― 1―

The development of political science:

Which way now in the Philippines?

Shingo M IKAM O
Shinshu University
概要 経済成長と貧困撲滅，紛争，環境問題，民主主義体制の確立，グローバル化への対応など，
急激に変化する新興国は，多くの政治課題に直面している。政治的な問題を 察し問題発生のメカ
ニズムを解明し，課題解決のための知見を提供することが期待される政治学の価値も常に問われて
いる。政治学はどのような貢献が可能か。そもそも政治学という学問分野が未発達な新興国では，
どのように政治学は発展しているのか。本稿では，フィリピンの事例を通じて，この問題を 察す
る。政治学の特徴は，方法論的な多様性であり，政治学の中心地ともいえるアメリカの最新の「理
論」を技術のように学び応用できるものではない。

Key Words: Political Science Methodology, Case Study Method, Contextual Analysis,
Philippine Politics

Introduction cal science as a discipline and the main-

This brief paper examines issues relating
to the development of political science.In the
United States, the dominant center of politi-
cal science study,quantitative analysis is the
mainstream of political science methodology.
As this trend prevails the single country case
study is becoming less favored in political
science, although diversified analytical and
research methods are still accorded respect.
How does this trend influence the develop-
ment of political science in other countries
including the Philippines?Will political scien-
tists be discouraged from analyzing
Philippine politics in the framework of the
detailed single country case study? Will the
studyof politics diminish in Philippine studies
which focus on the Philippine context ?This
paper first investigates debates about politi-
stream trends,and then offers an overview of
the development of political science in the
UK and Japan,as examples of European and
Asian political science. Although American
political science is influential, political sci-
ence has been developed in the historical and
political contexts of each country. Political
science methodology has been adopted
eclectically and skeptically from the center.
In the final section,some of the issues which
have emerged from the development of politi-
cal science in the Philippines are reviewed.
Recent movements to advance qualitative,
case study methodology and contextual anal-
ysis are encouraging for the development of
Philippine political science.

This paper was first presented at the 8 Interna- thanks for valuable comments from the partici-
tional Conference on Philippine Studies (ICO- pants of the session.
PHIL, 23-26 July 2008, M anila). The author
― 2― The development of political science:Which way now in the Philippines?
Political Science and the Mainstream
Political science is seen as a discipline
which does not have a single big methodologi-
cal device.Laitin (1995:454)notes that many
political scientists entered this field since
they were to some extent attracted to politi-
cal science because its lack of discipline was
so attracting. Sigelman (2006: v) uses the
fitting image of a jigsaw puzzle to depict the
essence of the discipline. It is a discipline of
many parts. The separate parts of political
science are not preassembled.They resemble
the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but are very
curious. At the same time, serious doubt
remains about the appropriateness of the
jigsaw puzzle metaphor. It is not yet certain
if all the separate pieces of political science
would fit together in a neat and tidy package
and to reveal the whole picture (Ibid.).
In a New Handbook of Political Science,
Goodin and Klingemann (1996: 7) see the
discipline as it is defined by its substantive
concerns,by its fixation on politics in all its
myriad forms. They claim that Politics is
essentially the constrained use of social
power. The study of politics might be char-
acterized as the study of the nature and
source of those constraints and techniques for
the use of social power within those con-
straints (Ibid.).
Loosely following Crick (1962), they
When defining politics in terms of power, they
follow Dahls old neo-Weberian definition ; X
has power over Y insofar as:(i)X is able,in one
way or another,to get Y to do something (ii)that
is more to X s liking,and (iii)which Y would not
otherwise have done (Ibid :7).
In the review, the published articles in the disci-
explain that
It is the constraints under which politi-
cal actors operate, and strategic
maneuvering that they occasion and that
occurs within them, that seems to us to
constitute the essence of politics.It is the
analysis of those constraints-where they
come from,how they operate,how politi-
cal agents might operate within them-
that seems to us to lie at the heart of the
study of politics (Ibid.:8).
Many agree that political science is not a
strict discipline. However, in the United
States, the dominant center of political sci-
ence study, a solid methodological trend in
the study of politics has prevailed. In a cen-
tennial issue of American Political Science
Review, in a review of articles published by
the influential journal, Sigelman (2006: 467)
notes that one of the most controversial
developments in political science research
over the past centurywas the rise of quantita-
tive analysis, a staple ingredient of the be-
havioral approach.
