theʻdevelopmentʼof political science: which way now in the … · 2018. 2. 11. · notes that one...

The‘development’of political science:

Which way now in the Philippines?

Shingo MIKAMO

Shinshu University

概要経済成長と貧困撲滅，紛争，環境問題，民主主義体制の確立，グローバル化への対応など，

急激に変化する新興国は，多くの政治課題に直面している。政治的な問題を考察し問題発生のメカ

ニズムを解明し，課題解決のための知見を提供することが期待される政治学の価値も常に問われて

いる。政治学はどのような貢献が可能か。そもそも政治学という学問分野が未発達な新興国では，

どのように政治学は発展しているのか。本稿では，フィリピンの事例を通じて，この問題を考察す

る。政治学の特徴は，方法論的な多様性であり，政治学の中心地ともいえるアメリカの最新の「理

論」を技術のように学び応用できるものではない。

Key Words: Political Science Methodology, Case Study Method, Contextual Analysis,

Philippine Politics

Introduction

This brief paper examines issues relating

to the development of political science.In the

United States,the dominant center of politi-

cal science study,quantitative analysis is the

mainstream of political science methodology.

As this trend prevails the single country case

study is becoming less favored in political

science, although diversified analytical and

research methods are still accorded respect.

How does this trend influence the develop-

ment of political science in other countries

including the Philippines?Will political scien-

tists be discouraged from analyzing

Philippine politics in the framework of the

detailed single country case study?Will the

study of politics diminish in Philippine studies

which focus on the Philippine context?This

paper first investigates debates about politi-

cal science as a discipline and the main-

stream trends,and then offers an overview of

the development of political science in the

UK and Japan,as examples of European and

Asian political science. Although American

political science is influential, political sci-

ence has been developed in the historical and

political contexts of each country. Political

science methodology has been adopted

eclectically and skeptically from the center.

In the final section,some of the issues which

have emerged from the development of politi-

cal science in the Philippines are reviewed.

Recent movements to advance qualitative,

case study methodology and contextual anal-

ysis are encouraging for the development of

Philippine political science.

― ―1

thanks for valuable comments from the partici-

pants of the session.

This paper was first presented at the 8 Interna-

tional Conference on Philippine Studies (ICO-

PHIL, 23-26 July 2008, Manila). The author

Political Science and the‘Mainstream’

Political science is seen as a discipline

which does not have a single big methodologi-

cal device.Laitin(1995:454)notes that many

political scientists entered this field since

they were“to some extent attracted to politi-

cal science because its lack of discipline was

so attracting.”Sigelman (2006:v) uses the

fitting image of a jigsaw puzzle to depict the

essence of the discipline.It is a discipline of

many parts. The separate parts of political

science are not preassembled.They resemble

the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but are very

curious. At the same time, serious doubt

remains about the appropriateness of the

jigsaw puzzle metaphor.It is not yet certain

if all the separate pieces of political science

would fit together in a neat and tidy package

and to reveal the whole picture(Ibid.).

In a New Handbook of Political Science,

Goodin and Klingemann (1996: 7) see the

discipline as it is defined by“its substantive

concerns,by its fixation on‘politics’in all its

myriad forms.”They claim that ‘Politics’is

essentially “the constrained use of social

power.”The study of politics might be char-

acterized “as the study of the nature and

source of those constraints and techniques for

the use of social power within those con-

straints (Ibid.).”

Loosely following Crick (1962), they

explain that

“It is the constraints under which politi-

cal actors operate, and strategic

maneuvering that they occasion and that

occurs within them,that seems to us to

constitute the essence of politics.It is the

analysis of those constraints-where they

come from,how they operate,how politi-

cal agents might operate within them-

that seems to us to lie at the heart of the

study of politics (Ibid.:8).”

Many agree that political science is not a

‘strict’discipline. However, in the United

States, the dominant center of political sci-

ence study, a solid methodological trend in

the study of politics has prevailed. In a cen-

tennial issue of American Political Science

Review, in a review of articles published by

the influential journal, Sigelman (2006:467)

notes that one of “the most controversial

developments in political science research

over the past century was the rise of quantita-

tive analysis, a staple ingredient of the ‘be-

havioral’approach.”

In the journal,the proportion of quantita-

tive articles skyrocketed, topping 70%

toward the late 60s.Although the proportion

declined slightly in the following decades the

non-quantitative articles remained in the

minority(Ibid.:467-8).Another visible trend

has emerged since the late 70s:the increase

of formal models.42% of the articles in the

review’s 89 (1995) volume featured formal

The‘development’of political science:Which way now in the Philippines?

pline are categorized by the following seven sub-

fields: 1 Consideration of normative issues, 2

Policy prescription or criticism,3 Presentation of

empirical results, 4 Formal modeling, 5 Conce-

ptualization or theory-building,6 Inventory, sur-

vey,or criticism of prior work,7 Consideration of

methodological issues.

When defining politics in terms of power, they

follow Dahl’s old neo-Weberian definition; “X

has power over Y insofar as:(i)X is able,in one

way or another,to get Y to do something (ii)that

is more to X’s liking,and (iii)which Y would not

otherwise have done(Ibid:7).”

In the review, the published articles in the disci-

― ―2

models (Ibid.). The proportion has declined

from its earlier peak but it still remains high.

