Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
The Review

What’s the Value of Political Science?

By Jeffrey C. Isaac October 14, 2009
isaacs
Geoffrey Moss

Republican Sen. Tom A. Coburn, of Oklahoma, has introduced an amendment to House Resolution 2847 that would eliminate support from the National Science Foundation for political-science research. Scholars in the discipline are understandably against this move. As a citizen who is a political scientist, I, too, oppose the initiative, which appears to be a form of populist vindictiveness.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Republican Sen. Tom A. Coburn, of Oklahoma, has introduced an amendment to House Resolution 2847 that would eliminate support from the National Science Foundation for political-science research. Scholars in the discipline are understandably against this move. As a citizen who is a political scientist, I, too, oppose the initiative, which appears to be a form of populist vindictiveness.

Coburn’s argument, such as it is, is to list odd-sounding NSF-supported projects—all of which have met rigorous scholarly peer review—and to insist that those projects cannot be “scientific,” since they produce no breakthroughs in medicine, robotics, or biotechnology. He invokes a myopic view of how different kinds of research can “matter.” Indeed, even as he seeks to snatch support from political science, other branches of the government—including the Department of Defense, the Agency for International Development, and the Department of Education—are promoting social-science research that generates indispensable knowledge of a complex world.

But if Senator Coburn is misguided, we political scientists are passing up an opportunity for self-reflection if we respond defensively, in the manner of a mere interest group (though scholarly associations are legitimate players in a politics based on interest groups). Yes, we want public recognition and support, for what we do is valuable. But the most compelling aspect of our demand for recognition is that we are a community of scholars dedicated to free and critical inquiry. And while our teaching and research produce many social benefits, our activities’ primary value, in a democratic society, is the value of inquiry itself.

Yet here a bit of candor is in order. For while most NSF-funded research is surely as valuable as many other federally supported proj ects, we political scientists kid ourselves if we think this research typically has the obvious public benefit that we might defensively, if legitimately, claim for it. In fact, in playing up political science’s scientific credentials, we might be losing sight of some of its most obvious potential public benefits. Most political-science research that is modeled on the hard sciences professes a naïve “value neutrality.” Much of that work, moreover, is framed in fairly narrow disciplinary terms, and is little concerned with illuminating public problems in ways that might easily enhance public understanding. One more study of whip counts in Congress surely does no harm. But is it the best our profession can offer? I think we can do, and have done, better.

While some of our research has little immediate clear public relevance, much of it has both public purpose and public value. One good example is the research of my Indiana University colleague Elinor Ostrom on the governance of common resources, which recently earned her the first Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science ever awarded to a woman. Her work, which speaks to pressing problems of environmental sustainability, is relevant to policy makers and citizens. Sure, most NSF-funded work does not rise to that level of importance and relatively direct applicability. But that’s true of most work in most intellectual domains. And it is only through competitive support processes that agencies such as the NSF can invest in promising lines of research in the hope that some will bear fruit. High-profile “successes” are possible only because of a broader environment of scientific inquiry in which narrow, everyday research of dubious public “value” also makes a contribution.

Moreover, even as we resist Senator Coburn’s ill-conceived maneuver, we should keep the NSF in perspective. NSF-type basic research in political science is worthy of support even if much of it is fairly banal. But few political scientists benefit directly from these funds or are even eligible to receive them. And even the best and most “scientific” political-science research rarely generates the kind of direct benefits that basic research in physics, molecular biology, or informatics can produce. For political science is a science of a different kind than the natural sciences, one that draws upon ordinary language and experience of public problems and that develops tentative, fallible, and contestable interpretations of those problems.

It is a science the subject matter of which eludes reductive explanation and prediction. Its “truths” are best seen as contributions to the self-understanding of societies that ceaselessly change along with the values and purposes of their members. The big questions of political science are not reducible to mathematical or experimental analysis, even if such techniques sometimes play an important role. They are, rather, conceptual, practical, and ethical, regarding such things as the causes of order and disorder, the constructive and destructive potential of violence, and the sources of social conflict. Political science contributes to answering difficult questions by providing interpretations that provoke new insights and illuminate public dialogue. Such a political science is not a technology but a means of public enlightenment and discussion.

Political science as a discipline has not always been sufficiently mindful of that vocation, but in recent years it has become more so. New research agendas—concerning gender and politics, ethnic conflict, civil wars, transnationalism, and other topics—have emerged to meet the needs of a globalizing society. And the American Political Science Association has wisely sought to enhance both the public visibility and the public contribution of the discipline.

One result is Perspectives on Politics, a journal whose editorship I recently assumed. Perspectives was created eight years ago in order to promote high-quality research that takes on problems of public consequence, speaks to a broad audience of political-science scholars, and reaches beyond academe to learn from and contribute to broader public discussion. The journal aims to promote a genuine political-science public sphere.

In recent years it has featured important research on topics such as the causes of civil wars, the dynamics of democratization and retrenchment in the post-Soviet republics, the implications of demographic change for racial politics in the United States, the role of international-relations scholars in public debates about the Middle East, the gendered nature of inequality, and the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. Military Counterinsurgency Manual. Such work draws upon NSF-supported basic research employing high-level mathematical and experimental methods. It also draws upon language and culture scholarship supported by Title VI area-studies centers, and upon research in history supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities. Much of the work is done by scholars who themselves receive no such direct funds, but whose work is possible only because we have strong institutions of higher learning that are partly supported by the federal government.

ADVERTISEMENT

That kind of work is the most powerful testament to the value of political science. It does not necessarily produce an immediate economic payoff, in the form of a new robot, video game, antibiotic, or weapon of mass destruction. But it contributes to the education of young citizens, informs policy making in a world of risk and uncertainty, and enhances public understanding and communication in a democratic society.

NSF support for social-scientific research ought therefore to be defended and indeed enhanced.

At the same time, we can best attract such support if we acknowledge that political science can do a much better job not simply of explaining its relevance to the public at large, but of being relevant and valuable to the world at large. The most exciting thing about being a political scientist today is that such relevance is being taken seriously and has real institutional support. Just as much as the NSF’s political-science programs, these conversations deserve public recognition, along with the strong support of all political scientists who care about the future of the discipline and the ways that it might contribute to a better future for the world.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Jeffrey C. Isaac
Jeffrey C. Isaac is a professor of political science at Indiana University at Bloomington.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Vector illustration of large open scissors  with several workers in seats dangling by white lines
Iced Out
Duke Administrators Accused of Bypassing Shared-Governance Process in Offering Buyouts
Illustration showing money being funnelled into the top of a microscope.
'A New Era'
Higher-Ed Associations Pitch an Alternative to Trump’s Cap on Research Funding
Illustration showing classical columns of various heights, each turning into a stack of coins
Endowment funds
The Nation’s Wealthiest Small Colleges Just Won a Big Tax Exemption
WASHINGTON, DISTICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2025/04/14: A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator holding a sign with Release Mahmud Khalil written on it, stands in front of the ICE building while joining in a protest. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally in front of the ICE building, demanding freedom for Mahmoud Khalil and all those targeted for speaking out against genocide in Palestine. Protesters demand an end to U.S. complicity and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
An Anonymous Group’s List of Purported Critics of Israel Helped Steer a U.S. Crackdown on Student Activists

From The Review

John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson
Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin