Do political scientists understand politics?
In a strikingly bitter op-ed published today in the Times Higher Education here (subscription only), Professor Philip Cowley argues that "most politics academics haven't got a clue about what really goes on in the political world." This argument is based on his great distaste for a recent survey by the Political Studies Association of its members surrounding the question of who is/was the best Prime Minister the UK never had and qualities a Prime Minister should have and which s/he does have.
I certainly share his view that better politicians perhaps should have fared better than they did on this list. Denis Healey came first (18%). The second and third best were Roy Jenkins (12%) and Kenneth Clarke (10%). I also share his view that perhaps there are at least some inconsistencies with how PSA members on characteristics a Prime Minister might have and does have.
My problem is with his claim that political scientists do not have "a clue" about politics by and large. If Professor Cowley ---a professor of parliamentary government--- argued instead that most political scientists are not British politics specialists and know the nooks and crannies as well as British politics specialists, then perhaps he would have a more defensible position. Who is surprised? More importantly, where is the evidence that most lack any knowledge of politics?
At the end of the day, the piece struck me as a "and this is why I am more right" essay about a meaningless, fun poll. Alas, some people just don't like fun.
UPDATE: I stand corrected on 'fun'! See comments for details.
Posts
4 comments:
I love fun! I'm less taken by stupidity and ignorance -- and I'm afraid the poll results revealed a lot of both. FWIW, I agree partly with your point about an understanding of British politics -- and had space allowed, I'd've expanded on those points in the piece; similarly, had space allowed I'd've expanded on the point about an understanding of politics. The poll was an example of the (growing) disconnect between the academic study and the world it (claims to) study.
Best wishes
Phil
I stand corrected, Phil! I should have known better from our previous encounters, although my point on fun was more tongue in cheek. I suppose I was less concerned about the poll as I thought it was a meaningless exercize that would not be taken too seriously and, perhaps as a result, avoid becoming damaging one way or another.
Of course, politics is far more than just the study of British politics. (My annual complaint of the PSA's '(British) politics' quiz each year, of course...which I happily support taking place (and perhaps in exile in Swansea, although this is something for another day).) Thus, we can all claim to have a strong connection to what we study without all passing some standard of British politics expertise.
So here's the rub. I don't think the poll for the best five PM's we never had was particularly awful, even if we might have all gone for different people or if there were less well known (outside of British politics specialists) figures who perhaps could make better choices than one or two noted.
The biggest problem you noted in your piece was on the characteristics a PM should have and which they do have. (I grant you that this is an odd question: I sit on the PSA executive as you may know and knew of the poll question on names, but was surprised when I opened the poll to find questions on charactertistics thrown in.) I take your point that there are some real problems with what people identified and the reality for British politics.
Ultimately, we might have directed the poll only to British politics specialists. If these specialists then replied with the results we just saw, then perhaps we can agree to your claim that academics and the world they claim to study are disconnected. As a political philosopher (and American), I am not sure why anyone would think I do poorly in understanding the world if I know of fewer British cabinet ministers or less about PM's daily routine. Whatever I lack re: UK politics, I would to think I make up for in my knowledge of American politics (and political philosophy). Even if I were to agree with the poll results (which I do not as should be clear from my post), I don't think that still then shows that I or similarly situated persons are demonstrating any disconnect. Unless we collapse 'the study of politics' into the rather narrow category of 'the study of British politics'.
In any event, I cannot help but agree that THES never offers enough words and if there were more space, more might be said. I hit a similar problem with a piece about a year ago defending the right to trial by jury.
Thanks for your remarks!
I feel like a passed over major from Tunbridge Wells but the above seemed a good occasion for a rant I've been keeping in check. I recently returned as a moderately mature student to do an MA in political theory at a self-proclaimed 'global class' university. Other students accepted on this course had firsts and good 2:1s from other 'superlative' institutions. It shocked me that they could get such qualifications while remaining so ignorant of politics. My problem was not they could not discuss the virtues of Denis Healey or Roy Jenkins. They didn't know who Margaret Thatcher was. Though I never checked I suspect they didn't know who Dick Nixon was either. I then found this ignorance slightly higher up the food-chain. What political information, if any, is required to acquire the label of excellence in this impoverished times?
Many thanks for your comments, although I am surprised to hear them as I think highly of the UCL Politics (and especially Philosophy) staff. In any event, let's put this to one side.
What precisely is the worry? I admit that students not knowing who Thatcher is/was is very worrying. (I trust this is not at all true with academic staff.) People should certainly possess a general command of British politics if studying at a British university, if only out of curiosity if nothing more...
...and I suspect this statement may surprise you somewhat. If your MA cohorts are from outside the UK, then maybe it is a worry that they know little (or less) about Thatcher but I doubt we know any more about their country's leadership. In such a case, who 'knows' politics better than the other? My knowledge of UK politics is decent, but not strong. Is this a worry? My knowledge of US politics is much, much better (aided by my being an American who studied US politics in grad school). Moreover, my area is political and legal philosophy. I don't know if my lacking full knowledge of UK political minutae is a real sign of concern, although if I had trouble with JS Mill's or Thomas Hobbes's work, then that would be a sign of concern.
If students are not at UCL to learn UK politics and/or from other countries, then I would not think they fail to know anything substantive about 'politics'. It seems only those with particularly narrow interests in politics ---reduced to the political system of just one state, such as the UK or US--- think 'politics' is no more than one state's political history. Surely, 'politics' concerns foreign policy analysis and political theory, both of which may achieve the highest standards without worrying too much about Thatcher.
Post a Comment