This mainstream trend has not yet under-

gone any fundamental changes.Dryzek (2006)

observes that revolutionary changes in Amer-

ican political science research have occurred

only twice in its history.The first revolution

occurred in the period when the discipline

was founded in the late nineteenth century.

They aimed to establish political science as a

“professionalized state-building science in a

seemingly recalcitrant polity-and against

amateur political analysis (Ibid.:487).”The

second successful revolution was set in

motion by the behavioralists of the mid-twen-

tieth century.They“revolted on behalf of the

study of actual behavior, the science, the

political system(as opposed to the state),and

(again)pluralism (Ibid.).”

Two further attempts to redirect the

mainstream in the late 1960s and early 70s

(led by the Caucus for a New Political Sci-

ence), and in the early twenty-first century

(Perestroika movement) both failed. They

basically alleged“behavioralism’s complicity

in the status quo of American politics”in

favor of “methodological pluralism”and “a

politically committed political science ori-

ented to the social crisis of the times(Ibid.).”

Dryzek (2006: 487) stresses that the

reform movements of political science

research were always unsuccessful whenever

they had any serious enemies inside the disci-

pline who could illuminate the opposition.

“American political science may be just as

hard to reform in fundamental ways as the

American political system (Ibid.).”The solid

foundation of American political science is

the commitment to‘scientific’study.When it

was founded in 1903 the constitution of the

APSA proclaimed its main objective to be

“the encouragement of the scientific study of

politics (Ibid: 488).”Although there is no

complete consensus on the definition of sci-

ence, there is a broad agreement among

American political scientists that quantita-

tive, statistical and formal model analyses

are scientific methods which can be employed

to analyze politics.

If the‘American science of politics’domi-

nates the study of politics, will Philippine

political science follow the same course?Will

political scientists be discouraged from anal-

yzing Philippine politics through detailed

single country case studies, traditionally

advantageous method of Philippine politics?

Will the study of politics diminish in

Philippine studies as it employs a more for-

malistic scientific method,similar perhaps to

that employed in Economics? To address

these issues, a brief review of the develop-

ment of political science in other ‘smaller’

countries, namely the UK (European) and

Japan (Asian),will be useful.

The Development of Political Science:UK

and Japan

British political science emerged from

the British political context and its develop-

ment was path-dependent. Dunleavy, Kelly

and Moran(2000:3)characterize the develop-

ment of British political science in terms of

two distinct features:the influence of politi-

cal continuity and a degree of scepticism and

eclecticism in its approach.They stress that

the development of British political science

has been influenced by the distinctive feature

信州大学経済学論集第64号（2013）Shingo MIKAMO ― ―3

of the British polity:“the absence of a consti-

tutional founding document or of a codified

view of the relationship between citizens and

their rulers (Ibid).”“This relatively unique

constitutional structure was founded on the

elusive principles of parliamentary sover-

eignty and the attendant importance of elite

consensus on self-restraining behaviour

bound by conventions (Ibid.:4).”

They claim that this unique foundation

of the polity facilitated the development of a

political science which differed from Amer-

ican political science.In some areas,such as

the analysis of elections and the study of

interest groups,the British profession import-

ed methodology, largely uncritically, from

the United States, the dominant centre for

the discipline.However,such subfields of the

discipline are rather limited.Other sub-fields

such as the analysis of law/politics relation-

ships or the systematic study of legislative

behaviour,remained either marginal or devel-

oped at a slow pace in comparison with the

voluminous American literatures (Ibid.:4)

The unique British polity shaped the post

-war development of political science. Dun-

leavy, Kelly and Moran (2000:4) point out

that it significantly influenced inquiries into

political issues. The key research questions

of British political science emerged from the

distinctive features of the British polity.

There has also been for a long time“a kind of

intellectual conservatism about theoretical

empirical methodologies in British political

science”. The discipline held out for a long

time against the ‘behavioural revolution’of

the 1950s. These barriers to new methods

lowered in the 1960s, but it continued to be

reluctant to embrace formalism in empirical

theory.The slowness with which quantitative

applications were developed and the UK

emphasis upon historical and institutional

studies are distinctive features of British

political science(Ibid.).

For much of the post-war period,British

scholars took a rather sceptical stance

towards the idea of a unified ‘political sci-

ence’. Many departments of major univer-

sities including LSE,Manchester and Essex

were labeled as ‘Government’. Some non-

controversial variant of‘political studies’in

their titles and degree labels is commonly

used.

Dunleavy, Kelly and Moran (2000: 7)

summarize British political science as fol-

lows:

“British political science has always been

a pluralist field. Normally, there has

been a predominance of institutionalist

empirical work and liberal political the-

ory,but there have also been vivid sub-

cultures, of conservatives, of hard-line

big science modernizers,of Marxist and

other left perspectives, of compar-

ativists,from time to time public choice

influenced approaches,and most recently

post-structuralists, green and feminist

perspectives.”

The selection of influential studies in

Fifty Years of Political Studies (Dunleavy,

Kelly and Moran 2000) clearly shows the

center is hosted by the Department of Politics and

International Relations,the University of Oxford.

