Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

Political science I 85
culture, now seeking to broaden itself socially and intellectually. Nor would
there be much dispute about the traditional position of law in European Univer-
sities, the majestic inheritance of the Roman imperium. But events have not yet
settled the academic role of political science in the European Universities, East
and West; nor its position in the Universities of the developing countries.
This situation is of intense interest to political scientists who live with it as
participant observers: but the complexities of the environment add to the
difficulty of reviewing the state of a discipline which is itself intellectually com-
plex.
IV. RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
A. The categorization of research
The first sections of the chapter have given some indication of the conceptual
and ecological elements which dehe the many shapes of contemporary political
science. A final section will raise further general questions about the strategy
and tactics of research; for this section, which is concerned mainly with descrip-
tion, it seems best to use a pragmatical classification, such as might be used (for
instance) in establishing sectional meetings of the International Political
Science Association.
First, it would be customary to set on one side two fields of study which might
be regarded as separate disciplines, since their lines of inquiry lead them beyond
the study of politics as statecraft, though they set out from that field as their
base. These are the study of international relations and that of public adminis-
stration. Secondly, it is also possible to mark off as a separate field of discussion
the problem of ‘area studies’, referred to on p. 181 above.
I. Categorization by types of State
This enables us next to approach directly the politics of States, and one begins
with the problem of the categorization of States. ‘All politics is comparative
politics’, but (as we shall see) geographical or cultural areas do not necessarily
offer the best basis for comparative analysis. At least three bases are possible;
institutional, ideological, economic and social.
Institutional. In its simplest form institutional comparison was concerned
primarily with constitutional forms: the comparison of the position of monarchs
in different kingdoms, of President and Prime Minister under alternative forms
of electoral democracy, of elected assemblies, of constitutional rights and their
protection. Institutional analysis of this kind continues, and its practical impor-
tance is such that it is not likely to die out. But it has long been under attack
from two flanks, Marxist and ‘behaviourist’, on the ground that it tends to sub-
stitute ‘form’ for ‘reality’. The fairness of the criticism is now generally admitted,
subject to the caveat that without ‘political form’ no ‘political reality’can exist;
there is in fact now a problem of refounding the study of political forms on a
more fruitful basis.