The Profiles of Political Science and Political Scientists in Mexico: a Meta-Analysis (1947-2015)

Abstract

This article presents a meta-analysis of the history and the literature on the current state of political science in Mexico with the aim of obtaining an overall picture of the characteristics and profiles of political scientists and political science. It notes that there has been a process of change in the profiles of authors and the foci of texts, with a tendency to formalize analysis and a growing influence of the American tradition, along with a process of professional academic specialization and the growth of academic entities offering academic and research programs in political science.

Political Science; Mexico; discipline; bibliography; history; meta-analysis

The aim of this article is to analyze the process of growth and change over time of Political Science in Mexico (PSM) by examining the characteristics of its meta-analytical literature and the authors thereof. It is part of an agenda which has been present in Mexico since the very beginnings of academic programs in the discipline, but which has recently received renewed attention in response to the impact in Mexico of an article in which the Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori (2004) criticized the achievements of the international (or American) current of political science. This invitation for reflection coincided with the fact that in the last three decades there has been a resurgence of historical studies, essays, and bibliographical revisions in Mexico in which the scope and current challenges of the discipline have been debated.

In general terms, it can be said that there is a consensus about the positive valuation of the process of growth, institutionalization, and standardization of the discipline in the country. The first teaching program in Political Science in Mexico was created at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in 1954. Research and teaching thereafter expanded to public and private institutions in central Mexico, such as Universidad Iberoamericana, Universidad Popular Autónoma de Puebla, Colegio de México, and Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Subsequently, it spread to state universities and private institutions around the country ( ALARCÓN OLGUÍN, 2012 ; ROQUEÑI IBARGÜENGOYTIA, 2014 ; VALDÉS, 2013 ).

Furthermore, the foci of academic research were changing, influenced by the political and intellectual context of Latin America and Mexico between the 1970s and the turn of the century: from formalist institutionalism they turned to a sociological and historical focus influenced by the traditions of Latin American developmentalist thought, afterwards reaching a plural condition, though with a preeminence of the prevalent approaches of the American tradition, notably neo-institutionalism and rational choice. It should be noted that this does not mean that other styles or foci disappeared, especially the important tradition of political history in Mexico ( BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, 2014 ; FLORES-MARISCAL, 2016 ). Concomitantly, there was a process of change in the educational background and profiles of political scientists.

Likewise, a consensus in the Mexican literature has been a refusal to propose anyone as the ‘father’ or ‘founder’ of Political Science in Mexico, beyond referring to the importance of the lawyer and sociologist Lucio Mendieta for the foundation of the National School of Political Science, and the senior figure of Enrique González Pedrero, the founding professor of the subject and at the time of writing still an active professor in the Faculty of Political Science at UNAM. Also important is the legacy of Arnaldo Córdova, who was the first person to gain a doctorate in political science in the country¹ .

The reconstruction of this history has greatly interested Mexican political scientists and there is thus an abundant bibliography ( BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, 2013 b ; MAGGI et al., 1986 ; MERINO, 1999 ; MEYER AND CAMACHO, 1979 ; SUÁREZ IÑIGUEZ, 1992 ; ZAMITIZ GAMBOA AND ALARCÓN OLGUÍN, 1996 ). For the most part, these studies have taken the form of historic essays or personal reflections based on the long experience of the authors as professors and researchers. In recent years, important collective publications have appeared, the product of congresses or seminars held ‘ex-professo’ to discuss the state of Political Science in Mexico and Latin America ( BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, 2017 ; FREIDENBERG, 2017 ; GUTIÉRREZ MÁRQUEZ, VALVERDE VIESCA, and ROQUEÑI IBARGÜENGOYTIA, 2019 ; REVELES VÁZQUEZ, 2012 ; TORRES-RUIZ and GUTIÉRREZ MÁRQUEZ, 2020 ), as well as special issues or dossiers in political science journals in Latin America.

Within these, above all those with more recent dates, the studies tend to present a more elaborate theoretical and methodological perspective. In this sense, the use of internal and external criteria and the notion of institutionalization are important in studying the process of the development of the discipline. Internally, themes such as the evolution of the academic offer in the country and changes in its curricula are foci ( FARIAS, 2009 ; FIGUEROA, 2012 ). Externally, the main theme has been the examination of the relationship of political science with political change in Mexico and its regional context ( GONZÁLEZ PEDRERO, 1970 ; LÓPEZ PORTILLO, 1957 ; RODRÍGUEZ ARAUJO, 2001 ; SUÁREZ IÑIGUEZ, 1994 ; VIDAL de la ROSA, 2013 ).

The concept of institutionalization has been important in the Social Sciences, in particular in Political Science, and has been used in Mexico and the Latin American context ( ALTMAN, 2005 ; BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, 2015 , 2013; BULCOURF and CARDOZO, 2013 ; D’ALESSANDO et al., 2015 ; REYNA, 2004 ; ZAMITIZ GAMBOA and HERNÁNDEZ ALCÂNTARA, 2010 ). It emphasizes the importance of the creation and the consolidation of academic programs and entities, as well as the means of diffusion necessary for the exercise of the academic profession² . In the Mexican case, in addition to the schools and disciplinary theoretical currents in general, there has been a marked interest in examining the influence and the process of the adoption of an American model in the country ( CORDERO, 1986 ; MEYER and CAMACHO, 1979 ; SALAZAR, 2011 ; SUÁREZ IÑIGUEZ, 1994 ; VIDAL de la ROSA, 2013 ). Practically all the periodizations of the development of the discipline coincide in identifying the changing nature, current diversity, and growing recognition of the applied and academic importance of PSM. It is, however, worth mentioning the lack of studies of other sociological aspects in disciplinary development, such as ethnocentrism, intellectual hegemonies, and coloniality.

In this sense, it is apt to center our interest on these sources by analyzing, on the one hand, the process of the appearance of the meta-disciplinary bibliography, and on the other, the meta-analytical publishing information related to political scientists that is obtained from these texts. Similarly, we can identify, parallel to the coincidence of the sources, a diachronic reading which configures a process of change. My strategy is explained below.

Methodological coordinates: the pertinence of a meta-analysis of meta-disciplinary literature.

Each and every one of the studies on the history and current state of PSM represents a contribution in terms of specific important arguments, descriptions, and findings. However, in this paper we do not propose to revise each one of them directly or closely. This study seeks instead to add to the recent bibliometric research about the development and profile of political science in Mexico and Latin America ( CODATO, MADEIRA and BITTENCOURT, 2020 ; LUCCA, 2014 ; ROCHA CARPIUC, 2012 ; SALAZAR-ELENA and RIVERA, 2011 ), by means of an alternative strategy: offering a meta-analysis of meta-analytical literature and selecting only meta-disciplinary publications.

Meta-analytical bibliographic studies in political science are not an innovation. For example, in his study of political science (1960), Duverger (1988) mentioned the importance of content analysis, which can be very general, such as an exercise in the comprehension of the ideas expressed in the texts, or a more sophisticated grammatical or quantitative analysis. In addition, these techniques have been important in political science for issues such as content analysis ( LAVER et al., 2003 ).

The meta-analysis proposed here identifies certain dimensions considered important, which can be found in an explicit manner in the texts in question without the need to analyze textual markers, as is usually done in the case of content analysis. For the selection of sources, the main criterion used was that the papers explicitly stated in their titles and content that they analyzed ‘political science in Mexico’. The selection was done by means of an exhaustive search and only those texts considered not to comply with this criterion were discarded, or, in the case of the existence of two editions of a basically similar text, the most developed or recent one was used. Depending on the characteristics of the authors, the curricular notes which appeared in the publications on the internet were revised³ .

In the tradition of studies on Political Science in Latin America and Mexico it is tacitly assumed that they are representative of the situation of the discipline in the region because they work with a delimited universe of study and not with statistical samples of aspects, such as published texts or teaching programs.

Furthermore, the analysis shares this perspective of representativeness through the delimitation of a universe of study, since it contains a relatively small number of sources. For this reason, we have also assumed that the mere description of the data, when combined with the examination of the characteristics of the texts compared with those of the authors, generates a global vision which provides an additional point of view about the development of PSM, assuming — as has been mentioned — that the internal characteristics of the discipline are an indication of its process of change, maturation, standardization, and consolidation — in other words, institutionalization, although in this case the source of the information is the meta-disciplinary literature itself⁴ .

Looking at the discipline through its own authors, and especially those who have carried out a meta-disciplinary reflection, assumes the risks that any exercise of ‘self-analysis’ involves ( BOURDIEU, 2006 ). In their texts, the authors tacitly consider themselves to have the analytical conditions and the academic legitimacy to carry out this type of analysis, since many of the authors are also prestigious teachers and specialists in their own thematic disciplines, especially those considered central to political science, such as political theory, electoral processes, political parties, transitions to democracy, and so on. They know the history and characteristics of the discipline well and share this experience in their essays and historical analyses. By contrast, it can be said that the fact that most recent texts of a bibliometric type were also written by relatively young scholars is a coincidence.

