jim newell and martin rhodes

One of the key themes of this issue of EPS is ‘globalisation’ – how to study it (Haynes), how it may affect small, national academic communities (Angstrom et al) and how, in one of its manifestations (the ‘web’), it may facilitate research (see ‘Hyperpolitics’ by Calise and Lowi). We also present a symposium on the social capital debate (edited by Sigrid Roßteutscher) and part 2 of Keith Dowding’s advice to graduate students and young academics on getting published in academic journals.

Though not obvious at first glance, there are some interesting connections between these topics. Regardless of the fact that intellectual endeavour supposedly flows freely across national boundaries, with claims to universality, both in its values and aspirations, there is much distrust in academic circles in many countries towards the impact of ‘the global’ on local or national community. Our social capital symposium has much to say about community and whom we can and cannot trust and under which conditions. Erik Uslaner remarks that “Trusting people you know does not lead to trust in strangers… loving my wife and son does not make me better disposed towards men who haul away my garbage” (though we’re sure his garbage collectors would be sorry to learn that). Equally, trusting the colleagues in one’s own academic department and local academic community does not necessarily create warm feelings to those in other academic communities (though it is astonishing how placing a few hundred, or even better, a few thousand miles between oneself and certain colleagues can do precisely that).

But the real issue in academia (and elsewhere) is ‘identity’. Angstrom et al respond to the worry that the Swedish profession’s openness to the world and the globalisation experience is depriving it of its national character, allowing some kind of Anglo-American stranglehold, especially concerning publication (placing articles in international – read Anglo-American – journals) and association (preference for international rather than national conferences). In a worst case scenario, one could imagine a division – and much mistrust - between a suspicious, landlocked academic caste and a cosmopolitan, much-travelled, but equally self-regarding elite. In the much beloved phrase of the ‘no-global’ intellectual, the first would be a ‘site of resistance to globalisation’, while the second would proselytise Calise and Lowi’s ‘hyperpolitics’ as the privileged forum for a truly internationalised “discussion, comparison and extension of key concepts of the discipline”. But though the prospect is plausible, it is rather unlikely that one group of academics will thrive virtually ‘in the Matrix’, while another fights valiantly for the preservation of a ‘genuine’, local civilisation.

In Sweden, as it turns out, there appears to be an enduring balance between involvement in the international community and a strong embrace of national academic culture. While international co-operation is rated highly, and non-Swedish journals are valued more highly than Swedish ones, Swedish political scientists value their Nordic association’s conferences the highest. It’s fun going to APSA, but there’s nothing like discussing the local election results over a glass of “gotlandsdricke” and a moose steak of a winter’s evening in downtown Umeå. As our Swedish colleagues would say, “Borta bra men hemma bäst”. Nevertheless, “Swedish political science”, conclude Angstrom et al, actually “thrives in [international] competition”.

This has lessons for those in other nations less ready to accept that engagement with the international academic community is good for them, and where a perverse form of intellectual nationalism is often remarkably strong. The biggest problem, of course, is that, inevitably, ‘international’ means ‘English-language’. But it is mistaken to believe that publishing in English in Anglo or American journals (whose editorial boards, as in the case of EPS, may actually be rather non-Anglo American), or taking one’s intellectual cues from such journals or international conferences, amounts to an abandonment of, or threat to national academic culture. Though Philippe Schmitter wrote in EPS 1:2 that we should fear and reject the Americanisation of European political science, a glance at some of the leading international journals in political science reveals the truly cosmopolitan (rather than purely ‘American’ or ‘Anglo’) nature of those publications. If we wish to make them more reflective of a greater diversity of academic traditions, then the best way is for academics everywhere to make them the target of their highest quality papers.

Furthermore, the high standards of publication that made them ‘international’ in the first place also make them obvious venues for young academics who wish to hone their skills and bolster their reputations, both at home and abroad – a point with which, we are sure, Keith Dowding would agree. Rejection is a greater possibility than in a national journal, but then, as our Swedish friends would say “Friskt vågat hälften vunnet” (in the interests of cultural diversity, we are providing no English translations).

Yet in some circles in some countries young academics are still viewed as ‘traitors’ if they publish in other than the national journals, or spend too much of their time and training abroad. This kind of parochialism is dying out but all too slowly. And replacing it with a ‘Europeanisation’ of the discipline, in opposition to so-called Anglo-American social science, would be as foolish as creating a European defence community to contest the Americans and Brits based on the military prowess of France, Germany and, er… Belgium (no offence –or defence! - intended). In any case, in Calise and Lowi’s world of ‘hyperpolitics’, there should develop a complex intermingling of the local, national, supranational and global in the study of the discipline.

We conclude with one final, and we believe truly valuable, piece of advice to graduate students and young academics everywhere, in the last truly pan-European language, Latin: “Non illegitimi carborundum est” (we’re afraid you’ll have look to look that one up as well).