The Center for Research Methods in Social Sci-

ence currently offers ESRC Oxford Spring School

in Quantitative Methods for Social Research.The

― ―4 The‘development’of political science:Which way now in the Philippines?

distance separating British and American

political science.They select three main sub-

fields:political theory (6 articles), “a field

where Political Studies has always been

strong”;British politics (4 articles),“where

UK authors of course have a comparative

advantage”; and comparative politics and

empirical theory(8 articles),“where the bulk

of new approaches have concentrated (Ibid:

8).”There is only one article of ‘positive’

analysis of political economy which“system-

atically analyses over-time opinion poll data

using sophisticated economic modeling tech-

niques”but the article,Political Economy, is

written by a Professor of Statistics (R.J.

Bhansali) and a Professor of Banking and

Finance (C.A.E. Goodhart). British political

science will further develop in the British and

European context.It is unlikely to just follow

the methodological trend of the dominant

center although it could be less sceptical

toward quantitative, statistical and formal

model analyses.

The development of Japanese political

science is also inevitably influenced by

Japanese politics. The political context

shaped the foundation of political science in

its early years after the Second World War.

Two features of the development of Japanese

political science are similar to what we find

in Britain:its path dependency and “eclecti-

cism and skepticism.”During the early years

of recovery after the War,the central issue of

political analysis had been Japanese Fascism

under the rule of the Emperor (Tennou).The

most controversial issue of the era was the

continuity and the potential revival of the

Japanese old regime of pre-War history.

Social scientists including political scientists

eagerly analyzed and debated the issues of

greatest social concern in the unstable era

after the War (Otake 1994). Masao Mar-

uyama’s Thought and Behaviour in Japanese

Modern Politics, which was written in this

context, is arguably the most influential

study of Japanese politics. Isida (1984)stres-

ses that this activism of political scientists

was motivated by their remorse which was

filled by their incompetence against prevail-

ing Japanese Fascism in the pre-War years.

This tradition of Japanese political anal-

ysis,which was seriously concerned about the

political issues of the era, continued in the

decades to come. Political scientists par-

ticipated in political debates and were in-

fluenced by political struggles (and debates)

between the conservatives (right) and the

liberals(left).There were fierce disputes over

national security (and the relationship with

the United States)and labor issues propelled

by trade union,student and other ‘civil soci-

ety’activism. In these analyses, political

issues were examined in the Japanese social

and historical context.

The turning point of Japanese political

science was the mid-1970s(Otake 2007).After

the three decades of economic growth,

Japanese society had changed.Many political

scientists began to devote less attention to

current political debates and struggles. A

New generation of political scientists also

emerged. A ‘Leviathan’group, named after

their newly published journal in 1987, cons-

ciously tried to redirect the course of

Japanese political science.

phy.Masao Maruyama’s ‘main’research area is

Japanese intellectual history and political philoso-

― ―5信州大学経済学論集第64号（2013）Shingo MIKAMO

Otake(2007:21)who is one of the leaders

of the group recalls that the group was

labeled as ‘pluralist’since they claimed that

Japanese politics was essentially pluralistic

and could be seen as ‘polyarchy’(following

Dahl’s terminology).They were critical of the

view that stressed the domination of

Japanese politics by the elite,the mainstream

perspective of Japanese political science by

that time.Essentially they sought to conduct

an empirical form of political analysis based

on solid methodology. They criticized the

journalism of Japanese political science for

its lack of any deep empirical analysis.They

were also critical of the major analyses of

Japanese politics which emphasized ‘unique’

aspects of the Japanese context since they

fostered Japanese academic isolationism and

discouraged comparative analysis based on a

solid methodology.

With respect to the influence of Amer-

ican political science and its ‘behaviorism’,

‘eclecticism and skepticism’have been obser-

ved in the development of Japanese political

science.After the mid-1970s,Japanese politi-

cal scientists were more eager to employ

quantitative methods to analyze Japanese

politics.Many studied political science in the

United States.However, the speed at which

the‘American science of politics’was adopt-

ed and the extent of its influence varied

across the discipline’s subfields. Studies of

elections and electoral behavior are pioneer-

ing with respect to the direct importation of

methodology.Although quantitative,statisti-

cal and formal model analyses were broadly

recognized as an important methodology in

political science in the 1990s, there is still

skepticism directed towards the ‘positive’

political science.Normative political theory

and political history have been also seen as

essential subfields of Japanese political sci-

ence.

Recent reviews of political science study

by two leading Japanese Political Science

Journals, Leviathan and the Annuals of

Japanese Political Science Association,clearly

reveal eclecticism, skepticism and the path

dependency in the development of Japanese

political science. It is a pluralistic ‘disci-

pline’. There are many key contributors to

the Leviathan who are also active members of

the Japanese Political Science Association.

There is no sharp cleavage on methodologi-

cal positions between the two journals but the

preferential subfields and methodology of

each journal are different.Leviathan clearly

shows the eclecticism of Japanese political

science. Leviathan : “New Approaches to

Political Analysis and the Study of Japanese

Politics”includes seven sub-sections:Over-

views by funding editors;History;Compari-

son;Political Actors;Election and Political

Participation and Methodology (including

examples of methodological studies).Eclecti-

cism is most obvious in the journal since on

one hand they are keen to adopt‘new’metho-

dology including quantitative,statistical,for-

mal model analyses from American political

science,on the other hand the historical anal-

ysis of Japanese politics is also highly regard-

ed as an important methodology.For exam-

Leviathan,The Japanese Journal of Political Sci-

ence,2007,Vol.40,“New Approaches to Political

Analysis and the Study of Japanese Politics.”