Consequently, although it is possible to affirm correlations between ages, methodological interests, and the representativeness of the styles and characteristics of the authors selected, a broader investigation is necessary, with the use of more sophisticated bibliometrics and content analysis. However, this paper considers that it is possible to conjecture that the characteristics observed in the sample have a certain representativeness vis-à-vis the development and profile of PSM. Actually, a secondary objective of this study is to the explore the potential usefulness of carrying out a meta-analysis of meta-analytic literature as a strategy to obtain readings on the general characteristics of a particular research object in an agile manner.

In this sense, this paper is based on the examination of four central aspects of the profiles of the selected authors: the author’s gender in each period, the nomenclature of undergraduate and graduate degrees, and the countries and the universities where the authors received their doctorates.

Regarding institutional consolidation, we noted the educational offer of undergraduate degrees and institutions providing doctoral studies represented in the sample, in addition to the publishing houses represented in the texts.

Regarding the characteristics of the texts, firstly, their length was considered relevant, as this allows a distinction to be made between articles or chapters aimed at developing a more profound analysis or reflection from those which constitute briefer forms of commentary. We also identified whether the publications in question used primary sources or empirical references and whether any sort of quantification, even if merely descriptive, was carried out.

Regarding content, we sought to identify the analytical references considered to be central: if the texts were based on studying specific trajectories of academic programs, curricula, or theoretical foci. We also sought to identify the vision of the discipline that the authors explicitly enunciated, in other words, the alternative uses that they made of the discipline as ‘Political Science’, ‘Political Sciences’, or ‘Political Sciences and Public Administration’.

In total, 182 texts were located, produced by 110 authors. These publications were unevenly distributed over time, with the first dating from 1947 and the most recent from 2015. The large majority are journal articles, chapters of books, and lectures. It is notable that the publications occur in irregular forms, i.e., there was no sign of progressive or constant growth, but rather a presence and increase in the quantity of publications which occurred at certain moments. During the pre-1980 period the literature was basically occasional, although later there was greater production. It was not constant and there were years of absence and years when it was concentrated in a disproportionate manner due to the influence of some event of importance for the discipline, such as curricular reforms — as in UNAM in 1995 — or national conferences. By contrast, in later years, such as 2003 and 2008, no texts were published.

The periodization proposed as a general framework consists of three basic stages, although with some variation, and it can be said that to some extent they are the subject of a consensus in the literature ( BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, 2014 ; FLORES-MARISCAL, 2016 ; MERINO, 1999 ; MEYER and CAMACHO, 1979 ): emergence, maturation, and contemporary. The emergence period covers texts from the end of the 1940s to the end of the 1970s; the maturation period covers the 1980s and 1990s; and the contemporary period began in the 2000s. These periods link meta-disciplinary literature as a corpus which constitutes the object of study, which we seek to analyze as a whole in an indirect form.

Since the titles have appeared over a period of more than fifty years, the characteristics of the texts have varied significantly, therefore, below each of the aspects studied, a figure is present showing how these aspects behaved in the emergence, maturation, and contemporary periods.

Author Profiles

Gender5

Regarding gender differences, other evidence can be found of the process of proliferation and diversification of the authors. We found 182 publications from 28 female and 82 male authors. They produced 36 and 146 titles respectively, which reveals a significantly lower female presence. Some of the first articles have no author name and therefore, because of the known exiguous presence of female political scientists during the first decades of academic programs in Mexico, these are counted as having been written by men. Since very early dates we have information about the (low) presence of women enrolled in the political science bachelor’s program at the UNAM, but the texts only began to really assess the participation of women in political science, both in terms of research and of enrollment in teaching programs, very recently ( ROQUEÑI IBARGÜENGOYTIA, 2014 ).

In this sense, from the initial statistics on undergraduate students in political science and public administration courses, to the present, it is evident that – despite a constant tendency for the increasing participation of women in undergraduate studies – the large majority of students continue to be male⁶ . And in the meta disciplinary literature we found a similar trend. This can be seen in Figure 01 .

Figure 01
Gender of authors by period7

The lower absolute quantity of titles produced by women is added to lower average production per female author, which suggests that the structural problems that create inequality in the presence of female scholars also impact their productivity – or, at least in this case, that women account for fewer publications, which is reflected in the state of political science in Mexico.

It is noteworthy that the growth in the presence of women is not increasing, but rather it has fallen in the most recent period. It is likely that the interest generalized by the conferences held in the 1980s and 1990s encouraged their participation at the time, with another peak occurring in 1995, related to the process of the discussion of the UNAM political science curricular reform, since many evaluations and proposals in this regard were presented in various issues of the journal ‘Estudios Políticos’ from FCPYS at UNAM.

Education

The formal education of authors is informative for understanding the profile of those who have historically been interested in the discipline, also because it can be said to show, tacitly, those who consider themselves to be political scientists irrespective of their academic background. However, investigating the résumés of authors in detail is a relatively complicated task. In the brief résumés presented in their publications or on the websites of the institutions where the authors work, they often limit themselves to stating their doctoral or undergraduate degrees, at times making allusions to other ‘courses’ or graduate ‘studies’, which generates confusion, since these studies can refer to one-year master’s programs, two-year master’s programs, diploma courses, or graduate courses with other specifications.

It is also worth noting that more work is required to excavate the educational backgrounds of the authors of the very oldest publications. For these reasons, only the undergraduate and doctorate levels were registered — along with the country where the degree in question was issued. On the other hand, it should be emphasized that on some occasions the authors obtained their doctorates years after writing their articles.

In order to focus on the profiles of the authors instead of the publications, and to counterbalance the effect of single authors with high levels of publication productivity, Figures 01 to 07 take 110 authors as references, crossing-referencing them with the year of their first publications. All 110 authors had bachelor’s degrees; 24 of them did not have doctorates. The most frequent degree subjects were political sciences and public administration, sociology, and law. The clear tendency is that over time the proportion of authors with degrees in political science and public administration has increased. Figure 02 shows this process of change:

Figure 02
Bachelor/undergraduate degrees of the authors by period

Doctoral Degrees

Regarding doctorates, various readings can be made. To begin with, it should be noted that this level of education is relevant to discover the profile of Political Science in Mexico, since education to a doctoral level has an impact on the institutionalization process. Scholars with PhDs are more likely to pursue an academic career and it is very probable that they will have the opportunity to participate in the design of teaching programs, as a means of seeking to disseminate the theoretical and thematic knowledge they gained during their doctoral studies. As they have dedicated themselves to academic work, it can be inferred that these authors published regularly, and that their publications may eventually form part of the discipline’s corpus in specialized themes, but also, in the case of this study, reflect the debates about the definition and profile of political science.

For example, the majority of authors who commented on the arrival of the American model of political science during the maturation period regarded it as largely positive, although they did not discuss its implications in any detail. While in the work published during the contemporary period, there are suggestions that this is related to greater scientificity or rigor. This comment is not a criticism of these voices, but rather seeks to point to a possible theme within reflections on the discipline that could be deepened in the future.

Initially, at both undergraduate and PhD level, the authors were mostly from the field of law; later, students of sociology grew more prominent and, finally, over time, the proportion of those who had studied political science increased, both at undergraduate and doctoral level. Similarly, the number of those who had obtained doctorates increased with the passage of time, until in recent years they formed a majority. This is shown in Figure 03:

Figure 03
List of authors with and without doctorates per period

The proportion of those with and without doctorates has varied over time. However, the tendency has been for those lacking PhDs to decline. In the 1980s, for example, when there was a sudden increase of publications and a diversification of authors, the tendency was for continual increase in authors with doctorates. In the contemporary period, authors without doctorates had become a minority, which clearly confirms the tendency.

Regarding the disciplines the doctorates were in, as in undergraduate studies during the emergence period, the majority of authors did not have doctorates and the first authors with doctorates were law graduates. In Mexico, the first doctorates in political science date from the end of the 1970s. They began to proliferate in the 1980s, reflected in the fact that many of the authors in recent years had doctorates in political science. The second most common degree subject is sociology, which also maintained its presence in the third period studied, and along with this, there was continuous diversity expressed in degrees in public administration, history, philosophy, and economics. The dichotomy between those who studied political science and those who did not reveals that the trajectory of those interested in the state of political science correlates to disciplinary specialization. Figure 04 below shows this process of change.

Figure 04
Discipline of the doctoral studies of the authors by period

Based on the above, it can be said that the state of PSM is a question which mainly matters to those who have taken undergraduate degrees in political sciences and public administration or those who have a doctorate in political science. However, from a diachronic point of view, it should be noted that those who introduced the discipline and contributed to its consolidation were not political scientists, but, in the main, legal scholars and sociologists. The development of both the academic level and the field of undergraduate and doctoral study, together with the institution that the degrees are from, is indicative of the institutionalization of the discipline. Similarly, these aspects constitute evidence of the gradual consolidation of an academic community which, although initially emerging from the ranks of law, has now built a new disciplinary identity.