In the journal,the proportion of quantita-
tive articles skyrocketed, topping 70%
toward the late 60s. Although the proportion
declined slightly in the following decades the
non-quantitative articles remained in the
minority (Ibid.:467-8). Another visible trend
has emerged since the late 70s:the increase
of formal models. 42% of the articles in the
reviews 89 (1995) volume featured formal
pline are categorized by the following seven sub-
fields: 1 Consideration of normative issues, 2
Policy prescription or criticism,3 Presentation of
empirical results, 4 Formal modeling, 5 Conce-
ptualization or theory-building, 6 Inventory, sur-
vey,or criticism of prior work,7 Consideration of
methodological issues.
 Shingo M IKAM O 信州大学経済学論集
models (Ibid.). The proportion has declined
from its earlier peak but it still remains high.
This mainstream trend has not yet under-
gone any fundamental changes.Dryzek (2006)
observes that revolutionary changes in Amer-
ican political science research have occurred
only twice in its history.The first revolution
occurred in the period when the discipline
was founded in the late nineteenth century.
They aimed to establish political science as a
professionalized state-building science in a
seemingly recalcitrant polity-and against
amateur political analysis (Ibid.: 487). The
second successful revolution was set in
motion bythe behavioralists of the mid-twen-
tieth century.They revolted on behalf of the
study of actual behavior, the science, the
political system (as opposed to the state),and
(again)pluralism (Ibid.).
Two further attempts to redirect the
mainstream in the late 1960s and early 70s
(led by the Caucus for a New Political Sci-
ence), and in the early twenty-first century
(Perestroika movement) both failed. They
basically alleged behavioralism s complicity
in the status quo of American politics in
favor of methodological pluralism and a
politically committed political science ori-
ented to the social crisis of the times (Ibid.).
Dryzek (2006: 487) stresses that the
reform movements of political science
research were always unsuccessful whenever
they had any serious enemies inside the disci-
pline who could illuminate the opposition.
American political science may be just as
hard to reform in fundamental ways as the
American political system (Ibid.). The solid
foundation of American political science is
第64号（2013） ― 3―
the commitment to scientific study.When it
was founded in 1903 the constitution of the
APSA proclaimed its main objective to be
the encouragement of the scientific study of
politics (Ibid : 488). Although there is no
complete consensus on the definition of sci-
ence, there is a broad agreement among
American political scientists that quantita-
tive, statistical and formal model analyses
are scientific methods which can be employed
to analyze politics.
If the American science of politics domi-
nates the study of politics, will Philippine
political science follow the same course?Will
political scientists be discouraged from anal-
yzing Philippine politics through detailed
single country case studies, traditionally
advantageous method of Philippine politics?
Will the study of politics diminish in
Philippine studies as it employs a more for-
malistic scientific method,similar perhaps to
that employed in Economics? To address
these issues, a brief review of the develop-
ment of political science in other smaller
countries, namely the UK (European) and
Japan (Asian), will be useful.
The Development of Political Science: UK
and Japan
British political science emerged from
the British political context and its develop-
ment was path-dependent. Dunleavy, Kelly
and M oran (2000:3)characterize the develop-
ment of British political science in terms of
two distinct features:the influence of politi-
cal continuity and a degree of scepticism and
eclecticism in its approach. They stress that
the development of British political science
has been influenced by the distinctive feature
― 4― The development of political science:Which way now in the Philippines?
of the British polity: the absence of a consti-
tutional founding document or of a codified
view of the relationship between citizens and
their rulers (Ibid). This relatively unique
constitutional structure was founded on the
elusive principles of parliamentary sover-
eignty and the attendant importance of elite
consensus on self-restraining behaviour
bound by conventions (Ibid.:4).
