therewas...considerable consistency, homogeneity of the scores.
So in [the] meeting, in terms of the cream rising to the top, there
was a general sense in which, you know, here are these that [have]
practically perfect scores, so we don’t really need to do much dis-
cussion of these.As we will see, the more relativistic approach—the concept of ex-
cellence as constructed—is not central in political science or in eco-
nomics. In these disciplines, very different evaluative cultures prevail.
Political Science: Divisive Rational Choice
If political science is in better health than anthropology from a de-
mographic standpoint (see Figure 3.1), like anthropology, it has be-
come divided over the past thirty years, largely as a consequence of
the ascent of rational choice theory and the concomitant hegemony
of formal theory and methodology.^49 In somewhat simplified terms,
the rational choice paradigm posits utility maximization as the sole
and universal motivation for human action and claims that all social
structures and processes can be explained by aggregating individual
choices. It is particularly concerned with group decision making and
the handling of institutional constraints. Disciplinary commentators
have discussed at length the divisive effects of the rise of the rational
choice model, noting, for example, how it has amplified other divi-
sions, such as that between researchers who use quantitative versus
qualitative methods.^50 An important counterhegemonic response,
dubbed the “Perestroika Movement,” emerged publicly within the
American Political Science Association (APSA) in 2001.^51 This pres-
sure group (whose email list in 2003 included roughly 5 percent of
the APSA membership) primarily sought three changes: a balance
between quantitative and qualitative research in theAmerican Politi-
cal Science Review,the discipline’s most prestigious journal; a more
democratic process for selecting the APSA executive board (APSA
On Disciplinary Cultures / 95