Institutionalization

The concept of institutionalization is, in this article, taken to mean the existence of stable teaching programs and the research and dissemination infrastructure that underpin them. The starting point for the analysis of the institutionalization of PSM is the existence of institutions offering courses in political science, the growth of which was initially slow and centralized. Here, we should consider both graduate degrees that train for research as well as bachelor’s degrees that represent knowledge in the discipline, but with wider professional outcomes.

Doctoral studies

One key assessment concerning the institutionalization of PSM is to consider the country where the doctorates of the selected authors were obtained. In overall terms, most of the publications were made by authors who had obtained their PhDs in Mexico, although this has begun to change in the most recent section of the bibliography, where foreign doctorates outnumber Mexican ones.

In general, UNAM is the most prevalent site, corresponding to all the doctorates obtained in the country in the emergence period and the large majority of the authors from the maturation period. However, as can be noted in Figure 05 , since the 1990s there has been a growing presence of authors trained abroad or in other Mexican institutions.

Figure 05
Classification of doctoral studies location: Mexico or Abroad

Regarding studies undertaken abroad, in first place we see graduates from European universities, notably the University of Paris, the London School of Economics, and (more recently) the University of Florence. However, in the contemporary period studied there was also a strong showing by degrees obtained in other Ibero-American countries and the United States.

Regarding both of these latter regions, there is no concentration in a single institution. In the case of the United States, the University of Chicago, Notre Dame, Harvard, SUNY, Columbia, and Yale stand out. On the Spanish-speaking side, Argentina and Spain are important, while regarding Mexico, the most important among the recorded institutions were UAM, with four authors, and FLACSO-Mexico, with three. The multiplication of the fringes in Figures 06 and 07 allow for a visual appreciation of this growing plurality:

Figure 06
Countries where the authors did their doctorates, by period (excluding Mexico)

Figure 07
Universities or institutions where the authors did their doctorates, by period

Supply of bachelor’s degrees in Mexico

After its creation in UNAM in 1951, the second Mexican political science degree program only appeared in 1976 at the Universidad Popular Autónoma de Puebla, followed in the 1980s by programs at the Universidad Iberoamericana and the Colegio de México.

The course offer remained stable in public institutions until the 2000s, though in private universities it had begun to grow a few years earlier. Currently, the course offer has become decentralized outside of Mexico City, as provincial universities increasingly offer degrees and graduate courses in political science ( VALDÉS, 2013 ). Figure 08 shows the development of the number of public and private universities offering undergraduate degrees in political science from 1975 to 2007.

Figure 08
Institutions offering degrees in political science and public administration in Mexico from 1975 to 2010

In Figure 08 , the growth process in private institutions is notable. After the second half of the 1990s, this process accelerated the increase in the course offer in such a way that after 2000 they surpassed the number of places offered by public universities, reaching a maximum of 34 out of 42 in 2010. The comparison between the behavior of public and private universities seems to be related to the country’s recent political history.

The initial gap in the difference in academic provision corresponds to the fact that private institutions tended to concentrate their educational offer in degrees such as law, accounting, and business administration, either because these were in high demand, or because they lacked the necessary infrastructure to develop other academic programs. The increase in the numbers of teaching staff could have been influenced by the Mexican democratic political reform which took place from 1994 onwards in particular and which was successfully tested in the 1997 elections ( WOLDENBERG, 2004 ) and more especially in the 2000 elections which are regarded as the most critical moment in the democratic transition. In 2000, there was a point of intersection between the private provision of teaching staff, which reached and started to surpass the level offered by public universities, as well as an increase in the supply coming from public institutions.

Interest in the process of political change has increased since the middle of the 1990s. It can be assumed that the difference regarding the offer of private institutions lies in the fact that, due to their greater institutionality and bureaucratic nature, public institutions are slower to implement academic reforms such as the creation of new programs.

It is worth highlighting the coincidence in an apparent deceleration in the increase in the political science course offer in both public and private institutions after 2006. A possible reading of this is that it reflected a drop in the expectations that Mexican society had of the process of political change. For some political scientists, the political regime in place correlates to the vitality of political science as a discipline. From this point of view, the strong polarization of society around the two leading candidates and the blow to the prestige of the electoral system caused by accusations of electoral fraud in the presidential election also weakened the discipline⁸ . Exploring this possibility is a pending question in any reflection on PSM.

As a whole, the information on the academic education of the authors reveals a slow, but continual, rise in Political Science graduate degrees and doctorates, and this appears to have had two simultaneous effects. On the one hand, it created a more defined and increasingly internationalized community of political scientists. In effect, it can be seen that there was a strong process of institutionalization with a coherent relationship between the national and the international, which in turn allowed the discipline to reinforce its social legitimation, creating a virtuous circle.

On the other hand, regarding the meta-analysis of the meta-disciplinary literature, the data appear to strengthen the premise that this phenomenon is representative of the discipline as a whole, since the nominal specialization of degrees can translate, especially in the contemporary period, into a lack of interest on the part of authors from other specializations in writing about the state of Political Science, a term which increasingly clearly represents a field which no longer includes any study of political or governmental topics.

Publishing houses and journals

The means of publication – understood as specific periodical publications and publishers – is considered a relevant dimension for understanding the institutional characteristics of Political Science. Both in the case of periodicals and books, there exists a complicated process which demands funding and support from an institution, meaning that it can be argued that publishers are spaces which have given an opening to the discipline or at least to discussion of it. In the case of books, all are counted, assuming that the promotion of the publishing process of each of them is individual - in other words, unlike in the case of journal articles, the author does not present his or her text to a regularly published media vehicle, but instead a full effort has to be made to administer the publication of the work.

The publishers which housed the texts from the corpus under consideration can be interpreted as indicators of the consolidation of the discipline or at least as spaces that consider the discussion of its state in Mexico to be relevant. In this sense, since no institution which has published the volumes in question has disappeared, except for ‘La revista del colegio’ , the publication of a civil association (Colegio Nacional de Ciencias Políticas y Administración Pública) that ceased to operate after 2001, it can be affirmed that the process of growth and diversification of the means of publication point to a gradual institutionalization of PSM.

Each of the means of diffusion is a space, although not necessarily an institution, which becomes clear when we see the amount of UNAM journals, and the titles published by it. For this reason, the increase in the number of publishing houses involved in PSM publication reinforces the idea that there is a process of legitimation of the discipline that is tacitly manifested in the support for publications. Figure 10 depicts the relative rise and decline of the role of UNAM, and the recent appearance of more publishing options.

Figure 10
Length of the publications by period

As might be expected, historically the most important institution in the country has been UNAM, although in the first period some international publishing houses also played a role. These published texts from the 1950s, when exploring the state of Political Science in Latin America, mentioned the (non-existent) situation of the discipline in Mexico. Later the number of publishing houses increased, consolidating their presence in UAM and COLMEX, such as ‘Fondo de Cultura Económica’; institutional associations such as COMESCO and CNCPAP; and in the most recent period, the diversity of the publishers is particularly notable, although it is important to note the role of state universities and research centers, such as UAEM, COLJAL, and CIDE. The emergence of new publishing institutions can be seen as a sign of the institutionalization process in Mexico, which, comparatively, also signifies a decrease in the relative importance of the media published by UNAM.

Figure 09
Publishing institutions per period

Complementary to the role of the institutions that functioned as publishing houses, another element which provides information about the institutionalization process of political science is the existence of periodical publications and other channels of academic dissemination for publications. Simultaneously, this also reveals the preferences of the authors and institutional interest in the theme. In total, the publications studied were found in 47 specific publications.

The periodicals with the most articles are ‘Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales’, published by UNAM, and ‘Estudios Políticos’, also from UNAM. In terms of books, the volumes resulting from conferences, such as the one coordinated by Maggi in 1984 that contains seven articles, including the article by Salvador Codero Huerta about political science research in Mexico and the texts produced by the CNCPAP congresses in 1996 and 1999. Other collective volumes highlighted were products of research projects and ‘ex profeso’ seminars, starting with the much-cited volume coordinated by Mauricio Merino in 1999 and, more recently, the volumes coordinated by Francisco Reveles Vázquez (2012) and Flavia Freidenberg (2014). Furthermore, it is worth noting that the majority of publications are now accessible on the internet and include some which are published online.

It can be concluded that there are increasing numbers of channels available to political scientists for the publication of articles related to the state of the discipline, and the tendency appears to be towards an increase in publications which construct individual texts, as is the case of the electronic publications which are available on personal websites.