They claim that this unique foundation
of the polity facilitated the development of a
political science which differed from Amer-
ican political science. In some areas, such as
the analysis of elections and the study of
interest groups,the British profession import-
ed methodology, largely uncritically, from
the United States, the dominant centre for
the discipline.However,such subfields of the
discipline are rather limited.Other sub-fields
such as the analysis of law/politics relation-
ships or the systematic study of legislative
behaviour,remained either marginal or devel-
oped at a slow pace in comparison with the
voluminous American literatures (Ibid.:4)
The unique British polityshaped the post
-war development of political science. Dun-
leavy, Kelly and M oran (2000: 4) point out
that it significantly influenced inquiries into
political issues. The key research questions
of British political science emerged from the
distinctive features of the British polity.
There has also been for a long time a kind of
intellectual conservatism about theoretical
empirical methodologies in British political
science . The discipline held out for a long
time against the behavioural revolution of
The Center for Research M ethods in Social Sci-
ence currently offers ESRC Oxford Spring School
in Quantitative Methods for Social Research.The
the 1950s. These barriers to new methods
lowered in the 1960s, but it continued to be
reluctant to embrace formalism in empirical
theory.The slowness with which quantitative
applications were developed and the UK
emphasis upon historical and institutional
studies are distinctive features of British
political science (Ibid.).
For much of the post-war period,British
scholars took a rather sceptical stance
towards the idea of a unified political sci-
ence . Many departments of major univer-
sities including LSE, M anchester and Essex
were labeled as Government . Some non-
controversial variant of political studies in
their titles and degree labels is commonly
used.
Dunleavy, Kelly and Moran (2000: 7)
summarize British political science as fol-
lows:
British political science has always been
a pluralist field. Normally, there has
been a predominance of institutionalist
empirical work and liberal political the-
ory, but there have also been vivid sub-
cultures, of conservatives, of hard-line
big science modernizers, of Marxist and
other left perspectives, of compar-
ativists, from time to time public choice
influenced approaches,and most recently
post-structuralists, green and feminist
perspectives.
The selection of influential studies in
Fifty Years of Political Studies (Dunleavy,
Kelly and Moran 2000) clearly shows the
center is hosted by the Department of Politics and
International Relations,the University of Oxford.
 Shingo M IKAM O 信州大学経済学論集
distance separating British and American
political science.They select three main sub-
fields: political theory (6 articles), a field
where Political Studies has always been
strong ; British politics (4 articles), where
UK authors of course have a comparative
advantage ; and comparative politics and
empirical theory (8 articles), where the bulk
of new approaches have concentrated (Ibid :
8). There is only one article of positive
analysis of political economy which system-
atically analyses over-time opinion poll data
using sophisticated economic modeling tech-
niques but the article, Political Economy, is
written by a Professor of Statistics (R.J.
Bhansali) and a Professor of Banking and
Finance (C.A.E. Goodhart). British political
science will further develop in the British and
European context.It is unlikely to just follow
the methodological trend of the dominant
center although it could be less sceptical
toward quantitative, statistical and formal
model analyses.
The development of Japanese political
science is also inevitably influenced by
Japanese politics. The political context
shaped the foundation of political science in
its early years after the Second World War.
Two features of the development of Japanese
political science are similar to what we find
in Britain :its path dependency and eclecti-
cism and skepticism. During the early years
of recoveryafter the War,the central issue of
political analysis had been Japanese Fascism
under the rule of the Emperor (Tennou).The
most controversial issue of the era was the
continuity and the potential revival of the
Japanese old regime of pre-War history.
Masao Maruyama s main research area is
Japanese intellectual history and political philoso-
第64号（2013） ― 5―
Social scientists including political scientists
eagerly analyzed and debated the issues of
greatest social concern in the unstable era
after the War (Otake 1994). Masao Mar-
uyama s Thought and Behaviour in Japanese
Modern Politics, which was written in this
context, is arguably the most influential
study of Japanese politics. Isida (1984)stres-
ses that this activism of political scientists
was motivated by their remorse which was
filled by their incompetence against prevail-
ing Japanese Fascism in the pre-War years.
This tradition of Japanese political anal-
ysis,which was seriouslyconcerned about the
political issues of the era, continued in the
decades to come. Political scientists par-
ticipated in political debates and were in-
fluenced by political struggles (and debates)
between the conservatives (right) and the
liberals (left).There were fierce disputes over
national security (and the relationship with
the United States)and labor issues propelled
by trade union, student and other civil soci-
ety activism. In these analyses, political
issues were examined in the Japanese social
and historical context.
