Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:29:11.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Networks

Editors' Introduction: A Relational Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

Scott D. McClurg  and
Joseph K. Young
Scott D. McClurg
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University
Joseph K. Young
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political science is diverse in its methods, theories, and substantive interests. A quick perusal of our flagship journals reveals just how heterogeneous we are, with articles ranging from mathematical treatments of theoretical problems to textual exegesis of Plato, and qualitative studies of single countries standing in contrast to quantitative analyses of experiments designed to mobilize voters. At times, the discipline's boundaries are so fuzzy that our territory is alternatively claimed by philosophers, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and psychologists.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 39 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

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

Almond, Gabriel. 1988. “Separate Tables: School and Sects in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 21 (4): 828–42.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S.. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 2010. Principles of International Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Crozier, Michel, and Friedberg, Erhard. 1980. Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1969. “The Concept of Power.” In Political Power: A Reader in Theory and Research, ed. Bell, Roderick, Edwards, David, and Wagner, R. Harrison. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Elman, Miriam Fendius. 2002. “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research.” International Studies Quarterly 46 (2): 231–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Kahler, Miles, and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2009. “Network Analysis for International Relations.” International Organization 63 (3): 559–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. Robert, Johnson, Paul E., and Sprague, John. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Dianna. 2006. Hearing the Other Side. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Wadsworth.Google Scholar