The characteristics of the texts: an overview

In this section, we seek to identify some of the methodological characteristics of the texts, since the tests that reflect on the situation of the discipline in Mexico were explicitly chosen — and, as has been mentioned, the discussion of the definition of the object, method, or professional profile of the discipline entails important difficulties — the selected texts are in their majority of a descriptive nature, are not based on formal operationalizations, on the presentation of hypotheses that indicate degrees of causality, or relationships between variables; nor do they start from the definition of a theoretical structure. Characteristics which do not detract from the importance of the publications since it is a normal phase vis-à-vis an object of study that until very recently had not been considered as such in a systematic manner. The exploration of the object and its initial description brings together valuable information that is the foundation and starting point for more extensive research on the specific analyses.

Due to the limitations mentioned, to have an idea of the trend or the direction of the styles of research in the texts, we decided to indicate only certain general characteristics (length, use of primary sources, and quantification) that are sufficient to show this evolution and are applicable to all the texts.

Length

The length of the publications is considered as possibly useful for indicating the perspective of depth or systematization to present information or arguments from the papers in question. Of course, the length of a text does not necessarily guarantee both, but it is an element that can be indicative of these qualities. In any case, the publications were classified based on the number of pages they contained.

A short publication is regarded as one of seven pages or less; a mid-sized one as of between eight and twelve pages, and a long one of thirteen pages or more. Of course, a weakness in this classification is publications on the limits between one or another category. However, in defense of the proposed classification, it can be said that all the texts are clearly short, mid-sized, or long.

The results indicate that an initial period of uniformity was followed by increased numbers of longer studies and reduced numbers of short ones. This relates to the fact that a large number of journals and collective publications are presented as formal research, at the same time that fewer publications resulted from the direct publication of presentations or brief commentaries, such as those concerning the UAM curriculum in the 1990s. Figure 10 depicts this process of change.

Use of primary sources

For the purposes of this classification, we distinguished three intermediate levels based on two extreme reference models. On the one hand, studies whose main source of analysis is based on information collected systematically in the authors’ research, and, on the other hand, publications which only cite secondary sources or develop arguments based on the authors’ knowledge and personal evaluations. This differentiation contributes to the design of the process of qualitative change in the research that was carried out in each period studied.

The majority of the research is in an intermediary position using institutionally generated data or from such organizations as ANUIES and CONACYT, and is original in that it does not refer to in other studies with a similar theme or meta-disciplinary objective.

Although, as already stated, the majority of the publications can be classified according to their sources of information as mixed, it is possible to note an increasing trend in the use of primary sources and specific data. In the maturation period, there was statistical research on undergraduate studies at UNAM ( DÍAZ-CASILLAS, 1992 ; MORENO and VARGAS MENCHACA, 1995 ; REVELES VÁZQUEZ, 1994 ; TOVAR RAMÌREZ, 1986 ), while in the contemporary period the empirical emphasis diversifies thematically to cover institutional aspects ( ALTMAN, 2005 ; FARIAS, 2009 ; VALDÉS, 2013 ) and methodological aspects ( EMMERICH, 2002 ; SALAZAR-ELENA and RIVERA, 2011 ); and there is still a continued presence of interviews ( ZAMITIZ GAMBOA and ALÁRCON OLGUÍN, 1999 ). This is shown in Figure 11 .

Figure 11
Use of primary sources by period

Quantification

A central difference in social research methodology is the qualitative/quantitative division. Due to the exploratory nature of the issue in question, the texts which draw on statistical data have to order and quantify data. These exercises respond to the fact that, due to their nature, studies seeking to assess the qualities of the discipline have found ways, like the counting of teaching programs or the content in some groups of specific publications⁹ . From the above, the classification that has been proposed is of quantitative texts in a very general sense. In other words, these texts are understood as those which systematize and numerate data to describe and analyze their object and non-quantitative objects, in other words, those whose analytical strategy is fundamentally reflective or narrative. Along with this, are studies considered intermediate and which make some presentation of ordered data.

We found that the proportion of publications which most closely approximated a qualitative focus remained significantly lower during the three periods under study. During the first years, it is logical to understand that the publications were pioneering and that they privileged reflection over the provision of data, which was practically non-existent, since the discipline had only begun its process of institutionalization. In the maturation period, along with the boom in texts and authors discussing the state of the discipline, the general quantity of texts with quantification grew in relative and absolute terms. This behavior would not remain a trend, however, since by the end of the 1990s, publications with quantification were once again a much lower proportion than publications without quantification. However, this occurred at the same time that the number of texts without any presentation of grouped data was significantly reduced.

The trend is for the expansion of publications classified at an intermediate level, which, although they do not propose formal quantitative analysis, present statistical information accompanying their arguments. Figure 12 depicts the trend towards a relative decrease of merely essayistic texts and an increase in the registration of grouped data, which, although not necessarily involving calculation that can lead to inferences, at least present information in an aggregated and ordered manner.

Figure 12
Use of quantification by period

Discussing the situation of Political Science in Mexico is undoubtedly a theme which allows for and even invites the noting of variables or indicators alongside the institutionalization process of the discipline. The increased quantity of academic programs, means of publication, and proportion of political scientists with doctorates in Political Science points to a slow but clear increase in methodological terms vis-à-vis quantification, although given that the meta-disciplinary analysis can still be said to be at an exploratory stage, quantitative texts are consequently still mostly descriptive.

The authors’ perspectives on Political Science

Themes of interest

From the selection of the publications that I analyzed, I determined that a requirement of these is that they contain some explicit reflection on Political Science in Mexico. However, this only signifies a general characteristic. In examining them in detail we can observe that not all are concerned with the same aspects, nor do they have the same vision of the discipline. This leads to a great diversity in the specific subthemes, despite apparently dealing with the same subject such as educational supply, institutions, research characteristics, and aspects of professional practice. I propose four central themes, based on which I propose a general classification of the publications¹⁰: 01. Aspects related to teaching programs; 02. discussions of research, characteristics, and foci; 03. institutionalization and the overall history of the discipline; 04. aspects related to the professional or associative practices of political scientists.

Based on this classification, ‘studies interested in aspects of academic programs’ constitutes the group with the largest number of publications, followed by those concerned with research. These two themes cover more than half the publications, a fact that reveals that academic programs and research constitute the core of what is considered fundamental to the discipline.

From the temporal point of view, it can be observed that during the emergence period the themes were distributed equitably, touching on aspects of the undergraduate degree at UNAM and reflecting on research and the institutionalization of Political Science. During the maturation period, the attention given to research grew, which could be linked to the moment of disciplinary definition through which Political Science was passing in Mexico. Texts that speak of the problems of professional practice are of particular interest. The growth of this theme became the distinctive during the contemporary period, along with the equally important growth of studies emphasizing the process of the institutionalization of PSM. It should be noted that the distribution of themes is much more concentrated than in previous periods and areas of interest can be said to be increasingly variegated, as shown in Figure 13 .

Figure 13
Specific themes of interest by period

Geographic or institutional reference in the writings

As in the previous section, in this item a qualitative classification of the content was made with respect to the main geographic or institutional referent mentioned in the texts. Although all the publications, by definition, mention the state of Political Science in Mexico, many of the selected texts address the Mexican case as part of broader studies that include Latin America, by way of comparison with other countries, or even as lateral content in papers on the state of political science in a particular academic institution in Mexico, like the UNAM. These differences are considered informative about the process of specialization of the texts, particularly those that compare Mexican and American political science and take the latter as a paragon to be emulated. Likewise, this classification allows us to see the relationship of PSM with its Latin American context and the emergence of Mexican institutions that offer political science programs and that are beginning to be studied or assessed in a particular way. I observed that there was little sign of interest in theorizing in a general sense. The study of the situation of PSM is a minority subject in studies that address political science in a general way, or with broader claims of validity. Most of the texts refer only and specifically to PSM, and, regarding institutions, the lion’s share are texts on specific aspects of Political Science at UNAM. As regards the various periods, we found that during the emergence period there was diversity in interests and PSM was discussed from a general point of view, within Latin America, specifically regarding Mexico and specifically regarding the UNAM (then the only institution offering the degree). During the maturation period, the presence of Latin America in the texts decreased and those that explored the discipline at UNAM formed the majority. Although few in number, other Mexican national institutions such as the UAM or the UAEM were mentioned for the first time.

During the contemporary period, the texts deal with an almost evenly distributed series of interests. Some concern Mexico specifically, and there are a good number of texts on the UNAM; texts on Latin America and in general appear once again, and other national institutions are also mentioned.

Figure 14
Main geographical or institutional reference per period

Vision of the discipline

Regarding this classification, we have sought to obtain an image of the way the authors have understood the discipline. All the publications necessarily mention the discipline explicitly, as this is a criterion for their selection, although there is no further analysis or justification of the name used. However, there are various cases in which the authors openly discuss the different foci and nomenclature used in Mexico ( BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, 2015 ; MEYER, 1971 ; SUÁREZ IÑIGUEZ, 1994 ; ZAMITIZ, 1999).

