Daily we are bombarded by advice on how to succeed in political science. We are told what to read—everybody in Philadelphia reads World Politics, conclude media watchers Giles and Wright. We are told how to speak—practice phrases like “latent functional isomorphism” and “quasi-longitudinal typology,” concludes politico-linguist Betty Zisk, and success will be ours. We are even told where to dine—Tadich's or Sam's for fish in San Francisco, decrees gastronomical heavyweight Richard Brody.

Impeccable reading habits, a finely-honed vocabulary, and proper nutrition notwithstanding, we are in imminent danger of failure as political scientists unless we are able to establish our bona fides as data analysts. This requires that we master some canons of research methodology. Unfortunately, these methodological strictures have yet to be systematically codified. By presenting some basics of proper research methodology, by discussing some more sophisticated techniques (e.g., the Multiplicative N-Extender, the Levitating Measure Raiser), and by cataloguing some even more advanced routines (e.g., the Spontaneous Phytogeny Recapitulator, the Deviant Data Bender), the present exploratory study takes a tentative first step in the direction of a more systematic political science.

On January 1st, 1978, a new Copyright Act will go into effect. It is the first revision of copyright law since 1909.

Copyright is perhaps the oldest public policy extant in America. Indeed, its origins can be traced back to colonial times prior to the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. By that year, only Delaware of the original thirteen colonies had failed to establish its own copyright law. When the Constitution was adopted, Article 1, Section 8 (which likely was penned by James Madison, a person with substantial intellectual interests), stated that “Congress shall have the Power to Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for Limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and their Discoveries.” In 1790, Congress passed the first national Copyright Act.

The supply of Ph.D. level political scientists is astonishingly and ominously out of phase with prospective demand. Drastic changes in our graduate enterprises are inevitable. Some will be deliberate. Others will be forced upon us by uncontrollable events.

What Do the Numbers Show?

Concerning Supply. About 5000 new political science doctorates were granted between 1969–70 and 1975–76. In the same period 11,927 students embarked upon Ph.D. programs; 1443 were admitted in 1974–75, and another 1174 in 1975–76. 6150 graduate students were active in American Ph.D. programs in 1975–76.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, 46% of those who entered our Ph.D. programs completed their work within five to eight years. Between 75% and 85% of them sought or desired academic employment.

If the same ratios applied to the Ph.D. starters for 1969–70 through 1975–76, then as many as 5500 more Ph.D.s could appear on the scene between 1974 and 1984, more than 4000 of them seeking academic employment. A relatively high percentage would be women.

We are hearing a great deal these days about a declining marketplace for our Ph.D.s. The evidence collected by the American Political Science Association and many of its sister disciplines is clear: The number of academic jobs is declining. Yet, despite reductions in graduate enrollments, the more than 110 departments of political science which grant doctorates produced over 765 Ph.D.s in 1974.

What might be done to solve the problem of this imbalance? One proposal recommends dismantling many of our doctoral programs. I have mixed feelings about this. The argument that only the most distinguished departments should continue to grant Ph.D.s, because only they produce a marketable product, is fallacious. In my experience, the most distinguished departments have no better record in placing their doctorates than those which are less distinguished. I have been involved personally in program reviews at a number of institutions of various prestige levels, and I have found that some of the “so-called” marginal programs do extremely well in placement.

The tables that follow together with those that appeared in the Fall, 1972 issue of PS give some roughly comparable data on Ph.D. output in political science for seven years. Perhaps, the most important change in the new data is the contrast between the 1975 and 1976 totals. Output fell by 77. The drop was accounted for mostly by decreases in the figures for the three sub-fields of Foreign and Cross-National Political Institutions and Behavior; International Law, Organization and Politics; and U.S. Political Institutions, Processes and Behavior.

The most important changes in the presentation between this and the earlier article are these: first, the division of former Table I into Table IA and IB, each covering only two years. This change was required by the new classification of dissertation topics that began in 1975. That year two of the earlier categories were dropped—Constitutional and Administrative Law in the United States, and Canadian Government and Politics. Three new categories were added—Methodology; Political Stability, Instability and Change; and Public Policy: Formation and Content. Three were altered in both scope and terminology—Political Theory; Foreign and Cross-National Institutions and Behavior; and U.S. Political Institutions, Processes and Behavior. Only two were unaltered-Public Administration; and International Law, Organization and Politics. Given these changes, no confident comparisons can be made between any of the sub-field categories of the present and the past, though the two unaltered categories may allow for rough comparisons.