Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:375Hits:19894163Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
MEAD, LAWRENCE M (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   097627


Scholasticism in political science / Mead, Lawrence M   Journal Article
Mead, Lawrence M Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2010.
Summary/Abstract Criticism of trends in political science centers on specific methodologies-quantitative methods or rational choice. However, the more worrisome development is scholasticism-a tendency for research to become overspecialized and ingrown. I define that trend more closely and document its growth through increases in numbers of journals, organized sections in the American Political Science Association, and divisions within the APSA conference. I also code articles published in the American Political Science Review to show a growth in scholastic features in recent decades. The changes affect all fields in political science. Scholasticism serves values of rigor. To restrain it will require reemphasizing relevance to real-world issues and audiences. To do this should also help restore morale among political scientists.
        Export Export
2
ID:   105430


Welfare politics in Congress / Mead, Lawrence M   Journal Article
Mead, Lawrence M Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2011.
Summary/Abstract The stakes of political conflict involve contending values and issue definitions as well as policy. Welfare reform was the most important change in American domestic policy since civil rights. Its significance hinges crucially on how participants understood the issue, but existing research fails to resolve what their perceptions were. Most accounts suggest that welfare reform was an ideological contest concerning the proper scope of government, but there are other views. This study gauges the welfare agenda rigorously by coding speakers in congressional hearings on the basis of how they framed the issue and the position they took on it during the six chief episodes of welfare reform that occurred between 1962 and 1996. The reform efforts aroused four distinct divisions. Over time, positions moved rightward, but more important, the dominant issue changed: The ideological debate about government was overtaken by a more practical debate about how to manage welfare. This is the first study to track the substantive meaning of any issue in Congress over an extended period of time using hearing witnesses and a preset analytic scheme.
        Export Export