Book Review: The New Handbook of Political Sociology

Let's be honest, you will often find handbooks like this one, not on the bookshelf but instead under a computer monitor. Understandably, they are ideal monitor risers, commonly large and thick. This one is over 1100 pages, but the surface area is a bit too small to neatly fit under a monitor stand. If you’re looking to buy a monitor riser, you can find cheaper options.

On the other hand, if you are interested in learning about the field of political sociology, you should read The New Handbook of Political Sociology edited by Janoski, de Leon, Misra, and Martin. I suspect most people will read a chapter or two based on their field(s) of interest. Others may read large sections or even the whole book. My job as a reviewer is to help you decide which strategy to use. The answer is, following a long sociological tradition: it depends. If you are looking for an overview of current trends in political sociology, or ideas about future research, then most chapters in this volume will be helpful. If you are a graduate student about to take a preliminary examination in this subject area, many of the chapters will boost your confidence in that you have not missed anything new and trending. If you are looking for a systematic evaluation of alternative theories on long-standing questions in political sociology, then most chapters will not be particularly helpful.

Let's start with the book's strengths. It lives up to its title The New Handbook of Political Sociology. It is not the second edition of a 2005 book by (almost) the same name. It is not an update. Instead, the book tries to do something new by focusing on recent developments in the field (and sub-fields) and presenting arguments about the direction of future research. For those interested in learning about current trends across a plethora of sub-fields—there are 40 independent chapters—this book is a treasure trove. It does an excellent job of drawing attention to original, innovative, and out of favor, but nevertheless useful, theories, as well as discussing new and forgotten topics. The editors hope to raise interest in, for example, topics such as conflict/power theories, political parties, colonialism, media, public opinion, and how policies affect the marginalized. It also pushes sociologists toward subject matters often dominated by other disciplines, such as political science and communications; and brings sociological theories and perspectives to bear on these topics.

Despite clearly delivering on its promise, there are issues and missed opportunities that detract from the book's impact. First, many chapters (or sections within chapters) either leave too much work for the reader to piece together or do not sufficiently sketch out testable theories with specified mechanisms and appropriate scope conditions (Ermakoff 2017). Relatedly, large parts of the book discuss new findings without connecting them to theory, what Healy (2017) has forcefully argued is an unhelpful description of complexity. This sometimes makes it difficult for the reader to figure out exactly what we have learned beyond facts and insights about interesting cases. As Erik Olin Wright used to tirelessly remind everyone, “it's nice to learn about a case, but more rewarding to learn from a case.”

Second, the authors rarely help the reader figure out how convincing the existing evidence (data and methods) is in support of a finding, relationship, trend, or theory. Frequently, chapters point out that research shows mixed results but almost never explain whether this is due to measurement problems (small samples, error, construct validity, etc.), methods adopted, or scope conditions. Similarly, despite widespread awareness of the “replication crisis” in the social sciences (Camerer et al. 2018; Open Science Collaboration 2015), many chapters cite only one or two studies (some littered with methodological issues) in support of big claims. Thus, it was refreshing when a chapter did tackle the question of measurement issues head-on (e.g., Burstein in chapter 28).

Finally, the book's key strength is perhaps also its main weakness. It is too new. Many of the chapters in this book attest to how novelty can be a problem, detailing how topics were studied decades ago but were then forgotten; how a theory once in fashion, or even dominant, has fallen out of favor and needs to be reintroduced. Other chapters argue that not much progress has been made despite decades of research. Combined, these issues highlight the problem of obsessing about novelty: progress on answering long-standing questions is stunted by the lack of systematic attempts to adjudicate between different theories.

Allow me to briefly exaggerate: The social sciences cannot seem to be able to focus on a question for long enough to discriminate between alternative theoretical explanations (Stinchcombe 1968). Because this volume does not actively try to bridge the old and the new, to add to or extend long-standing agendas, it could inadvertently send political sociologists down new or forgotten paths only to end up at the same crossroads once again.

Given the obsession with novelty in academic journals, I think handbooks are the ideal format to focus on long-standing questions and disputes. Therein lies this handbook's missed opportunity (for an exception, see, e.g. chapter 21 by Beck). It may have been more helpful for the reader (and perhaps the discipline) to know how new and revised theories contrast with older theories; how we might be able to discriminate between them; how new topics might shed light on extant theoretical debates; what we confidently know and do not know. Reading this handbook, I suspect it may be difficult for students in introductory courses, for example, to connect the dots between the old and the new.

To summarize, The New Handbook of Political Sociology is an important contribution that shines a light on multiple topics and theories that deserve more attention. Anyone who thinks the field of political sociology is in decline or losing relevance would struggle to hold on to that belief after reading even a quarter of this book. However, at times the book makes it difficult for readers to figure out how new avenues of research relate to older debates and how to adjudicate between alternative theories.