This article is designed to summarize the findings of a questionnaire directed to APSA members who indicated they held government positions when they completed a form for the 1973 APSA Biographical Directory. The questionnaire was designed to determine how political science has been and can be used in federal, state, and local government agencies and in administrative, legislative, and judicial positions.

A. The Respondents and the Questions

In January, 1975, the questionnaire was mailed to the 425 APSA members who held government positions as of 1973. These persons were chosen as a good group of people to ask about the relevance of political science to government work since they are likely to be knowledgeable about both political science and government work, and are likely to be responsive to such a survey.

I have made relatively frequent use of political science papers and journals in [my] reporting ... I find that there are often very helpful insights in the political science literature and certainly that my own membership in APSA and the reading of the [APSR] Journal is worthwhile.

—David S. Broder

The Washington Post

My membership in APSA was originally part of the reporting awards I won... Since then, I have maintained membership for old times sake. As a working documentary producer, membership hasn’t done anything for me-the journals, PS, etc., are undigestable-even though Nelson Polsby is a nice person.

William R. Leonard

Former Executive Producer, National Broadcasting Company

How useful or “relevant” do journalists find political science sources and information, including that furnished through APSA membership?

The most elementary and obvious response is that national print journalism specialists can make more extensive use of political science that can broadcaster generalists. Between these extremes are responses of other national and local reporters telling us what we may already suspect: that current journalistic practice generally excludes political science sources in routine newsmaking.

But the exceptions to this practice are instructive. They suggest ways and means which political scientists might more effectively close the gap between political science information and its accessability to newsmakers, policymakers, and the public.

Concern has been expressed among journalists that the news media have been relying too much on “official” or institutional sources for news.

Buffeted from all sides because it is not sufficiently generalizing and scientific, because it sticks to outdated notion of field research, and because it is not “relevant” to the career concerns of the average American Student, the subfield of comparative politics seems to have fallen on evil days. Peter Sackman (PS Summer 1975 vol. VIII, no. 3, 262–263) singles out the subfield for adverse comment in his report on dissertations completed and in progress. One would not quarrel with his treatment if it were justified by even the simplest tests of statistical honesty. One doubts that Mr. Sackman is out to “get” comparative politics, but if he should claim to be a friend, then the subdiscipline has not need for enemies.

In the last paragraph of his essay he notes the “marked decline of additions in category VII” (comparative politics). No quarrel with that, for it showed the largest numerical decline of any subdiscipline. But Figure I, showing dissertation increases and decreases for the subdisciplines, indicates that category IV (U.S. State and Local Government) suffered a greater percentage decline, 28% vs. 24% for comparative politics. Six of the eight subdisciplines suffered some decline. Only one, Public Administration, showed a marked increase, viz. 65%. So why single out comparative politics for special mention?