Bokutakusha.The Annuals of Japanese Political

Science Association, 2006-II : “New Trends in

Political Science Toward 21 Century

(Japanese).”Bokutakusha


ple, an article on “Political Science and

Neuroscience,”is followed in the review by a

historical analysis of “The Political Dis-

course of International Order and Modern

Japanese Studies”. The suspicion of ‘scien-

tific’behavioralism is relatively weak and

there is no article on normative political

theory in the“New Approaches.”

The review of the Annuals of Japanese

Political Science Association, another major

journal of Japanese political science,tends to

be more skeptical about‘scientific’behavior-

alism, although the methodological trend

which has tried to fill the gap between quanti-

tative and qualitative analysis is examined as

a recent and important methodological devel-

opment.The review includes an article on the

normative political theory but there is no

article on quantitative and/or formal models

in the“New Trends”.The review consists of

six subfields including Political Theory,Com-

parative Politics, Japanese Politics, Public

Policy, Political Thought, and International

Politics.

Political Science in the Philippines:A For

eign Observer’s View

-

Philippine political science has evolved in

the historical and political contexts of the

Philippines. A Department of Political Sci-

ence was first established in the University of

the Philippines in 1915.In the relatively long

early years,the focus of the discipline was on

areas closely linked with legal studies.It was

the 1960s, and Philippine political scientists

adopted a more diversified research agenda

which were closely related issues of the

Philippine state, democracy and economic

development. It was in December 1962 that

the Philippine Political Science Association

was established. Many political scientists

have been educated in the United States but,

with respect to methodology,the direct influ-

ence of American political science has been

obscure.The founding president of the Asso-

ciation, Professor Remigio E. Agpalo, who

studied and completed his Ph.D.in the United

States during the 1950s, the period of rising

‘behavioralism’, emphasizes “the empirical

and normative orientations of political sci-

ence, its stress on generalizations, the need

for systematic and careful analysis,as well as

for the role of political science as‘defender of

knowledge and civilization’(Agpalo 1996a:

13).”

Agpalo sees Philippine politics as a disci-

pline which has evolved in the context of

Philippine history.The origins of Philippine

political science have been traced back to“a

significant period of Philippine history-the

Propaganda Movement (1880-1895) and the

Philippine Revolution (1896-1901)-(Agpalo

1996b:394).”

In 1984 the development of Philippine

political science was reviewed and forty-two

significant (or at least credible)literatures of

Philippine political science were listed after

independence(Ibid.:408-409).Since the latter

half of the 70s,the number of publications in

political science studies has rapidly grown.

The development of the discipline has been

summarized in terms of two directions.First,

it expanded research sub-fields including

interdisciplinary areas such as political soci-

ology, anthropology, history, law and econ-

omy. Second, political science studies were

examined in more explanatory(theoretical or

systematic) ways. Theorizing causal rela-


tions, identifying explanatory factors and

conceptualizing observable facts using solid

case studies are the main methodologies of

political studies in the Philippines. Political

science studies which employ quantitative

methods and/or formal models are not yet

common.

In the last twenty years,the basic direc-

tions in the development of Philippine politi-

cal science have been consistent with those in

the previous decades.However,the speed of

development has accelerated. The restora-

tion of democracy has benefited political

researchers. Although there are still visible

and invisible pressures emanating from

power holders who wish to promote their

own points of view, academic freedom is

generally respected in Philippine society.

Since the legislative process has been restor-

ed,policy makers and the process of policy

making have become more accountable.The

restoration of democracy lowered barriers

between the government and academics,

NGO and ‘civil society’organizations.Many

social scientists became to involve in policy-

making (Bautista 1999). Many legislative

records and related documents have become

available for researchers. The judiciary

which has basically retained its indepen-

dence,also provides information for political

research.Social surveys and opinion polls are

conducted by research institutes, namely

Social Weather Station and Pulse Asia.Gov-

ernment policy and performance have been

discussed in public every presidential term

except the Estrada administration. The

mounting task of installing a solid data base

of public information including statistics

relating to public policy and policy-making

still remains.However,the research environ-

ment for those concerned with political issues

has improved under the restored democracy.

Today, it is very difficult, if not impos-

sible,to count the number of significant publi-

cations on political studies in the last twenty

years. Important text books of Philippine

government and politics(Morada and Tadem

2006,Tadem and Morada 2006),public admin-

istration (Bautista et al. 2003), local govern-

ment (Tapales, Cuaresma and Cabo 1998),

and state and society(Abinales and Amoroso

2005) have been published. The democratic

transition has facilitated research on political

issues such as democratization (Javata-de

Dios, Daroy and Kalaw-Tirol 1988, Thomp-

son 1995), good governance (Mendoza 2000,

Co 2007), agrarian reform (Putzel 1992,

Morales et al.2001,Borras 2009), left move-

ment (Abinales 1996, Quimpo 2008) and the

Mindanao peace process (Tan 2003, Santos

2001). Studies devoted to ‘civil society’and

related issues represent the most concerned

area of Philippine political science (Clarke

1998, Moreno 2006, Buendia 2005, Silliman

1998, Magadia 2003, Hedman 2006, Carino

2005,Domingo 2005,Tadem 2009).Investiga-

tions and debates continue in the‘traditional’

research areas such as the Philippine state

(Bello 2004, Hutchcroft 1998, Aquino 1987,

Rivera 1994,Raquiza 2012)and local politics

(Kerkvliet 1991,Sidel 1999).Not only political

scientists but also historians,anthropologists,

sociologists and economists have addressed

the political issues in the Philippines. Inves-

tigative journalists and social activists are

also active in writing about political issues

(Coronel 2000,Fabros et al.2006).

