Studying Your Own Country: Social Scientific Knowledge for Our Times and Places

Abstract

Political science is both a generalizing and an anchored, nationally defined, discipline. Too often, the first perspective tends to crowd out the latter, because it appears more prestigious, objective, or scientific. Behind the international/national dichotomy, there are indeed rival conceptions of social science and important ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. This article discusses these assumptions and stresses the critical contribution of idiographic, single-outcome studies, the importance of producing relevant, usable knowledge and the distinctive implications of studying one's own country, where a scholar is also a citizen, involved in more encompassing national conversations. The aim is not to reject the generalizing, international perspective, or even the comparative approach, but rather to reaffirm the importance of maintaining as well, and in fact celebrating, the production of social scientific knowledge directly relevant for our own times and places.

Has Simeon's Vision Prevailed among Canadian Policy Scholars?

“…However, some scholars have disputed Simeon's contention that general explanations arising from comparisons can be as relevant, if not more, as descriptive single-case studies. Alan Cairns (2008) features among the most prominent sceptics of the comparative turn in Canada (see also Fourot et al, 2011; Noël, 2014). For Cairns, making a descriptive case study into a comparative one might very well increase the relevance of the research outside the circles of individuals and scholars directly concerned with the case, but it might equally decrease the relevance of research inside this circle.…”

“Studying Public Policy”: Historical Institutionalism and the Comparative Method

“…Consistent with Simeon's vision, comparative approaches should remain central in historical institutionalist approaches to the study of public policy although, in doing so, explicit attention must be paid to the major advances that have been made in terms of a focus on the centrality of intertemporal causal mechanisms unfolding over time. This insistence on the centrality of the comparative method holds regardless of whether the study of public policy is intended to uncover limited generalizations that can travel beyond a specific time and place as per Pierson (2004: 6) or, as per Noël, the intent is to produce “social scientific knowledge relevant for our own times and places, here and now” (2014: 651). Even in the latter instance, political interventions themselves, as Streeck notes, may be “ informed by comparative-historical analysis aimed at removing the historical obstacles, or correcting for the adverse historical events, that have prevented a society from developing in a particular direction” (2015: 273).…”

“…However, Noël suggestively, if not skeptically, raises the rhetorical question: “Are we so far, then, along the comparative turn? Do we compare naturally and more fruitfully than did our predecessors?” (2014: 653). In terms of the Canadian study of public policy, Noël argues that conclusions in this regard are not easy to draw and, at the very least, require significant further empirical assessment.…”

“…As Pierson argues “most social scientists remain interested in developing at least limited generalizations—arguments that can ‘travel’ in some form beyond a specific time and place” (2004: 6). Nevertheless, the ontology of intertemporal causal mechanisms is sometimes seen to augur in favour of single-outcome studies analogously to Noël's argument that “when” context appears important, idiographic studies provide the best road to knowledge” (2014: 662). In terms of the broader literature at the most general level, there remains a strong ongoing tension between a focus on the historical development of policy and comparative analysis.…”

Les cinquante ans de la Revue canadienne de science politique : Le bilinguisme en déclin?

“…Dans l'article de Rocher et Stockemer est d'abord évoquée l'importance pour certains chercheurs franco-québécois d'employer le français dans le but de rendre leurs recherches disponibles auprès de leur communauté culturelle et de mieux rendre des comptes envers le lectorat qui finance en partie leur recherche. Dans son allocution présidentielle de l'Association canadienne de science politique, Alain Noël (2014) souligne d'ailleurs la contribution déterminante des études qui portent sur les circonstances particulières du Québec et du Canada. Pour diffuser les résultats de ces études, il est parfois plus judicieux de les faire paraître en français, étant donné que l'objet de recherche se rattache à une communauté linguistique –son lectorat potentiel– qui accordera une valeur à cette production scientifique.…”