges to the Study of Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 3(2): 321–2.Google Scholar
Page, Scott. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Scott. 2017. The Diversity Bonus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press and Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Craig. 2022. “Engaged Pluralism: Rigorous Debate Across Scholarly Divides.” Handbook of Engaged Methodological Pluralism. Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Pinderhughes, Dianne. 2009. “The Challenge of Democracy: Explorations in American Racial Politics.” Perspectives in Politics 7(1): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Politics and Computational Social Science (PaCSS). 2021. “Fourth Annual Politics and Computational Social Sciences Conference.” (https://cssh.northeastern.edu/nulab/pacss/). Retrieved September 1, 2021.Google Scholar
Pollins, Brian M. 2007. “Beyond Logical Positivism: Reframing King, Keohane, and Verba.” In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, ed. Lebow, R.N and Lichbach, M.I.. New Visions in Security. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Prewitt, Kenneth. 2019. “Retrofitting Social Science for the Practical & Moral.” Issues in Science and Technology 36(1): 80–7.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2005. “Answering ‘Mother-in-Law’ Questions Can Move the Discipline Forward.” Perspectives on Politics 3(2): 314–5.Google Scholar
Rittel, Horst W. J., and Webber, Melvin M. 1973. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy Sciences 4(2): 155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodman, Emma. 2019. “A Timely Intervention: Tracking the Changing Meanings of Political Concepts with Word Vectors.” Political Analysis 28(1): 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Hermann, Segatti, Paolo, and van der Eyck, Cees. 2021. The Consequences of Context: How the Social, Political, and Economic Environment Affects Voting. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield and ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Schram, Sanford F., Flyvbjerg, Bent, and Landman, Todd. 2013. “Political Science: A Phronetic Approach.” New Political Science 35(3):359–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Rogers. 2020. “What Good Can Political Science Do? From Pluralism to Partnerships.” Perspectives on Politics 18(1): 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokhey, Anand. 2020. “Making (and Sometimes Taking) a Difference: The Dynamic Career of Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier.” PS: Political Science and Politics. 53(4): 827–33.Google Scholar
Topper, Keith. 2005. The Disorder of Political Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of State. 2021. “The Summit for Democracy.” (https://www.state.gov/summit-for-democracy/#Summit.) Retrieved September 15, 2021.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney. 2005. “Where Are We Now That We Weren’t Several Decades Ago?” Perspectives on Politics 3(2): 324–5.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney. 2011. “A Life in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science. 14(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory, and Katznelson, Ira. 2022. How the Social, Political, and Economic Environment Affects Voting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Pres.Google Scholar