What We Need to Do to Deliver Pluralism

I write with an assumption in favour of pluralism, as do most contributors to the debate about the nature of political science as a discipline. I favour diversity, a voice for a range of perspectives and a discipline that strives to provide respect and recognition for all contributors. One modest expression of that commitment has been through multiple versions of Theories and Methods in Political Science in my role as a co-editor. For me, the argument for pluralism is irrefutable and persuasive. But the issue that holds back the development of a discipline that is fair and representative of the real world of politics is not the willingness to pay lip-service to pluralism but practice and structural obstacles in making our commitment to pluralism count. Pluralism is only of value if it is accompanied by a commitment to dialogue, exchange and mutual learning.

What are the practice obstacles? First, too many colleagues say they are pluralistic in outlook but do so in a way that pays little respect to the contribution of other parts of the discipline other than their own specialism. Theirs is a pluralism that lacks depth in that approaches and outlooks offered by others have no impact on their work. Pluralism expresses for them an awareness of a world out there but no desire to engage with it. They want to plough their own research agenda, methods and work within their network and not look beyond except to wonder occasionally what all those other political scientists are doing and ask why they engage in pointless activities. Second, there are too many colleagues that engage with others’ work but in order to pigeonhole and thereby dismiss it. The theories and epistemological assumptions of these others are crudely summarised and distorted, and any subtlety in position and argument is denied. For these faux pluralists, the world they are comfortable with is one that places the work of others in boxes that once looked at and identified as an example of such-and-such can be dismissed or ignored for evermore.

There are structural barriers that make the delivery of a pluralism matched with dialogue difficult. Specialism and fragmentation have been characteristic of the discipline of political science for last 50 decades at least. The proliferation of journals, the emergence of multiple subgroups within professional organisations and even the varied attendance at departmental seminars are indicators of a discipline that no longer priorities sharing. Of course, there is something healthy in these developments in that in the early years of the discipline was too narrowly determined by too few. Workload and the extraordinary effort to keep abreast of research in your main fields of interest also help to explain why pluralism is honoured as an idea but not so much in practice. Finally, the pressure of media focus and the demands of being relevant allow some parts of discipline to receive greater attention, accolades and grant support. Given that the discipline operates in a world where it is not in control of the political agenda, then some of that variability in focus and attention is not possible to wish away. But I am confident that my growing specialism in the intricacies of Dorset neighbourhood politics will eventually receive the limelight it deserves.

So, what could we do to respond to the constraints on moving from pluralism to dialogue and learning? Gatekeepers in the profession should bend their agendas to think how they can organise exchange through the conferences, events and in journals of the discipline. Departments should organise discussions that ask of all colleagues not what are you researching and but instead what societal problems or concerns are you addressing. This focus can lead to a recognition that although sub-discipline foci may be different, the object of analysis – things that people in real politics care about – is shared. We should have prizes given at some swanky event by the Political Studies Association (PSA) for colleagues that have shown good service as network boundary spanners, bringing together different parts of the disciplines. We should give extra value to academic work that stimulates cross-boundary conversation in the discipline, giving it at automatic high rating.

But we will also need a difference in outlook from among some colleagues. We share in the puzzle of finding who gets what, when and how, and no version of those issues should have a priori a higher ranking than others. Moreover, we need to see the discipline as a positive sum not zero-sum game. When reviewing and acting as a referee, we need to think about how to support and value all ways of understanding politics. I support pluralism with dialogue for multiple reasons. In part because I am convinced, I may not have the answer but someone else might. The complexity of political world is so great and it would seem wise to always looking to different perspectives for insight. But above all, one of the best experiences in academic life is when you say to yourself, ‘I never thought of the issue in that way’. Our mantra should be the same as England’s cricket team: diversity is our strength. As Moeen Ali (2019), a member of England’s 2019 cricket world cup winning team, argues, ‘We are an incredibly diverse team from different backgrounds and cultures but, crucially, we respect this and embrace it. We never shy away from it’.