The turning point of Japanese political
science was the mid-1970s(Otake 2007).After
the three decades of economic growth,
Japanese society had changed.Manypolitical
scientists began to devote less attention to
current political debates and struggles. A
New generation of political scientists also
emerged. A Leviathan group, named after
their newly published journal in 1987, cons-
ciously tried to redirect the course of
Japanese political science.
phy.
― 6― The development of political science:Which way now in the Philippines?
Otake(2007:21)who is one of the leaders
of the group recalls that the group was
labeled as pluralist since they claimed that
Japanese politics was essentially pluralistic
and could be seen as polyarchy (following
Dahls terminology).Theywere critical of the
view that stressed the domination of
Japanese politics by the elite,the mainstream
perspective of Japanese political science by
that time. Essentially they sought to conduct
an empirical form of political analysis based
on solid methodology. They criticized the
journalism of Japanese political science for
its lack of any deep empirical analysis.They
were also critical of the major analyses of
Japanese politics which emphasized unique
aspects of the Japanese context since they
fostered Japanese academic isolationism and
discouraged comparative analysis based on a
solid methodology.
With respect to the influence of Amer-
ican political science and its behaviorism ,
eclecticism and skepticism have been obser-
ved in the development of Japanese political
science.After the mid-1970s,Japanese politi-
cal scientists were more eager to employ
quantitative methods to analyze Japanese
politics.M any studied political science in the
United States. However, the speed at which
the American science of politics was adopt-
ed and the extent of its influence varied
across the discipline s subfields. Studies of
elections and electoral behavior are pioneer-
ing with respect to the direct importation of
methodology. Although quantitative, statisti-
cal and formal model analyses were broadly
Leviathan, The Japanese Journal of Political Sci-
ence,2007,Vol.40, New Approaches to Political
Analysis and the Study of Japanese Politics.
Bokutakusha. The Annuals of Japanese Political
recognized as an important methodology in
political science in the 1990s, there is still
skepticism directed towards the positive
political science. Normative political theory
and political history have been also seen as
essential subfields of Japanese political sci-
ence.
Recent reviews of political science study
by two leading Japanese Political Science
Journals, Leviathan and the Annuals of
Japanese Political Science Association,clearly
reveal eclecticism, skepticism and the path
dependency in the development of Japanese
political science. It is a pluralistic disci-
pline . There are many key contributors to
the Leviathan who are also active members of
the Japanese Political Science Association.
There is no sharp cleavage on methodologi-
cal positions between the two journals but the
preferential subfields and methodology of
each journal are different. Leviathan clearly
shows the eclecticism of Japanese political
science. Leviathan : New Approaches to
Political Analysis and the Study of Japanese
Politics includes seven sub-sections: Over-
views by funding editors;History;Compari-
son ;Political Actors;Election and Political
Participation and M ethodology (including
examples of methodological studies).Eclecti-
cism is most obvious in the journal since on
one hand they are keen to adopt new metho-
dology including quantitative,statistical,for-
mal model analyses from American political
science,on the other hand the historical anal-
ysis of Japanese politics is also highlyregard-
ed as an important methodology. For exam-
Science Association, 2006 -II : New Trends in
Political Science Toward 21 Century
(Japanese). Bokutakusha
 Shingo M IKAM O 信州大学経済学論集
ple, an article on Political Science and
Neuroscience, is followed in the review by a
historical analysis of The Political Dis-
course of International Order and Modern
Japanese Studies . The suspicion of scien-
tific behavioralism is relatively weak and
there is no article on normative political
theory in the New Approaches.
The review of the Annuals of Japanese
Political Science Association, another major
journal of Japanese political science,tends to
be more skeptical about scientific behavior-
alism, although the methodological trend
which has tried to fill the gap between quanti-
tative and qualitative analysis is examined as
a recent and important methodological devel-
opment.The review includes an article on the
normative political theory but there is no
article on quantitative and/or formal models
in the New Trends .The review consists of
six subfields including Political Theory,Com-
parative Politics, Japanese Politics, Public
Policy, Political Thought, and International
Politics.
