leaders are not chosen through competitive elections); and more
methodological pluralism, including greater disciplinary support for
qualitative work, problem-driven (as opposed to method-driven)
approaches, and area expertise in contrast to the production of
generalizable theories.^52
Ian Shapiro, Rogers Smith, and Tarek Masoud’s analysis of the
field identifies similar points of tension within political science: they
single out the problem- versus method-driven research divide, the
debate around rational choice, and methodological pluralism.^53 One
panelist explains how the low degree of consensus affects the work of
panels: “The lack of consensus relates to what questions are impor-
tant. Some people will just look at the method and ask if it’s been
well done, and others of us will, I think, look at theimportanceof the
questions andthenthe method and say [whether] this has been well
done” (my emphasis). This panelist, who is a political scientist, notes
that math and formalization have come to define “good methods”:
“If someone has a really good question—Adam Przeworski is an ex-
ample of this—... and is using different methods and formalizing,
it’s fine with me if they’re formalizing something that’s important.
But I think a lot of people don’t react that way.” Disparagingly, she
concludes, “I think academics are a surly bunch. I think we’re paid to
argue. By surly I mean, you know, people are always yapping away
about...questions of method, gossiping about who’s good and
who’s bad.”
The divisions within political science have worked to the advan-
tage of proponents of rational choice theory. Many contemporary
political scientists point to the epistemological homogeneity of eco-
nomics as a model of “progress.” By appealing to the argument that
such intellectual consensus signals disciplinary evolution and status,
backers of rational choice theory have been able to extend their para-
digm’s sway over the field.^54 Indeed, an economist, happily noting an
increasing resemblance between his field and political science, as-
96 / On Disciplinary Cultures