Search results

The Political Science Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces it awards for basic research support and dissertation improvement grants for fiscal year 2009. The program funded 56 new projects and 34 doctoral dissertation improvement proposals. (Additional program funds were spent on continuing grant increments. These result from awards that were made in previous fiscal years, but where funds are being disbursed on a yearly basis instead all up front.) The Political Science Program spent $10,461,799 on these research, training, and workshop projects and $383,238 on dissertation training grants for political science students. In addition, the program contributed $345,000 to support three Graduate Research Fellowships. The program holds two grant competitions annually (Regular Research, August and January 15; Dissertation Improvement, January 15) and constitutes a major source of political science research funding as part of fulfilling NSF's mission to encourage theoretically focused empirical investigations aimed at improving the explanation of fundamental social and political processes and structures.

The political science program of the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its awards for basic research support and dissertation improvement grants for fiscal year 2012. The program funded 68 new projects and 30 doctoral dissertation improvement awards. Additional program funds were spent on continuing grant increments, which result from awards that were made in previous fiscal years, but for which funds are being disbursed on a yearly basis instead of upfront. The program holds two grant competitions annually—Regular Research, August and January 15; and Dissertation Improvement September and January 15—and constitutes a major source of political science research funding as part of fulfilling NSF's mission to encourage theoretically focused empirical investigations aimed at improving the explanation of fundamental social and political processes and structures.

Political science is fascinated with networks. This fascination builds on networks' descriptive appeal, and descriptions of networks play a prominent role in recent forays into network analysis. For some time, quantitative research has included node-level measures of network characteristics in standard regression models, thereby incorporating network concepts into familiar models. This approach represents an early advance for the literature but may (a) ignore fundamental theoretical contributions that can be found in a more structurally oriented network perspective, (b) focus attention on superficial aspects of networks as they feed into empirical work, and (c) present the network perspective as a slight tweak to standard models that assume complete independence of all relevant actors. We argue that network analysis is more than a tweak to the status quo ante; rather, it offers a means of addressing one of the holy grails of the social sciences: effectively analyzing the interdependence and flows of influence among individuals, groups, and institutions. Adapted from the source document.

The newly independent states in Central Asia were not the only regional result of the Soviet Union's disintegration in the early 1990s. It also led to a boost in nationalisms in the Central Asian countries, which have become a significant political force and are especially active in language, culture, and the academic sphere. The collapse of the common state changed the status of the local nationalisms, infused them with much more vigor, and led to their institutionalization. It can even be surmised that the independent Central Asian states appeared not only because the Soviet Union disappeared and left a vacuum, but also because the mounting national and nationalist movements were accumulating popular dissatisfaction with the Center. This made nationalism one of the major factors in the emergence of the independent states in Central Asia. Tajik, Turkmen, and Uzbek nationalisms functioned in authoritarian states with prominent colonial political legacies. These two factors largely affected the development of regional nationalisms. The region's post-Soviet nature was manifested by the continuity between the Soviet and new national forms of political authoritarianism. The nationalist movements in the Tajik, Uzbek and Turkmen Soviet Socialist republics played an important role in undermining and finally destroying the Soviet system. As distinct from Central Europe, they never helped the nations to move away from authoritarianism to democracy. In Soviet times, political discussions in the Central Asian republics were launched and channeled by political elites totally dependent on the republican communist parties. Independence also shifted this role to the politicians closely connected with the Soviet and party leaders. Saparmurat Niyazov's dictatorship in Turkmenistan turned out to be the most unique phenomenon among the post-Soviet authoritarian regimes in Central Asia. The authoritarian system, which existed in Turkmenistan between 1990 and the first half of the 2000s, was a close relative of the late Soviet authoritarian regime in the Turkmen S.S.R. In his speeches, President Niyazov dwelt in detail on the political meanderings of the republic's history: "Today, Turkmenistan is taking the first and, therefore, the hardest steps toward its resurrection. In fact, it is creating its own sovereign history and statehood. Its history is old and brimming with events, but today we have made a fresh start. We are free from the burden of old insults, ideologies, phobias, political clichés, and national labels."

Characterizing various approaches according to "elective affinities" shared in practice, considered is how historical institutionalism defines research agendas & develops explanations. Substantive agendas, temporal arguments (historical process), & attention to context & configuration characterize historical institutionalism; these aspects are detailed to identify distinctive core strategies & discern the advantages & limits of the approach relative to others employed in empirical political science. In conclusion, broad issues of empirical research method & strategies of knowledge cumulation are addressed. J. Zendejas

Why major in political science? This is a question students often ask. Under the pressure of vocationalism, students in the liberal arts are increasingly searching for connections between their undergraduate major and the world of work. This is a concern not only of students, but necessarily of faculty and institutional planners. Anxiety about enrollment shifts from the liberal arts to vocational training has inspired foundation-funded programs to assess strategies for relating traditional learning to career preparation. At a recent major conference on the humanities and careers in business, corporate and academic leaders urged colleges and universities to pursue excellence in the humanities "without distortion and without faddish 'relevance' to business." At the same time, the need to assist students with career planning of a more comprehensive nature than mere job placement was acknowledged.

The political science program of the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces it awards for basic research support and dissertation improvement grants for fiscal year 2010. The program funded 75 new projects and 31 doctoral dissertation improvement proposals. Additional program funds were spent on continuing grant increments, which result from awards that were made in previous fiscal years, but for which funds are being disbursed on a yearly basis instead of upfront. The political science program spent $12,753,794 on these research, training, and workshop projects and $345,389 on dissertation training grants for political science students. The program holds two grant competitions annually—Regular Research, August and January 15; and Dissertation Improvement, January 15—and constitutes a major source of political science research funding as part of fulfilling NSF's mission to encourage theoretically focused empirical investigations aimed at improving the explanation of fundamental social and political processes and structures.

I saiah Berlin is remembered for his positive/negative liberty distinction and his value pluralism, but he was also an active participant in the debate over the nature of political inquiry. This essay argues that his neglected contribution to this debate is central to his thought and a valuable resource in today's debate over political science's methods and ends. I first show how Berlin understood the relationship of empirical science to humanistic study. I then demonstrate that his conceptions of political judgment and the "sense of reality" were intended as alternatives to the scientific pursuit of political knowledge. Finally, I argue that his Churchill and Weizmann essays present exemplars of the moral excellence Berlin considered necessary to ennoble liberal society and the political understanding indispensable to comprehensive political inquiry. I conclude by noting how Berlin's critique of scientific political inquiry informs his liberalism and his own methods of political inquiry.