The following publications are examples. Many

important studies are not included.


Philippine political science will continue

to develop.And it is to be expected that solid

studies in every research sub-fields will be

published.The discipline is essentially a plur-

alistic field. Since it is inevitable that the

discipline should advance in its historical

context,the issues of the Philippine state and

society,democratization,civil society,agrar-

ian reform, local government and politics,

and the Mindanao peace process have

become the central areas of Philippine politi-

cal science. Current socially controversial

issues such as constitutional reform and the

President’s misbehavior (impeachment)

encourage(or force)political scientists to do

research and write on the related issues.

Many political scientists have to face the

dilemma of multiple tasks:addressing cur-

rent political issues and promoting‘academic’

research on political issues. Political scien-

tists’involvements in political activities and

policy-making might be beneficial for their

research and teaching. However, excessive

involvement in politics is rarely compatible

with academic research. When political

studies were dominated by external political

agendas they were not able to be academic.

Both leading British and Japanese political

scientists point out that this is an important

lesson from their experiences of developing

political sciences in different contexts. In

fact,it is not easy for a politician to be a good

political scientist in the Philippines just as it

is in other places.

In its pursuit of the methodological

advancement, Philippine political science

might employ more quantitative, statistical

and formal models of analysis.Comparative

analysis might be encouraged further.How-

ever,in so as Philippine politics is the stron-

gest field,recent developments in qualitative

approaches based on case studies are relevant

to the development of Philippine politics in

the future.

The centrality of quantitative analysis in

American political science seems to be solid

but there still remains a significant ‘margin’.

Serious attempts to fill the methodological

cleavages have already started. King, Keo-

hane and Verba(1994)claim that“good quan-

titative and good qualitative research designs

are based fundamentally on the same logic of

inference”and “the difference between the

quantitative and qualitative traditions are

only stylistic and methodologically and sub-

stantively unimportant”(Ibid.: 4). Gerring

(2007:91)observes the revival of qualitative

research: “Arguably, we are witnessing a

movement away from a variable-centered

approach to causality in the social sciences

and towards a case-based approach.”Insofar

as the importance of the nation-state as a

polity is unchanged, the single country case

study is still essential to the examination of

political issues.

Gerring (2007:115)defines the case study

as“an intensive study of a single case with an

aim to generalize across a larger set of

cases.”As George and Bennet(2005:19)note,

case studies are generally strong precisely

where quantitative, statistical and formal

See Hirst (2003:1)and Ishida (1984:148)

For the overview,see Box-Steffensmeier,Brady

and Collier 2008.For the Southeast Asian studies,

see Kuhonta,Slater and Vu 2008.

Their claims of Designing Social Inquiry are still

controversial.For the debates and criticism,see,

for example,American Political Science Review,

Volume 89, Number 2, June 1995, Brady and

Collier 2004,and Mahoney 2010.


model analyses are weak. The weakness of

the‘positivist’analyses may be understood as

the consequence of causal variables that offer

limited variation through time and cases that

are extremely heterogeneous (Gerring 2007:

91).They are also often criticized due to their

tendency to underplay the importance of

causal mechanisms in the analysis of causal

relations(Ibid.:92).Small-N case-bases anal-

ysis has the distinctive advantage of enabling

an understanding causation since it examines

individual cases in a detailed context.

George and Bennet (2005: 19) identify

four strong advantages of case methods as

follows: (1) “their potential for achieving

high conceptual validity;”(2) “their strong

procedures for fostering new hypotheses;”(3)

“their value as a useful means to closely

examine the hypothesized role of causal

mechanisms in the context of individual

cases;”(4) “their capacity for addressing

causal complexity.”

The case-study approach is not always

valuable. The quantitative method also has

advantages where the qualitative case-study

is weak. Case selection bias does matter.

When homogeneous data is available making

it possible to examine a large number of

cases, needless to say, it is not plausible to

employ small case analysis.This would limit

the scope of the research to generalized impli-

cations that can apply to the broad popula-

tion.

Nevertheless,context matters for many

political issues. Pilipino, American, British,

Japanese and other national polities set vital

contexts for the study of politics.Goodin and

Tilly(2006:6)clarify that

“Political scientists’ inquiries into

democratization and de-democratiza-

tion,civil and international wars,revolu-

tion and rebellion, nationalism, ethnic

mobilization,political participation,par-

liamentary behavior, and effective gov-

ernment all raise contextual questions:

when,where, in what settings, on what

premises, with what understandings of

the processes under investigation?

Viable answers to questions of this sort

require serious attention to the contexts

in which the crucial political processes

operate.”

