“Mass Science” at ЕPSA Conference: the Participant Observation Experience

Kazarinova D.B.,

Associate Professor, RUDN University, kazarinova_db@rudn.university

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.01.12

For citation:

Kazarinova D.B. “Mass Science” at ЕPSA Conference: the Participant Observation Experience. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 1. P. 163-169. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.01.12

The research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project No. 19-011-00825 “Value-political contexts of educational migration”.

Abstract

Major international scientific events have their own specifics for their ideological content, methodological tools, methods of organization, and established academic traditions. At the annual conferences of the European Association of Political Science, this specific was in the overwhelming dominance of quantitative research and a strong emphasis on the methodology of research: the method of processing of natural language, and the “difference-in-difference”. The analysis of the conference program was a thought-provoking look into the development of domestic and foreign political science, joined by trends of mass education and, consequently, the development of social science under the influence of the principle of “publish or perish”. The EPSA conference manifested such common postmodern scientific trends as the fragmentation of scientific knowledge and the lack of “great meanings”, democracy and leveling differences and status, humor, and irony. The non-academic (i.e. social) program, which this year was dedicated to diversity, is growing in importance. There was also a focus on Russian themes in political studies by scientists from the USA and Europe, which is reduced to a very narrow range of problems – mainly to the criticism of the Russian political regime and the study of the role of new media in the protest mobilization of the masses.

Keywords

political science, international conference, European Association of Political Science, EPSA, mass education, mass science, effects of publish or perish, Russia in world political science.

Full Text

References

Benoit K., Munger K., Spirling A. 2019. Measuring and Explaining Political Sophistication Through Textual Complexity. – American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 63. No. 2. P. 491-508. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12423

Hopkins D.J., King G. 2010. A Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science. – American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 54. No. 1. P. 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00428.x

Lucas C., Nielsen R., Roberts M., Stewart B., Storer A., Tingley D. 2015. Computer-Assisted Text Analysis for Comparative Politics. – Political Analysis. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 254-277. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu019

Kedar O, Harsgor L., Sheinerman R. 2016. Are Voters Equal under Proportional Representation? – American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 676-691. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12225

Plumper T., Troeger V. 2019. Not so Harmless After All: The Fixed-Effects Model. – Political Analysis. Vol. 27. No. 1. P. 21-45. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.17

Plutzer E. 2002. Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood. – The American Political Science Review. Vol. 96. No. 1. P. 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055402004227

Wilkerson J., Casas A. 2016. Large-Scale Computerized Text Analysis in Political Science: Opportunities and Challenges. – Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 20. P. 529-544. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpolisci-052615-025542

Wilson L. 1942. The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociology of a Profession. New York, Oxford University Press.

Gaman-Golutvina O.V., Nikitin A.I., Chugrov S.V. 2019. World and Politics Through the Prism of Scientific Forums. – Polis. Political studies. No. 3. P. 87-106. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.03.06

Wooldridge J. 2009. Difference-in-Difference Estimation. – Quantile. No. 6. P. 25-47. (In Russ.)

Content No. 1, 2020