Political Science in the Philippines:A For-
eign Observer s View
Philippine political science has evolved in
the historical and political contexts of the
Philippines. A Department of Political Sci-
ence was first established in the Universityof
the Philippines in 1915. In the relatively long
early years,the focus of the discipline was on
areas closely linked with legal studies.It was
the 1960s, and Philippine political scientists
adopted a more diversified research agenda
which were closely related issues of the
Philippine state, democracy and economic
development. It was in December 1962 that
第64号（2013） ― 7―
the Philippine Political Science Association
was established. M any political scientists
have been educated in the United States but,
with respect to methodology,the direct influ-
ence of American political science has been
obscure. The founding president of the Asso-
ciation, Professor Remigio E. Agpalo, who
studied and completed his Ph.D.in the United
States during the 1950s, the period of rising
behavioralism , emphasizes the empirical
and normative orientations of political sci-
ence, its stress on generalizations, the need
for systematic and careful analysis,as well as
for the role of political science as defender of
knowledge and civilization (Agpalo 1996a :
13).
Agpalo sees Philippine politics as a disci-
pline which has evolved in the context of
Philippine history. The origins of Philippine
political science have been traced back to a
significant period of Philippine history-the
Propaganda M ovement (1880-1895) and the
Philippine Revolution (1896-1901)-(Agpalo
1996b :394).
In 1984 the development of Philippine
political science was reviewed and forty-two
significant (or at least credible)literatures of
Philippine political science were listed after
independence (Ibid.:408-409).Since the latter
half of the 70s,the number of publications in
political science studies has rapidly grown.
The development of the discipline has been
summarized in terms of two directions.First,
it expanded research sub-fields including
interdisciplinary areas such as political soci-
ology, anthropology, history, law and econ-
omy. Second, political science studies were
examined in more explanatory(theoretical or
systematic) ways. Theorizing causal rela-
― 8― The development of political science:Which way now in the Philippines?
tions, identifying explanatory factors and
conceptualizing observable facts using solid
case studies are the main methodologies of
political studies in the Philippines. Political
science studies which employ quantitative
methods and/or formal models are not yet
common.
In the last twenty years, the basic direc-
tions in the development of Philippine politi-
cal science have been consistent with those in
the previous decades. However, the speed of
development has accelerated. The restora-
tion of democracy has benefited political
researchers. Although there are still visible
and invisible pressures emanating from
power holders who wish to promote their
own points of view, academic freedom is
generally respected in Philippine society.
Since the legislative process has been restor-
ed, policy makers and the process of policy
making have become more accountable.The
restoration of democracy lowered barriers
between the government and academics,
NGO and civil society organizations. Many
social scientists became to involve in policy-
making (Bautista 1999). M any legislative
records and related documents have become
available for researchers. The judiciary
which has basically retained its indepen-
dence,also provides information for political
research.Social surveys and opinion polls are
conducted by research institutes, namely
Social Weather Station and Pulse Asia.Gov-
ernment policy and performance have been
discussed in public every presidential term
except the Estrada administration. The
mounting task of installing a solid data base
of public information including statistics
relating to public policy and policy-making
still remains.However,the research environ-
ment for those concerned with political issues
has improved under the restored democracy.
Today, it is very difficult, if not impos-
sible,to count the number of significant publi-
cations on political studies in the last twenty
years. Important text books of Philippine
government and politics (Morada and Tadem
2006,Tadem and Morada 2006),public admin-
istration (Bautista et al. 2003), local govern-
ment (Tapales, Cuaresma and Cabo 1998),
and state and society(Abinales and Amoroso
2005) have been published. The democratic
transition has facilitated research on political
issues such as democratization (Javata-de
Dios, Daroy and Kalaw-Tirol 1988, Thomp-
son 1995), good governance (Mendoza 2000,
Co 2007), agrarian reform (Putzel 1992,
M orales et al. 2001, Borras 2009), left move-
ment (Abinales 1996, Quimpo 2008) and the
M indanao peace process (Tan 2003, Santos
2001). Studies devoted to civil society and
related issues represent the most concerned
area of Philippine political science (Clarke
1998, Moreno 2006, Buendia 2005, Silliman
1998, M agadia 2003, Hedman 2006, Carino
2005, Domingo 2005, Tadem 2009). Investiga-
tions and debates continue in the traditional
research areas such as the Philippine state
(Bello 2004, Hutchcroft 1998, Aquino 1987,
Rivera 1994, Raquiza 2012)and local politics
(Kerkvliet 1991,Sidel 1999).Not onlypolitical
scientists but also historians,anthropologists,
sociologists and economists have addressed
the political issues in the Philippines. Inves-
tigative journalists and social activists are
also active in writing about political issues
(Coronel 2000, Fabros et al. 2006).