In general, the texts coincide in emphasizing that the concept of political science historically used in Mexico derives from a European intellectual influence – especially French and Belgian. Based on this, Lucio Mendieta was inspired to develop the first curricular plan for the profession in UNAM ( COLMENERO, 2001 ). The state and government and the contest over access to political power were the objects of study. There is a multidisciplinary perspective in which research and the profession deal with classic and recent authors specialized in the analysis of politics and political processes, as well as other related disciplines (especially Law, Economics, History, Sociology, International Relations, Public Administration, and Anthropology), which echoes Duverger’s description (1988) of Political Science as a ‘crossroads science’.

It should be noted that this perspective is not something that belongs to the past; it is a vision currently adopted and defended by many academics in their teaching and research ( MUÑOZ PATRACA, 2009 ; ZAMITIZ, 1999). Some of these have actually manifested concern about the importance of the disciplinary profile, noting, for example, that an excessive prioritization of the ‘hard’ and applied criteria of the discipline can erode its historical and philosophical components ( ALARCÓN OLGUÍN, 2012 , p. 36).

By contrast, various studies tacitly or explicitly consider the influence of the American intellectual tradition not only as positive but also as an improvement and see Political Science as a singular discipline that is a ‘political’ science.

Noting a certain tension between these two forms of understanding the discipline is nothing new. When the first international congress of Political Science was held in 1948 there were already clear differences between the American tradition, dominated by behaviorism, and the European vision of Political Science (or political sciences) as a multidisciplinary enterprise ( THIBAUD, 2015 ; ZAMITIZ GAMBOA, 2005 ; ZAMITIZ GAMBOA and HERNÁNDEZ ALCÂNTARA, 2010 ). By the 1950s, American Political Science was definitely leaving behind its formalist institutionalist stage and not only claimed its own object of study, but also its own theoretical model and method, taking the first firm steps along this path with the emergence of behaviorist current, assuming a positivist, systemic, comparative perspective, inspired by the techniques of empirical research in psychology, administration, and sociology¹¹ .

Since the 1960s in Mexico ( GONZÁLEZ PEDRERO, 1960 ), the contributions of the American current have been identified and valued, but only regarded as an additional reference, not as a guide or a model to be imitated. In the 1980s, its process of influence was first mentioned, and only after the turn of the century, did there appear authors who openly pointed out that its adoption was a form of modernization or standardization, or that the internationalization of the discipline in Mexico had finally been achieved.

In reviewing the publications, it can be noted that additional uses exist. The first of which is simply ‘political science’, referring to the profession and research, without either tacitly or explicitly emphasizing any specific current as a paragon of the discipline. Instead, the interest lies the accumulation of knowledge and the institutionalization of the discipline in general. This is why we state that they view the discipline in a plural form. In his essay on the historic balance of the discipline in Mexico, Fernando Barrientos succinctly explains this vision:

What is understood by political science in Mexico? We can say that political science in Mexico is aimed at the study of empirical political phenomena using various perspectives of analysis inclined to pluralism. In other words, there is political science, but not all the political sciences have been abandoned […] there exists political science in Mexico because there is an academic tradition in the study of politics which is taught in universities, that develops a structural and logical knowledge on empirical bases of political phenomena, and that requires from those who study it a commitment to the canons of the social sciences ( BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, 2015 , p. 96).

Finally, there are publications which specifically talk of Political Science based on the name of the teaching program, concretely ‘political science and public administration’ or ‘political sciences and public administration’. Although, research is also mentioned, the nomenclature below is based on the institutional, here the majority of these texts naturally refer to histories and debates about curricula and degree program histories. Figure 15 is shown below.

Figure 15
Vision of the discipline per period

Source: Created by the author based on BDCPM.

Initially it can be said that the vision of the discipline in Mexico is in its majority pluralist, although reading per period shows that this plurality is neither generalized nor static. Specifically, although the perspective of political science as a plural perspective based on politics as an object is a majority, there is a growing tendency in favor of the vision of political science in the strict sense, in other words, one which refers to the American current. Studies, which refer to undergraduate studies in ‘political science and public administration’ remain significant, showing that the location of an academic perspective is essentially linked to a corresponding degree, while publications referring to the political sciences occur in a lower quantity.

For its part, the expression ‘political sciences’ taken from the emergence of the subject, maintained its presence, albeit in a marginal manner, in the three periods. This suggests that the mention of political sciences solidified as a tradition in respect of the institutional nomenclature, first by itself and then accompanied by public administration, at the same time that the idea was cultivated of Political Science (in the singular) was also strongly assimilated among Mexican political scientists. Especially since the 1990s, there seems to have been a type of discovery or rediscovery of these¹² and the gradual assimilation of a Political Science tradition of American origin.

Final notes

Despite its exploratory nature, we consider that the review carried out in this paper has allowed the emergence of an overview of the profile of Political Science and political scientists in Mexico. In general terms, this confirms the readings of the majority of recent meta-disciplinary literature, in the sense that the discipline has gradually increased its institutionalization, expressed in institutional diversification, internationalization, the increase of productivity, publishing pluralization (although still strongly concentrated in UNAM), greater methodological formalization, and greater complexity in exercises of disciplinary reflexivity. Similarly, in the sense that this process of change is marked by stages in which there is a pre-eminence of certain disciplinary and theoretical-methodological profiles, which however does not necessarily lead to fragmentation, but rather overlap generationally to a large extent, giving a plural nature to the contemporary discipline.

In general, we consider that the strategy developed was useful to fulfill the objective of sketching an image of the process of change in the discipline over time. The readings obtained do not essentially differ from the majority of the same recent meta-disciplinary analyses revised recently, in the sense that, in effect, there is a process of consolidation, growth, and institutionalization of PSM. This has been shown here in the information provided about the growth of the provision of education in the country at the doctoral level and about the publishing houses necessary for the dissemination of research.

I found that there was a process of disciplinary specialization expressed in the names of the degrees studied by the authors – increasingly specifically in Political Science – added to a greater plurality of locations where the authors studied for their degrees, and the tendencies in research characteristics, such as: greater length, use of primary sources, and quantification. This contributes to the idea of a process of disciplinary standardization, a conjecture which is reinforced by the clear increase in the expression Political Science in the singular.

The data and the strategy of analysis followed is distinct from the direct sources used in the majority of recent studies. As a result, this paper contributes both by providing distinct information, and by confirming the conjectures that have been argued in the literature, which, although somewhat anti-climactic, is an important part of the process of knowledge accumulation in the scientific research in social sciences ( KING, KEHOANE, and VERBA, 1994 ).

Naturally, there are many minutiae in the topics covered in the article, which merit a more detailed discussion. However, I think that this is a task which calls for further study, so in this final space of the text it behooves me to highlight some readings which derive from the examination seen as a whole and which appear important as pending issues in the agenda of meta-disciplinary reflection.

One process accompanying the change of focus is the move from scholars with backgrounds in other programs to those trained in programs with specific degrees. Another is the recent increase in the number of authors who have undertaken their graduate studies in Political Science abroad, notably in the United States.

The naturalness with which recent texts speak of the discipline as if it were a given subject appears to omit a pending debate on disciplinary definition, especially an epistemological and methodological one, regarding the justification – or not – of a distinct identity, while not exactly related to parallel traditions, but rather to a prior alternative, namely political sociology. Although similar, this is not exactly equal to the debates about the national preference for a ‘Political Science’ following the American model.

After the recent consensus on the adoption of this model, if we stick to the international debates on ‘Political Science’ we can find that the issue of its identity versus the possibility of alternative foci – above all Marxism – can offer analysis and explanations of its object of study, which is a theme that has to be properly debated, not as a question of styles of work, but regarding struggles for power ( BEVIR, 1999 ; BRASS, 2000 ; DOMHOFF, 1978 ). Similarly, the relationship of Political Science with the tradition of studies of power has to be put on the table, as this has recently regained interest on the part of political scientists (the appearance of the recent Journal of Political Power published by IPSA is notable here)

Regarding the styles of research revised, especially quantification, delimitation, and the use of primary sources, we saw that, in effect, there exists a process of change. Undoubtedly, thinking of disciplinary definition, this is not necessarily related to the increase in doctoral training, or in any case the greater influence of a positivist vision.

The idea of the ‘political sciences’ (in the plural) used in Mexico, above all before the 1980s, assumes a field of studies defined by the object of study, in which there can converge different disciplines and theoretical foci. Similarly, studies which use the traditional name of the teaching program (political sciences and public administration) also assume a multidisciplinary bridge in the first instance with public administration and at least partially with the tools used in administration processes.

However, the most recent tendency has been for the authors to speak of ‘political science’ in the singular, which although in terms of professional education is a strength regarding specialization and thematic deepening, we can assume that this characterization of political science in terms of relevance and utility, especially regarding public policies, decreases heuristic dialogue with other sectorial disciplines. This is an especially sensitive issue in the Mexican and Latin American context where, for example, developmental sociology and political economy have been specialties which have studied the state, as well as local and regional public problems.