Philippine politics significantly influ-

ences Pilipino people including scholars and

the study of politics (Abinales 2011).As sug-

gested above, the modest revival of qualita-

tive research is encouraging for Philippine

political science since it is an advantageous

method in the Philippines.However,refocus-

ing the advantages of the qualitative case

study inevitably provoke a controversial

response to, the so-called ‘indigenization’of

the discipline. Insofar as the potential for

achieving high conceptual validity in detailed

contexts is an advantage of the case study

approaches in Philippine political science,

political scientists have to face the issue of

“theoretical advances in the discourse of in-

digenization” (Mendoza 2007). Influential

movements have progressed in other disci-

plines to “revamp theorizing within the

Western-introduced academic disciplines in

the Philippine academy (Ibid: 242).”Three

programmatic narratives emerged from the

disciplines of psychology,anthropology, and

history, notably, Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Fili-

pino Psychology),Pilipinolohiya (indigenized

Filipino studies), and Pantayoung Pananaw


(a Communication-based framework for his-

toriography),respectively(Ibid.).They share

“the same principles of valuing pagsasarili

(self-determination)and pagtahak ng sariling

landas tungo sa kabansaan (charting an

autonomous path toward nation-or people-

hood)(Ibid.).”

The use of Pilipino language is also a

controversial issue in Philippine political sci-

ence.Nobody who studies social science can

deny the importance and convenience of

English.However,if political scientists play a

role in accumulating ‘scientific’knowledge of

political issues in society and among

‘Pilipino’people,the use of the most common-

ly used language,Pilipino,might be a practi-

cal choice.

Philippine politics is“a small subfield but

it is still exciting, fascinating, and full of

wonders (Agpalo 1996a: xi). All including

foreign observers can share this view(Wurfel

2012).As Ileto (1999)also notes the issue in

the Philippine context, ‘knowledge and

power’should be of serious concern to for-

eign (and Pilipino)scholars.

Conclusion

Political science has developed in a his-

torical and political context.Although quan-

titative analysis is the mainstream of politi-

cal science in the United States,the discipline

is essentially ‘weak’and pluralistic. The

development of political science is path-

dependent and the influence of the main-

stream is eclectic.Philippine political science

will continue to develop further. Political

scientists should not be always treated it just

as one of large-N.The strong sub-fields of

Philippine political science continue to be the

Philippine state and society,democratization,

‘civil society’,agrarian reform,local govern-

ment and politics, and the Mindanao peace

process.These are also current national polit-

ical concerns. They might benefit to learn

from the more sophisticated methodology of

the United States. Comparative studies

involving other ASEAN or Asian or develop-

ing countries might also be of benefit to

Philippine political science.With respect to

methodological advancement, the current

progress being made in qualitative study

methodology and contextual analysis are

encouraging for Philippine political science,

which commonly employs theory building

approaches based on the single country case,

the Philippines.Insofar as precise conceptual

validity has a strong potential in qualitative

analysis, the indigenization of Philippine

political science will matter as the discipline

continues to evolve, although knowledge of

politics can hardly be accumulated without

learning English and other foreign languages.

References

Abinales, Patricio N.［2011］“Between State and

Revolution:Autobiographical Notes on Radical

The proponents of Pilipinolohiya consider the

knowledge produced under rubric of “Philippine

Studies”as being ‘mula sa labas’(a view from

without) (Salazar 1998: 325, cited in Mendoza

2007: 257). They are critical of “Philippine

Studies”as a system of “knowledge production

initiated by, and for , First World nations’con-

sumption needs and,as such,deemed inimical to

Filipino interest”(Ibid.). In contrast, “Pilipinolo-

hiya proposes the development of a view that is

‘mula sa loob’(from within)as the alternative way

of structuring knowledge on the Philippines

(Ibid.).”For further discussion,see Salazar 1998.


Scholarship during the Marcos Dictatorship”, in

Goh,Beng-Lang (ed.)Decentring and Diversifying

Southeast Asian Studies: Perspectives from the

Region. ISEAS

Abinales, Patricio N.［1996］The Revolution Fal-

ters: The Left in Philippine Politics After 1986.

Cornell University Press

Abinales,Patricio N.and Donna J.Amoroso［2005］

State and Society in the Philippines.Manila:Anvil

Agpalo,Remigio E.［1999］“Political Science in the

Philippines:1880-1998 A History of the Discipline

for the Centenary of the First Philippine Repub-

lic”, in Virginia A.Miralao (ed.)The Philippine

Social Sciences in the Life of the Nation.Volume

1,The History and Development of Social Science

Disciplines in the Philippines Quezon City:

Philippine Social Council

Agpalo,Remigio E.［1996a］Adventures in Political

Science.The University of the Philippines Press

Agpalo,Remigio E.［1996b］“Political Science in the

Philippines:1984”in Adventures in Political Sci-

ence.The University of the Philippines Press

Aquino, Belinda［1987］Politics of Plunder : The

Philippines under Marcos.Great Books Trading in

cooperation with College of Public Administra-

tion,the University of the Philippines

Bautista,Maria Cynthia Rose Banzon［1999］“The

Social Sciences in the Philippines:Reflections on

Trends and Developments”, in Virginia A. Mir-

alao(ed.)The Philippine Social Sciences in the Life

of the Nation.Volume 1,The History and Devel-

opment of Social Science Disciplines in the

Philippines Quezon City:Philippine Social Coun-

cil

Bautista, Victoria A., Ma. Concepcion P. Alfiler,

Danilo R.Reyes and Proserpina D.Tapales［2003］

Introduction to Public Administration in the

Philippines: A Reader. Quezon City: National

College of Public Administration and Governance,

University of the Philippines,Diliman

Bello,Walden［2004］The Anti-development State:

