To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.
The transition to Stage 2 of the deliberations is currently underway but will take some time to complete. In the meantime, we very much welcome additional contributions to the existing threads in this forum.
For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.
The University of Pennsylvania
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:59 pm
When this point is missed, well-intentioned efforts to figure out ways to “fit us in” to DA-RT under the guise of “inclusiveness” may lead to misguided results. Some, for instance, have suggested that “active citation” would be appropriate; and while it may, in some cases, provide theorists with the opportunity to add lengthy footnotes in which longer textual passages could be cited from original texts, in the vast majority of cases it would run up against issues of copyright infringement; certainly, many canonical texts are on the web, but they do not provide definitive and in many cases accurate renditions of texts, even those originally in English: punctuation, italicization, capitalization, at times even spelling of words in their twentieth-century incarnations rather than their original spelling present inaccuracies. Differences among translations in different editions of texts originally in Greek, French, Italian, etc. are vast and different authors rely on different translations (including their own). And even if particular editions of various texts come to be accepted as “authoritative”, they are almost always copyright protected. Active citation in most cases simply makes it even more difficult than it already is for political theory to appear in the discipline-wide journals, and may have a chilling effect on submissions for no good intellectual reason.
But this specific problem points to a macro problem, which concerns me even about this very website: the acceptance of DA-RT as a given for the entire discipline of political science, giving way to earnest discussions of how to make it work for the different subfields. This point, also raised by Jeff Isaacs in his editorial essay in Perspectives on Politics, obscures a broader conversation that has been going on all year, but has not been listened to. So let me state it clearly: DA-RT may be highly applicable to quantitative political science, even if it poses some serious ethical and professional problems, particularly for junior colleagues who hope to gain multiple publications out of data sets that have taken them years of graduate and post-graduate work to accrue. But it is simply not applicable to large swathes of the discipline, such as political theory, most interpretive work, and considerable subsets of qualitative empirical work.
So am I saying “leave political theory out of this”? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that this problem is irrelevant to us: we have always been transparent, it is the essence of the work we do, and anyone can read the same texts our work is about. But no, in this more complicated sense: journal editors need to move away from considering political theory as an “exception” to the “norms” of political science as defined by the principles of DA-RT, which are designed primarily with quantitative data in mind, and are being bent and twisted to apply to other forms of data. Rather, editors have a responsibility to recognize and acknowledge, publicly, that they understand that political science research has many different sorts of norms that are appropriate to their respective subfields, and work should be evaluated by and in terms of those respective norms by individuals in those subfields.