Similarly, it can be noted that although the first reflexive texts in the 1950s celebrated the promise of social utility that future Political Science graduates would have, in Meyer and Camacho (1979) review, concern with the meaning and social relevance of degree programs was already beginning to be noted. In the years of the Mexican democratic transition process, due to the limited supply of teaching staff, concern with a crisis of the social relevance of the discipline did not seem pressing. However, eighteen years later after the doubling of the supply of teaching staff, despite the greater presence in the media of columnists presented as political scientists, the study of political science does not seem to lead to political office.

Regarding academic production, specialization in themes considered central to the discipline, such as parties, electoral processes and systems, and the relationship between the branches of government, leads to a gap in the systemic readings of the development strategies of countries and the relations of power between national social sectors. This has been tempered by the fact that in Mexico and Latin America there exists a strong sociological tradition that deals with these agendas. This seems to reveal a narrowing of the scope of the discipline.

Internally, the question of problems in the exercise of the academic profession emerged in the literature in the contemporary period. Here, issues such as institutional fragmentation come to the fore. They create ‘archipelagos’ and reveal the problem of centralization in large entities in Mexico City and the inequality of the conditions in which academics work.

‘Disorganization’ is a term that can be describe the low density of well-established departments and research, and the volatility in research agendas funded by entities that have funds, but whose research projects are subject to change. There is also the problem of the professional perspectives of political scientists given that they are proliferating at the undergraduate and doctoral levels.

At the undergraduate level, it has always been understood that the field overlapped or competed with other degrees, such as law, economics, and administration. However, at least in terms of doctoral study, it appears that there is a relatively secure employment future for researchers.

The presence of people with political science doctorates from abroad and the weak establishment of political science as a disciplinary field, is compounded by the increase in the production of doctoral graduates who cannot find academic positions and are forced to work in unrelated occupations or depend on employment as teaching staff paid for ‘subject’ hours without any employment stability, time for research, or the possibility of receiving a pension. In this context, there is more to be said on the definition of the situation and the perspectives offered by a degree in political science.

