Is Political Science Relevant? The Decline of Critical Scholarly Engagement in the Neoliberal Era

Abstract

This essay relies on a participant‐observation method, among other approaches, to analyze structural and professional changes in Political Science over the last few decades. I document the rise of neoliberalism in Political Science via 6 major changes to the discipline, including: the rise of scholarly “objectivity” as a means of deterring critical analysis, the decline of public intellectualism and publicly accessible studies, the marginalization of practically relevant research, the decline of methodological pluralism and the rise of methodological fetishism, the aversion to political philosophy and political theory, and the devaluation of teaching in favor of research. Proposals are provided for potential reforms to the discipline, for those interested in revitalizing the field and making it more practically relevant to politics and to the general public.

Improving political science degree programmes in the twenty-first century

“…Such a framework went beyond the notion of internship programmes to incorporate clear objectives geared towards the training of students for civic involvement and leadership roles. As earlier implied in our review of the findings on UK programmes, critics have asserted that such programmes are devoid of student participation in political and civic affairs, in addition to the fact that there exists limited evidence of the impact of integrating political engagement programmes in HEIs (DiMaggio, 2018).…”

“…For example, there is the more radical view that political science as a discipline has witnessed a serious decline in rigorous scholarly engagement in the current neo-liberal setting. Such an environment fosters or facilitates the “rise of careerism” (DiMaggio, 2018) with too much focus in higher education structure on career and personal pursuits at the expense of larger public outreach and social obligations.…”

Talking Communication Studies: Negotiating Power and Promise

“…with the aim of capturing trends that relate to the main drift in the Communication Studies field that was established in the United States after World War II, and which has taken a further direction with the neoliberal appropriation of many universities (DiMaggio, 2018). Our arguments presented herein relate to earlier critiques by scholars from various subfields (political economy as well as cultural, media, communication, propaganda, decolonial and feminist studies backgrounds, amongst others) within Communication Studies, Sociology and Political Science (see Calvente et al 2020;Chakravartty et al 2018;DiMaggio 2018;Hall 1986;Halloran 1978;Krüger and Meyen 2018;Lent 1995;Lent and Amazeen 2015;Scheu and Wiedemann 2008;Simpson 1994;Sproule 1987). Significantly, these earlier critiques of the field are scattered and have been presented at different historical junctures.…”