The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in the

Philippines. Department of Sociology, College of

Social Sciences and Philosophy,University of the

Philippines

Borras,Saturnino M.［2009］Competing Views and

Strategies on Agrarian Reform : Philippine Per-

spective.Ateneo de Manila Press

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Henry E. Brady, and

David Collier (eds.)［2008］The Oxford Handbook

of Political Methodology.Oxford University Press

Brady,Henry E.and David Collier［2004］Rethink-

ing Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Stan-

dards.Rowman& Littlefield

Buendia,Emmanuel Evangelista［2005］Democratiz-

ing Governance in the Philippines: Redefining

and Measuring the State of People’s Participation

in Governance. Quezon City:Center for Leader-

ship,Citizenship and Democracy,National College

of Public Administration and Governance,Univer-

sity of the Philippines

Carino,Ledivina［2005］Mobilizing for Active Citi-

zenship: Lessons from Indonesia, Nepal and the

Philippines. Manila, Philippines: Center for

Leadership and Democracy,National College of

Public Administration and Governance University

of the Philippines

Clarke, Gerard［1998］The Politics of NGOs in

South-East Asia:Participation and Protest in the

Philippines.London and New York:Routledge

Co,Edna E.A.et al.［2007］Philippine Democracy

Assessment : Minimizing Corruption. British

Council, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Philippine

Democracy Audit, and Transparency and

Accountability Network

Coronel,Sheila S.(ed.)［2000］Betrayals of the Public

Trust : Investigative Reports on Corruption.

Manila:Philippine Center for Investigative Jour-

nalism

Crick,Bernard［1962］In Defense of Politics. Lon-

don:Weidenfeld and Nicholson

Domingo, Ma. Olivia Z.［2005］Good Governance

and Civil Society: The Role of Philippine Civil

Society Boards.Quezon City:Center for Leader-

ship,Citizenship and Democracy,National College

of Public Administration and Governance,Univer-


Dryzek, John S.［2006］ “Revolutions Without

Enemies:Key Transformations in Political Sci-

ence”in American Political Science Review,Vol-

ume 100,Number 4,November 2006

Dunleavy, Patrick, P.J. Kelly and Michael Moran


［2000］ “Characterizing the Development of

British Political Science”in British Political Sci-

ence: Fifty Years of Political Studies. Political

Studies Associations and Blackwell Publishers

Fabros,Aya, Joel Rocamora and Djorina Velasco

［2006］Social Movements in the Philippines.Insti-

tute for Popular Democracy

George,Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett［2005］

Case Studies and Theory Development in the

Social Sciences.MIT Press

Gerring,John［2007］“The Case Study:What it is

and What it does”, in Carles Boix and Susan C.

Stokes (eds.)The Oxford Handbook of Compara-

tive Politics,The Oxford Handbooks of Political

Science.Oxford University Press

Goodin, Robert E. and Hans-Dieter Klingemann

(eds.)［1996］A New Handbook of Political Sci-

ence.Oxford University Press

Goodin, Robert E. and Charles Tilly［2006］“It

Depends”in Robert Goodin and Charles Tilly

(eds.)The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Politi-

cal Analysis,The Oxford Handbooks of Political

Science.Oxford University Press

Hedman, Eva-Lotta［2006］In the Name of Civil

Society:From Free Election Movements to People

Power in the Philippines. University of Hawaii

Press

Hirst,Paul［2003］“The Future of Political Studies”,

in European Political Science,Autumm 2003,Issue

No.3.1(Internet Edition)

Hutchcroft,Paul D.［1998］Booty Capitalism : The

Politics of Banking in the Philippines. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press

Illeto, Reynaldo C.［1999］“Knowing America’s

Colony:A Hundred Years from the Philippine

War”,Philippine Studies Occasional Papers Series

No. 13, Center for Philippine Studies, School of

Hawaiian,Asian and Pacific Studies,University

of Hawaii at Manoa

Ishida, Takeshi［1984］Nihon no Shakai-Kagaku

(Japanese Social Science). University of Tokyo

Press

Javata-de Dios, Aurora, Petronilo Bn. Daroy and

Lorna Kalaw-Tirol(eds.)［1988］Dictatorship and

Revolution : Roots of People’s Power. Metro

Manila:Conspectus

Kenny,Michael［2006］“History and Dissent:Ber-

nard Crick’s The American Science of Politics”,in

American Political Science Review, Volume 100,

Number 4,November 2006

Kerkvliet, Benedict J.［1991］Everyday Politics in

the Philippines: Class and Status Relations in a

Central Luzon Village. Quezon City:New Day

Publishers

King,Gary,Robert O.Keohane,and Sidney Verba

［1994］Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Infer-

ence in Qualitative Research.Princeton University

Press

Kuhonta,Erik Martinez,Dan Slater and Tuong Vu

(eds.)［2008］Southeast Asia in Political Science:

Theory,Region,and Qualitative Analysis.Stanfor-

d,California:Stanford University Press

Laitin, David D.［1995］“Discipling Political Sci-

ence”in “The Qualitative-Quantitative Disputa-

tion:Gary King,Robert O.Keohane,and Sidney

Verba’s Designing Social Inquiry:Scientific Infer-

ence in Qualitative Research”in American Politi-

cal Science Review,Volume 89,Number 2, June

1995

Magadia, Jose J.［2003］State-Society Dynamics:

Policy Making in a Restored Democracy. Ateneo

de Manila University Press

Mahoney. James［2010］“After KKV: The New

Methodology of Qualitative Research”,in World

Politics 62,no.1(January 2010),pp.120-47

Mendoza, Magdalena L. (ed.)［2000］ Measuring

Good Governance in the Philippines.Development

Academy of the Philippines

Mendoza,S.Lily L.［2007］“Theoretical Advances

in the Discourse of Indigenization”in Atoy M.