References

• ABEND, Gabriel (2007), Estilos de pensamiento sociológico: sociologías, epistemologías y la búsqueda de la verdad en México y Estados Unidos. Estudios Sociológicos . Vol. 25, Nº 75, pp. 573-637.
• ABURTO, Hilda (1992), Diagnóstico nacional de la licenciatura en ciencias políticas y administración pública . México: CNCPAP. 124 pp..
• ALARCÓN OLGUÍN, Víctor (2012), La ciencia política mexicana: reflexiones sobre su pasado, presente y porvenir. Política /Revista de Ciencia Política . Vol. 50, Nº 01, pp. 31-57.
• ALMOND, Gabriel A. (1989), Una disciplina segmentada: escuelas y corrientes en la ciencia política. México: FCE. 460 pp..
• ALTMAN, David (2005), La institucionalización de la ciencia política en Chile y América Latina: una mirada desde el sur. Revista de ciencia política . Vol. 25, Nº 01 pp. 03-15.
• BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, Fernando (ed) (2017), Historia y balance de la Ciencia Política en México. México: Tirant lo Blanch/Universidad de Guanajuato. 477 pp..
• BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, Fernando (2015), Crecimiento e institucionalización de la ciencia política en México. Revista de Ciencia Política . Vol. 35, Nº 01, pp. 95-120.
• BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, Fernando (2014), Buscando una identidad: breve historia de la Ciencia Política en América Latina. México: Fontamara-Universidad de Guanajuato. 151 pp..
• BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, Fernando (2013a), La institucionalización de la ciencia política en América Latina. In: La ciencia política hoy. ¿qué sabemos? Edited by REVELES VAZQUEZ, Francisco. México: UNAM. pp. 10-22.
• BARRIENTOS DEL MONTE, Fernando (2013b) La ciencia política en América Latina. Una breve introducción histórica. Convergencia. Revista de Ciencias Sociales. Vol. 20, Nº 61, pp.105-133.
• BEHRENDT, Richard F. (1947), Problemas de investigación en el terreno de la sociología y la ciencia política en América Latina. Revista Mexicana de Sociología . Vol. 09, Nº 02, pp. 219-228.
• BENÍTEZ ZENTENO, Raúl and SILVA, Gilberto (ed) (1984), El desarrollo de las ciencias sociales y los estudios de postgrado en México . México: COMECSO. 446 pp..
• BERNTSON, Erkki (2014), Pre-facing power: the study of power in American Political Science. Journal of Political Power . Vol. 07, Nº 03, pp. 343-361.
• BERNTSON, Erkki (1987), The rise and fall of American Political Science: personalities, quotations, speculations. International Political Science Review . Vol. 08, Nº 01, pp. 85-100.
• BEVIR, Mark (2008), Meta-methodology: clearing the Bush. . In: Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology . Edited by BOX-STEFFENSMEIER, Janet M.; BRADY, Henri E., and COLLIER, David. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 48-70.
• BEVIR, Mark (1999), Foucault, power and institutions. Political Studies . Vol. 47, Nº 02, pp. 345-359.
• BOKSER, Judit (ed) (1996), Estado actual de la ciencia política, México: CNCPAP-UAM. 341 pp..
• BOURDIEU, Pierre (2006) Autoanálisis de un sociólogo. Barcelona: Anagrama. 153 pp..
• BRASS, Paul R. (2000), Foucault steals Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science . Vol. 03, pp. 305-330.
• BULCOURF, Pablo Alberto and CARDOZO, Nelson Dionel (2013), La ciencia política en Argentina: su desarrollo e institucionalización. Revista Debates . Vol. 07, Nº 03, pp. 57-88.
• CANSINO ORTIZ, César (1986), Perspectivas práctico-políticas del científico social en México. In: La ciencia política en México: Estado actual y perspectivas. Edited by MAGGI, Rolando; ZAMITIZ, Héctor, and CANSINO ORTIZ, César. México: UNAM. Pp. 37-49.
• CODATO, Adriano; MADEIRA, Rafael, and BITTENCOURT, Maiane (2020), Political Science in Latin America: a scientometric analysis. Brazilian Political Science Review . Vol. 14, Nº 03, pp. 01-35.
• COLMENERO, Sergio (2001), Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 1951-2001 . México: UNAM. 624 pp..
• COOPER, Harris and HEDGES, Larry V.(1994), The Handbook of research synthesis . New York: Russell Sage. 573 pp..
• CORDERO, Salvador (1986), Estado actual de la investigación política en México. In: La ciencia política en México: Estado actual y perspectivas. Edited by MAGGI, Rolando; ZAMITIZ, Héctor, and CANSINO ORTIZ, César. México: UNAM. pp. 309-318.
• D’ALESSANDRO, Martín; MEDINA, Juan Abal, and LEIRAS, Marcelo (2015), La ciencia política en argentina 2005-2014: el camino de la consolidación dentro y fuera de las aulas universitarias. Revista de Ciencia Política . Vol. 35, Nº 01 pp. 03-17.
• DÍAZ CASILLAS, Francisco José (1992), La licenciatura en ciencias política y administración pública: un estudio sobre su titulación. México: UNAM. 394 pp..
• DOMHOFF, G. William (1978), Who really rules? New Haven and community power re-examined. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. 189 pp..
• DRYZEK, John S. (2006), Revolution without enemies: key transformations in Political Science. The American Political Science Review . Vol. 100, Nº 04, pp. 487-492.
• DUVERGER, Maurice (1988), Métodos de las ciencias sociales , México: Ariel. 589 pp..
• EMMERICH, Gustavo Ernesto (2002), Las tesinas en ciencia política en la UAM-I. Polis México . Vol. 09, Nº02, pp. 53-82.
• EMMERICH, Gustavo Ernesto (1993), ¿Licenciatura en ciencia política o en teoría política?. Topodrilo, Sociedad, Ciencia y Arte . Nº 29, pp. 08-14.
• FAILLE, Dimitri della (2011), De cómo la globalización dio forma a la sociología mexicana. Sociológica . Vol. 26, Nº 74, pp. 147-176.
• FARIAS, Jennifer (2009), Análisis de la evolución de la matrícula de las licenciaturas en ciencia política y administración pública en México: 1974-2007. Política y Gobierno . Vol. 15, Nº 02, pp. 385-409.
• FARR, James; DRYZEK, John S., and LEONARD, Stephen T. (2006), Political Science in History: research programs and political traditions. New York: Cambridge University Press. 378 pp..
• FARR, James; HACKER, Jacob S., and KAZEE, Nicole (2006), The policy scientist of democracy: the discipline of Harold D. Lasswell. The American Political Science Review . Vol. 100, Nº 04, pp. 579-587.
• FIGUEROA FRANCO, Marcela, (2012), La profesión de politólogo: una visión desde los planes de estudio. In: La ciencia política en México hoy: ¿Qué sabemos? . Edited by REVELES VÁSQUEZ, Francisco. México: UNAM. pp. 38-58.
• FLORES-MARISCAL, Juan Roberto Joel (2021), La ciencia política como objeto de estudio. In: Definición y redefinición de la ciencia política contemporánea . Edited by ZAMITIZ GAMBOA, Héctor and JIMÉNEZ RUIZ, Francisco Javier. México: FCPyS/UNAM. Pp. 279-318.
• FLORES-MARISCAL, Juan Roberto Joel (2020), La ciencia política frente a las políticas públicas. Tensiones disciplinares dentro de la tradición estadounidense. Revista Estudios Políticos . Vol. 49, Nº 50, pp. 11-35.
• FLORES-MARISCAL, Juan Roberto Joel (2016), Evolución de la literatura sobre el estado de la ciencia política en México (1947-2015) Otra mirada del proceso de desarrollo de la disciplina. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Vol. 61, Nº 227, pp. 55-101.
• FREINDENBERG, Flavia (ed) (2017), La Ciencia Política en América Latina: docencia e investigación en perspectiva comparada. Santo Domingo: FUNGLODE. 696 pp..
• GARCÍA JURADO, Roberto (2005), La ciencia política en Estados Unidos: cien años de la Asociación Americana de Ciencia Política. Argumentos . Nº 48, pp. 149-164..
• GARZA, Luís Alberto De la(1992), Diagnóstico del plan de estudios de la carrera de ciencia política de la FCPS. Estudios Políticos . Vol. 03, Nº 09, núm. 9, pp. 105-128.
• GIROLA, Lidia (1996), Tradiciones interrumpidas y comunidades disciplinarias en la sociología mexicana. Estudios Sociológicos . Vol. 14, Nº 40, pp. 139-164.
• GLASS, Gene V. (1976), Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher . Vol. 05, Nº 10, pp. 03-08.
• GLASS, Gene V.; McGAW, Barry, and SMITH, Mary Lee (1981), Meta-analysis in social research . California: SAGE. 280 pp..
• GONZÁLEZ PEDRERO, Enrique (1970), Las nuevas profesiones y el mercado de trabajo en el sector público. Universidad, Política y Administración . 168 pp..
• GONZÁLEZ PEDRERO, Enrique (1960), Sobre la metodología de la ciencia política. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales. Vol. 06, Nº 21, pp. 413-427.
• GONZÁLEZ PEDRERO, Enrique (1955), Estructura de la ciencia política y un proyecto de plan de estudios para la licenciatura en ciencia política. Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Nº 02 pp. 91-201.
• GONZÁLEZ CASANOVA, Pablo (1965), La democracia en México . México: ERA. 333 pp..
• GONZÁLEZ CASANOVA, Pablo (1957), La utilidad nacional de las carreras de ciencias políticas y sociales. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Nº 07, pp. 01-06.
• GOODIN, Robert E. (ed) (2009), The Oxford Handbook of Political Science . London: Oxford. 1291 pp..
• GOODIN, Robert E. and KLINGERMAN, Hans-Dieter (2006), Nuevo manual de ciencia política . Madrid: Istmo. 1.180 pp..
• GRANGER, Gilles Gaston (1986), ¿Qué es una metadisciplina?. Dianoia, Revista de Filosofía . Nº 32, pp. 102-117.
• GREGOR, A. James (2003), Metascience and politics: an inquiry into de conceptual language of Political Science. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 457 pp..
• GUNNELL, John G. (2006), The founding of the American Political Science Association: discipline, profession, political theory, and politics. American Political Science Review . Vol. 100, Nº 04, pp. 479-486.
• GUNNELL, John G. (2004), Imagining the American polity: Political Science and the discourse of democracy. Pennsylvania: Penn State University. 304 pp..
• GUTIÉRREZ MÁRQUEZ, Enrique; VALVERDE VIESCA, Karla, and ROQUEÑI IBARGÜENGOYTIA, María del Carmen (2019), La ciencia política: disciplina académica, profesionalización y nuevos horizontes. México: Universidad Iberoamericana. 365 pp..
• HOLGUÍN, Fernando (1959), Morfología de la ENCPS. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Nº 15, pp. 13-48.
• HUNNEUS MADGE, Carlos (2006), El lento y tardío desarrollo de la ciencia política en América Latina, 1966-2006. Estudios Internacionales . Vol. 39, Nº 55, pp. 137-156.
• HUNT, Morton (1997), How science takes stock: the story of meta-analysis. New York: Sage. 222 pp..
• KAPLAN, Marcos (1999), El politólogo y la ciencia política: retos y dilemas. Estudios Políticos. Nº 106, pp. 29-44.
• KING, Gary;KEOHANE, Robert O., and VERBA, Sidney (1994), D esigning social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 259 pp..
• LAVER, Michael; BENOIT, Kenneth, and GARRY, John (2003), Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review . Vol. 97, Nº 02, pp. 311-331.
• LEYVA BOTERO, Santiago; RAMÍREZ, Maria Fernanda; MUNOZ YI, Patrícia Inez, and PRECIADO, Andrés (2013), La ciencia política en Colombia: una disciplina en proceso de institucionalización. Revista Debates . Vol. 07, Nº 03, pp. 31-55.
• LOAEZA, Soledad (2005), La ciencia política, el pulso del cambio mexicano. Revista de Ciencia Política . Vol. 25, Nº 01, pp. 192-203.
• LÓPEZ, Alexander (2001), Un cambio curricular en la ciencia política: el caso de la UNAM. Politeia . Vol. 24, Nº 27, pp. 73-90.
• LÓPEZ PORTILLO, José (1957), La utilidad nacional de la carrera de ciencias políticas. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Nº 07, pp. 77-102.
• LUCCA, Juan (2014) La política comparada en Argentina, Brasil, Colombia y México. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política . Vol. 23, Nº 01, pp. 101-118.
• MAGGI, Rolando; ZAMITIZ, Héctor, and CANSINO ORTIZ, César (ed) (1986), La ciencia política en México: Estado actual y perspectivas. México: UNAM. 274 pp..
• MERINO HUERTA, Mauricio (ed) (1999), La ciencia política en México . México: FCE. 267 pp..
• MEYER, Lorenzo (1971), La ciencia política y sus perspectivas en México. Historia Mexicana . Vol. 21, Nº 02, pp. 285-311.
• MEYER, Lorenzo and CAMACHO, Manuel (1979), La ciencia política en México. In: Sociología y ciencia política en México: un balance de 25 años. Edited by ARGUEDAS, Ledda; CAMACHO, Manuel; CORDERO, Salvador; LOYO, Aurora; MEYER, Lorenzo, and REYNA, Jose Luiz. México: UNAM. pp. 63-102.
• MILLS, Charles Wright (1977), La imaginación sociológica . México: FCE. 263 pp..
• MORENO, Lilian R. Romero and VARGAS MENCHACA, Olga Estela (1995), Encuesta a egresados de la licenciatura en ciencia política. Estudios Políticos . Nº 07, pp. 97-115.
• MUÑOZ PATRACA, Víctor (2009), La disciplina de la ciencia política. Estudios Políticos . Vol. 09, Nº 17, pp. 91-108.
• NOHLEN, Dieter (2006), Ciencia política en América Latina. In: Diccionario de ciencia política . Edited by NOHLEN, Dieter and SHULTZE, Rainer-Olaf. México: Porrúa. pp. 188-190.
• ORTIZ, Sergio and PÉREZ, Moises (2009), La ciencia política a examen: trayectorias, debates e identidad. Entrevistas a Andreas Schleder, Francisco Valdés Ugalde y Víctor Alarcón. Andamios . Vol. 06, Nº 11, pp. 151-191.
• PASQUINO, Gianfranco and BARTOLINI, Stefano (ed) (1987), Manual de Ciencia Política . Madrid: Alianza. 240 pp..
• REVELES VÁZQUEZ, Francisco (ed) (2012), La Ciencia Política en México Hoy: ¿Qué sabemos? México: UNAM-Plaza y Valdés. 238 pp..
• REVELES VÁZQUEZ, Francisco (1994), La titulación en ciencia política 1955-1992. Estudios Políticos . Vol. 04, Nº 05, pp. 149-181.
• REYES HEROLES, Jesús (1957), Notas sobre el significado del estudio de la ciencia política. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Nº 07, pp. 97-109.
• REYNA, José Luis (2004), La institucionalización y profesionalización de las ciencias sociales en América Latina. Estudios Sociológicos . Vol. 22, Nº 65, pp. 483-493.
• RITZER, George (ed) (1992), Metatheorizing in Sociology: explaining the coming of age. In: Metatheorizing: a coming of age (key issues in sociological theory). London: Sage Publications. pp. 06-21.
• RIVAS, José Antonio (2001), Los desafíos de la ciencia política. Reflexión Política . Vol. 03, Nº 06, pp. 01-13.
• ROCHA CARPIUC, Cecilia (2012), La ciencia política en Uruguay (1989-2009). Temas, teorías y metodologías. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política . Vol. 21, Nº 02, pp. 97-127.
• RODRÍGUEZ ARAUJO, Octavio (2001), La ciencia política en (y sobre) México en el siglo XX. Ciencia . Pp. 66-75.
• ROQUEÑI IBARGÜENGOYTIA, María del Carmen (2014), Feminización de la licenciatura en ciencia política en México ¿Igualdad de oportunidades o inclusión desigual?. Estudios Políticos . Nº 32, pp. 153-173.
• SALAZAR-ELENA, Rodrigo and RIVERA, Mauricio (2011), El estado de la ciencia política en México. Un retrato empírico. Revista Política y Gobierno . Vol. 58, Nº 01, pp. 73-108.
• SARTORI, Giovanni (2004), ¿Hacia dónde va la ciencia política? Política y Gobierno . Vol. XI, Nº 02, pp. 349-354.
• SEGOVIA, Rafael (1975), La politización del niño mexicano . México: El Colegio de México. 164 pp..
• SIGELMAN, Lee (2006) The coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review. The American Political Science Review . Vol. 100, Nº 04, pp. 463-478.
• SUÁREZ IÑIGUEZ, Enrique (2014), Las sinrazones: Ciencia Política a la norteamericana . México: Miguel Ángel Porrúa. 81 pp..
• SUÁREZ IÑIGUEZ, Enrique (1994), Political science in Mexico in the cold war and post cold war context. Perspectives on Political Science . Vol. 23, Nº 01, pp. 31-35.
• SUÁREZ-IÑIGUEZ, Enrique, (1992), La ciencia política académica mexicana. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Vol. 37, Nº 147, pp. 213-220.
• THIBAUD, Boncourt (2015), The transnational circulation of scientific ideas: importing behavioralism in European Political Science. Journal of the History of Behavioral Sciences . Vol. 51, Nº 02, pp. 195-215.
• TORRES MEJÍA, David (1990), La ciencia política en México. In: Desarrollo y organización de las ciencias sociales en México . Edited by PAOLI BOLIO, Francisco José. México: UNAM. Pp. 147-164.
• TORRES-RUIZ, René and GUTIÉRREZ MÁRQUEZ, Enrique (2020) Reflexiones en torno a la ciencia política y la política en América Latina México: Universidad Iberoamericana. 394 pp..
• TOVAR RAMÍREZ, Aurora (1986), Las tesis de licenciatura en la FCPS 1951-1984. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Vol. 32, Nº 125, pp. 123-158.
• TRENT, John (2012a), An essay on the present and future of political studies. In: The world of Political Science: a critical overview of the development of political studies around the globe: 1990-2012. Edited by TRENT, John and STEIN, Michael. Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Pp. 155-178.
• TRENT, John (2012), Should Political Science be more relevant? European Political Science. Vol. 10, Nº 02, pp. 226-234.
• UNNAMED, (1967), Estudios estadísticos sobre la Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales.R evista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Vol. 01, Nº 47, pp. 81-101.
• VALDÉS, María Eugenia (2013), Ciencia Política. In: Cosmos Enciclopedia de las Ciencias y la Tecnología en México . Edited by HERRERO BERVERA, Carlos. México: Conacyt. pp. 18-44.
• VIDAL de la ROSA, Godofredo (2013), Ensayo sobre la ciencia política en México y Latinoamérica . México: UAM-Azcapotzalco. 149 pp..
• VIDAL de la ROSA, Godofredo (2009), Las desventajas de la desorganización. La ciencia política mexicana en su encrucijada. Estudios Políticos . Vol. 09, Nº 22, pp. 155-171.
• VIDAL de la ROSA, Godofredo (2006), La ciencia política estadounidense. Trayectoria de una disciplina. México: Miguel Ángel Porrúa. 180 pp..
• WOLDENBERG, José (2004), La mecánica del cambio político en México . México: Cal y Arena. 491 pp..
• ZAMITIZ GAMBOA, Héctor and HERNÁNDEZ ALCÂNTARA, Carlos (2010), Institucionalización, profesionalización y diálogo sobre la ciencia política mundial en Latinoamérica. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales . Vol. 52, Nº 02 pp. 135-153.
• ZAMITIZ GAMBOA, Héctor (2005), La política, ¿objeto transdisciplinar? Estudios Políticos . Vol. 08, Nº 04, pp. 157-179.
• ZAMITIZ GAMBOA, Héctor (1999). Origen y desarrollo de la ciencia política: temas y problemas. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales. Vol. 06, Nº 20, pp. 85-117.
• ZAMITIZ GAMBOA, Héctor and ALARCÓN OLGUÍN, Víctor (1999), La ciencia política en México: historia intelectual de una disciplina. La Revista del Colegio . Edición conmemorativa. México, CNCPAP. pp. 47-72.
• ZAMITIZ GAMBOA, Héctor and ALARCÓN OLGUÍN, Víctor (1996), La ciencia política en México, ayer y hoy. In: Estado actual de la ciencia política . Edited by BOKSER, Judit. México: CNCPAP. pp. 55-73.

