Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:48:10.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geographical Coverage in Political Science Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2020

Matthew Charles Wilson Open the ORCID record for Matthew Charles Wilson [Opens in a new window]  and
Carl Henrik Knutsen Open the ORCID record for Carl Henrik Knutsen [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe and analyze patterns in the geographical focus of political science research across more than a century. Using a new database of titles and abstracts from 27,690 publications in eight major political science journals from their inception, we demonstrate that, historically, political scientists concentrated their studies on a limited number of countries situated in North America and Western Europe. While a strong focus on Western countries remains today, we detail how this picture has changed somewhat over recent decades, with political science research becoming increasingly “globalized.” Still, several countries have received almost no attention, and geographical citation patterns differ by subfield. For example, we find indications of a greater focus on the United States and large Western European countries in international relations than in comparative politics publications. We also analyze several correlates of a country being the focus of political science research, including the country’s predominant languages, income, population size, democracy level, and conflict experience, and show systematic variation in the geographical focus of research. This unequal focus, we argue, has important implications regarding the applicability of extant descriptive and causal claims, as well as the development of theories in political science.

Type
Reflection
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2022 , pp. 1024 - 1039
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. 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.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Brett R. Bessen, participants at the 2019 Annual EPSA conference in Belfast, and three anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions. A special thanks to Emily Harmon and Skidmore Logan for excellent research assistance.

References

Acharya, Amitav, and Buzan, Barry, eds. 2009. Non-Western International Relations Theory. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blyth, Mark, and Katz, Richard. 2005. “From Catch-all Politics to Cartelisation: The Political Economy of the Cartel Party.” West European Politics 28:33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, Larry W. 1968. “The Subordinate State System of Southern Africa.” International Studies Quarterly 12(3): 231–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecher, Michael. 1963. “International Relations and Asian Studies: The Subordinate State System of Southern Asia.” World Politics 15(2): 213–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecher, Michael 1969. “The Middle East Subordinate System and Its Impact on Israel’s Foreign Policy.” International Studies Quarterly 13(2): 117–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carty, R. Kenneth. 2004. “Parties as Franchise Systems: The Stratarchical Organizational Imperative.” Party Politics 10(1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Ching-Chang. 2011. “The Absence of Non-Western IR Theory in Asia Reconsidered.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colgan, Jeff D. 2019. “American Perspectives and Blind Spots on World Politics.” Journal of Global Security Studies 4(3): 300–309.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael, Gerring, John, Knutsen, Carl Henrik, Lindberg, Staffan, Teorell, Jan, Altman, David, Bernhard, Michael, Fish, Steven, Glynn, Adam, Hicken, Allen, Lührmann, Anna, Marquardt, Kyle L., McMann, Kelly, Paxton, Pamela, Pemstein, Daniel, Seim, Brigitte, Sigman, Rachel, Skaaning, Svend-Erik, Staton, Jeffrey, Cornell, Agnes, Gastaldi, Lisa, Gjerlow, Haakon, Mechkova, Valeriya, von Romer, Johannes, Sundstrom, Aksel, Tzelgov, Eitan, Uberti, Luca, Wang, Yi-ting, Wig, Tore and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2020. “Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Dataset v10.” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Political Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, Kevin, and Shaw, Timothy M., eds. 2001. Africa’s Challenge to International Relations Theory. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Micheal W., and Garand, James C.. 2007. “Ranking Political Science Journals: Reputational and Citational Approaches.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40(4): 741–51.Google Scholar
Haggard, Stephan, and Kaufman, Robert R.. 2008. Development, Democracy, and Welfare States: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Soskice, David. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrix, Cullen S., and Vreede, Jon. 2019. “US Dominance in International Relations and Security Scholarship in Leading Journals.” Journal of Global Security Studies 4(3): 310–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2012. “What (If Anything) Does East Asia Tell Us About International Relations Theory?” Annual Review of Political Science 15:53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, David C. 2003. “Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks.” International Security 27(4): 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapiszewski, Diana, MacLean, Lauren M., and Read, Benjamin L.. 2018. “Reconceptualizing Field Research in Political Science.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.722Google Scholar
Knutsen, Carl Henrik, and Rasmussen, Magnus B.. 2018. “The Autocratic Welfare State: Old-Age Pensions, Credible Commitments, and Regime Survival.” Comparative Political Studies 51(5): 659–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krouse, Richard W. 1982. “Polyarchy & Participation: The Changing Democratic Theory of Robert Dahl.” Polity 14(3): 441–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Douglas. 2003. “African Lessons for International Relations Research.” World Politics 56:114–138.Google Scholar
Levin, Don H., and Trager, Robert F.. 2019. “Things You Can See from There You Can’t See from Here: Blind Spots in the American Perspective in IR and Their Effects.” Journal of Global Security Studies 4(3): 345–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1985. “The Field of Electoral System Research: A Critical Survey.” Electoral Studies 4(1): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenthal, Abraham F. 1974. “Armies and Politics in Latin America.” World Politics 27(1): 107–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lührmann, Anna, Tannenberg, Marcus, and Lindberg, Staffan I.. 2018. “Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes.” Politics and Governance 6(1): 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddison, Angus. 2010. “Background Note on ‘Historical Statistics’.” (https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/).Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L. 2007. “The Past and Present of Comparative Politics.” In Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics, ed. Munck, Gerardo L. and Snyder, Richard, 32–59. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L., and Snyder, Richard. 2007. “Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics.” Comparative Political Studies 40(1): 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkiwane, Tandeka C. 2001. “Africa and International Relations: Regional Lessons for a Global Discourse.” International Political Science Review 22(3): 279–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelke, Lars, and Friesen, Paul. 2019. “Democratization Articles Dataset: An introduction.” Democratization 26(1): 140–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pepinsky, Thomas. 2019. “The Return of the Single-Country Study.” Annual Review of Political Science 22:187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1967. “Toward Explaining Military Intervention in Latin American Politics.” World Politics 20(1): 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. 2016. “Is Liberal Democracy Feasible in Developing Countries?” Studies in Comparative International Development 51(1): 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkees, Meredith Reid, and Wayman, Frank Whelon. 2010. Resort to War: A Data Guide to Inter-State, Extra-State, Intra-State, and Non-State Wars, 1816–2007. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Teorell, Jan, Samanni, Marcus, Holmberg, Søren, and Rothstein, Bo. 2011. “The Quality of Government Dataset, version 6Apr11.” (http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/data/qogstandarddataset/)Google Scholar
Teorell, Jan, Coppedge, Michael, Lindberg, Staffan I., and Skaaning, Svend-Erik. 2019. “Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900–2017.” Studies in Comparative International Development 54(1): 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, William R. 1975. “Regime Vulnerability and the Military Coup.” Comparative Politics 7(4): 459–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veenendaal, Wouter P. 2016. “How Democracy Functions without Parties: The Republic of Palau.” Party Politics 22(1): 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Matthew C. 2017. “Trends in Political Science Research and the Progress of Comparative Politics.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50(4): 979–84.Google Scholar
Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2009. “Field Research.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, ed. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan C.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Wilson and Knutsen supplementary material

Appendix

Download Wilson and Knutsen supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.9 MB