Navarro, Flordeliza Lagbao-Bolante, Mga Pat-

nugot, Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang

Pilipino: Sikolohiyang Pilipino, Pilipinolohiya at

Pantatong Pananaw.Quzon City:C&E Publishing,

Inc.

Miralao, Virginia A. (ed.)［1999］The Philippine

Social Sciences in the Life of the Nation.Volume

1,The History and Development of Social Science

Disciplines in the Philippines Quezon City:

Philippine Social Council

Morada,Noel M.and Teresa S.Encarnacion Tadem

(eds.)［2006］Philippine Politics and Governance:


An Introduction. Quezon City: Department of

Political Science, University of the Philippines

Diliman

Morales,Jr.Horacio and James Putzel with Francis-

co Lara Jr.,Eddie Quitoriano and Aurea Miclat-

Teves (eds.)［2001］Power in the Village:Agrar-

ian Reform, Rural Politics, Institutional Change

and Globalization.Quezon City:Project Develop-

ment Institute and the University of the

Philippines Press

Moreno,Antonio F.［2006］Church,State,and Civil

Society in Postauthoritarian Philippines: Narra-

tives of Engaged Citizenship.Quezon City:Ateneo

de Manila University Press

Ono, Koji (ed.)［2007］The Annuals of Japanese

Political Science Association, 2006-II : “New

Trends in Political Science Toward 21st Century”

(Japanese)Bokutakusha

Otake, Hideo［2007］“The U Turn of 1975 in

Japanese Politics and Political Science: Levia-

thans’in these Thirty Years,”(Japanese)in Levia-

than,The Japanese Journal of Political Science,

Vol.40 New Approaches to Political Analysis and

the Study of Japanese Politics.

Otake,Hideo［1999］Japanese Politics and Political

Analyses in the Era of High Economic Growth

(Japanese).University of Tokyo Press

Otake,Hideo［1994］Politics and Political Analysis

in Postwar Japan (Japanese).University of Tokyo

Press

Putzel,James［1992］A Captive Land : the Politics

of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. New

York:Monthly Review Press

Quimpo, Nathan［2008］Contested Democracy and

the Left in the Philippines after Marcos. Yale

University Press

Raquiza,Antoinette R.［2012］State Structure,Policy

Formation, and Economic Development in South-

east Asia: The Political Economy of Thailand

and the Philippines.Routledge

Rivera,Temario C.［1994］Landlords and Capital-

ists:Class,Family,and State in Philippine Manu-

facturing. Manila:University of the Philippines

Press

Salazar, Zeus ［1998］ “‘Philippine Studies’and

‘Pilipinolohiya’:Past,Present and Future of Two

Heuristic Views in the Study of the Philippines”,

in The Malayan Connection.Palimbagan ng Lahi,

Lunsod Quezon

Santos, Jr., Soliman M.［2001］The Moro Islamic

Challenge: Constitutional Rethinking for the

Mindanao Peace Process.Quezon City:University

of the Philippines Press

Sidel, John［1999］Capital, Coercion, and Crime:

Bossism in the Philippines. Stanford University

Press

Sigelman,Lee［2006］“Introduction to the Centen-

nial Issue”,in American Political Science Review,

Volume 100,Number 4,November 2006

Silliman, G. Sidney and Lela Garner Noble (eds.)

［1998］Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil

Society and the Philippine State.Ateneo de Manila

University Press

Tan, Samuel K.［2003］Internationalization of the

Bangsamoro Struggle.Quezon City:CIDS,Univer-


Tadem, Teresa S. Encarnacion［2009］Localizing

and Transnationalizing Contentious Politics :

Global Civil Society Movements in the Philippines.

Lexington Books

Tadem,Teresa S.Encarnacion and Noel M.Morada

(eds.)［2006］Philippine Politics and Governance:

Challenges to Democratization & Development.

Quezon City: Department of Political Science,

University of the Philippines Diliman

Tapales,Proserpina Domingo,Jocelyn C.Cuaresma,

and Wilhelmina L.Cabo (eds.)［1998］Local Gov-

ernment in the Philippines:A Book of Readings.

(Three Volumes)Center for Local and Regional

Governance and National College of Public

Administration and Governance,University of the

Philippines

Thompson,Mark R.［1995］The Anti-Marcos Strug-

gle. New Haven and London: Yale University

Press

Wurfel,David［2012］“Doing Political Science in the

Philippines: 1962-2012”, in Philippine Political

Science Journal,Vol.33,No.2,pp.242-249

（受付日 2013年１月15日）

（受理日 2013年１月18日）


theʻdevelopmentʼof political science: which way now in the … · 2018. 2. 11. · notes that one...

Documents