"Technicism" Supplanting Disciplinarity among Political Scientists.

I write to express my support for the spirit if not all the particulars of the Perestroika protest letter concerning the representativeness of APSA and its journals. In my view this question should be settled democratically via the market and the voting booth.

To assure the representativeness of the APSA leadership, which is the real issue behind the Perestroika protest, there should be competitive, membership-wide elections to the top posts. Put multiple candidates on the ballot and publish statements of their ideas concerning political science and the Association. If it is clear that the organization's leaders represent a majority of the membership, the issues of legitimacy raised by Perestroika will have been addressed in perhaps the fairest way possible. Allow us to choose, instead of having an appointed nominating committee select leaders in a closed discussion to which the mass membership is not privy. The results may show that Perestroika is right or wrong about mass disenchantment with the Association. Let the chips fall where they may. But in my view, the problem here is not just with results, it is with the organizational procedures that produced those results.

As for the APSR, my preference is to separate the book review section from the journal, make the book review publication longer and more comprehensive (including a few review articles), and circulate the book review journal only to all members. Let the APSR fend for itself on the subscribers' market. I suspect that the APSR will either change its colors or it will lose its preeminent status and become just one of many good publications in political science that caters to a select constituency. Whether this or any other change is to be made, however, should not be decided by the APSA Council or an executive committee. It should be put to the entire membership for a vote. What possible objection could be raised to that? We are only asking that political scientists be allowed to make a rational choice as to what it is in their interests to read, and to enjoy the prerogatives of democratic citizens everywhere.

I should be specific about why I consider the reform of APSA and the APSR to be desirable, even if such reform is not in my view a panacea for the ills afflicting the profession.

There is a "technicism" prevalent in political science research that is hardly limited to rational choice, statistical analysis, or APSA's journals, though it certainly flourishes in the latter. The preoccupation with method and research design has taken precedence over contributions to knowledge about politics. The means of our work have somehow become more important than the end. It is reminiscent of medieval Catholicism, when the form of the sacraments became a bigger concern than leading a virtuous life. Political science is in need of a Protestant Reformation. But this technicism is common to many of the journals people have cited as praiseworthy alternatives to the APSR, not only in the latter. Whether referees like my work or not, nearly all of the praise and blame I read any more is related to research design, with nary a word about whether I have added something worthwhile to our knowledge of politics.

What is the source of this technicism? Is it that the end of the Cold War has made substantive political issues less compelling? Is it due to the demise of classical ...