• 1
  Besides the UNAM, each institution which offers a political science program in Mexico had founding figures such as Rafael Segovia, the founding professor of the subject at the Colegio de México and one of the pioneers in the use of behaviorist research in the country (SEGOVIA, 1975). Another leading intellectual figure is Pablo González Casanova (1965) and his impulse towards the general consolidation of the discipline during the sixties and seventies and his intellectually influential early empirical study of the Mexican political system.
• 2
  The idea of institutionalization is not explicitly theorized, but as it is used it seems to resemble the idea of an ‘economy of scale’, assuming that this is related to a critical mass or a threshold of magnitude (in this case, of resources, be they human, financial, intellectual, or institutional) that implies institutional consolidation and the capacity for the social relevance of the discipline. However, the relationship between the consolidations of a tradition about institutional programs and in terms of the social utility of the work they do is not automatic. Although it can be affirmed that institutionalization is a necessary condition for political science to have important social impacts, analyzing this specific causal mechanism is still a pending issue, especially after the aforementioned warning from Sartori that political science is at risk of falling into ‘irrelevant precision’.
• 3
  A previous discussion about strategies for the selection of meta-disciplinary texts in political science is in Flores-Mariscal (2021 , 2016 ). It should be noted that despite this precedent, here a distinct analysis strategy was used, centered in the profile of the authors, and a new specific database was constructed, it consists in 182 selected texts, their publishing information, and basic data about the authors (BDCPM). Database available at: < https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NNGG4C> .
• 4
  This study is of an exploratory nature; however, it is worth noting that meta-analytical reflection can be ample and complex, and where appropriate it can also lead to quantitative formalization. In fields such as sociology or history, there exist traditions of broad ‘meta-theoretical’ revisions ( GRANGER, 1986 ; GREGOR, 2003 ; RITZER, 1992) and on the side of the biomedical and ‘scientometric’ sciences greater use is made of quantitative analysis. Similarly, these perspectives have deepened discussions about the problems of statistical representativeness of their universes or samples since their analyses are aimed at the identification of heuristic variables for the solution of the problems ( COOPER and HEDGES, 1994 ; GLASS, 1976 ; GLASS et al., 1981 ; HUNT, 1997) .
• 5
  This refers solely to the male/female classification obtained from the names of the authors.
• 6
  See for example Holguín, (1959) , Unnamed, (1967) , Farias, (2009) , and Roqueñi Ibargüengoytia (2014).
• 7
  All the graphs have absolute numbers.
• 8
  A similar opinion can be found in Valdés (2013) .
• 9
  For example, the work of Jennifer Farias (2009) analyzes the evolution of the offer of Political Science degrees in the country, while Gustavo Ernesto Emmerich (2002) studies a universe made up of all the theses in the UAM degree in Political Science.
• 10
  It should be noted that in practically all the studies which discuss in some way the historical context of the discipline some description is made of its state at the time the articles were made.
• 11
  The literature on the history and profile of US Political Science is wide-ranging, nevertheless, the usefulness of recent manuals should be noted; for example, Goodin and Klingerman, 2006, a , and Goodin 2009, a , as well as some key historical articles, such as: Dryzek 2006 ; Farr et al., 2006 ; Gunnel, 2006, 2004; Sigelman, 2006 ; and various other historical criticisms of the US tradition published by authors from other countries: Thibaud, 2015 ; Trent, 2012a ; Berntson, 2014, 1987 , 1987 . In Mexico some critical studies have been recently published on the history of the US tradition, Flores-Mariscal, 2020 ; García Jurado, 2005 ; Vidal de la Rosa, 2006 .
• 12
  It must be said that there was no ignorance of this in Mexico during the design of the Political Science degree program in UNAM in the 1950s. Its advocate Lucio Mendieta was fully aware of the existence and characteristics of this tradition, while other earlier comments from earlier, such as those by González Peredo or Meyer’s paradigmatic 1979 article, record this knowledge: in this sense it seems that the question is that being aware of this model did not supply any inertia in trying to imitate it.

Edited by

Translated by Eoin Portela

Revised by Fraser Robinson

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  05 Dec 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  04 Dec 2020
• Accepted
  06 July 2021