The following publications are examples. Many
important studies are not included.
 Shingo M IKAM O 信州大学経済学論集
Philippine political science will continue
to develop.And it is to be expected that solid
studies in every research sub-fields will be
published.The discipline is essentially a plur-
alistic field. Since it is inevitable that the
discipline should advance in its historical
context,the issues of the Philippine state and
society, democratization,civil society,agrar-
ian reform, local government and politics,
and the M indanao peace process have
become the central areas of Philippine politi-
cal science. Current socially controversial
issues such as constitutional reform and the
President s misbehavior (impeachment)
encourage (or force)political scientists to do
research and write on the related issues.
M any political scientists have to face the
dilemma of multiple tasks: addressing cur-
rent political issues and promoting academic
research on political issues. Political scien-
tists involvements in political activities and
policy-making might be beneficial for their
research and teaching. However, excessive
involvement in politics is rarely compatible
with academic research. When political
studies were dominated by external political
agendas they were not able to be academic.
Both leading British and Japanese political
scientists point out that this is an important
lesson from their experiences of developing
political sciences in different contexts. In
fact,it is not easyfor a politician to be a good
political scientist in the Philippines just as it
is in other places.
In its pursuit of the methodological
advancement, Philippine political science
See Hirst (2003:1) and Ishida (1984:148)
For the overview, see Box-Steffensmeier, Brady
and Collier 2008.For the Southeast Asian studies,
see Kuhonta, Slater and Vu 2008.
Their claims of Designing Social Inquiry are still
第64号（2013） ―9 ―
might employ more quantitative, statistical
and formal models of analysis. Comparative
analysis might be encouraged further. How-
ever, in so as Philippine politics is the stron-
gest field, recent developments in qualitative
approaches based on case studies are relevant
to the development of Philippine politics in
the future.
The centrality of quantitative analysis in
American political science seems to be solid
but there still remains a significant margin .
Serious attempts to fill the methodological
cleavages have already started. King, Keo-
hane and Verba (1994)claim that good quan-
titative and good qualitative research designs
are based fundamentally on the same logic of
inference and the difference between the
quantitative and qualitative traditions are
only stylistic and methodologically and sub-
stantively unimportant (Ibid.: 4). Gerring
(2007:91)observes the revival of qualitative
research : Arguably, we are witnessing a
movement away from a variable-centered
approach to causality in the social sciences
and towards a case-based approach. Insofar
as the importance of the nation-state as a
polity is unchanged, the single country case
study is still essential to the examination of
political issues.
Gerring (2007:115)defines the case study
as an intensive studyof a single case with an
aim to generalize across a larger set of
cases. As George and Bennet (2005:19)note,
case studies are generally strong precisely
where quantitative, statistical and formal
controversial. For the debates and criticism, see,
for example, American Political Science Review,
Volume 89, Number 2, June 1995, Brady and
Collier 2004, and M ahoney 2010.
― 10 ― The development of political science:Which way now in the Philippines?
model analyses are weak. The weakness of
the positivist analyses may be understood as
the consequence of causal variables that offer
limited variation through time and cases that
are extremely heterogeneous (Gerring 2007:
91).They are also often criticized due to their
tendency to underplay the importance of
causal mechanisms in the analysis of causal
relations (Ibid.:92).Small-N case-bases anal-
ysis has the distinctive advantage of enabling
an understanding causation since it examines
individual cases in a detailed context.
George and Bennet (2005: 19) identify
four strong advantages of case methods as
follows: (1) their potential for achieving
high conceptual validity; (2) their strong
procedures for fostering new hypotheses; (3)
their value as a useful means to closely
examine the hypothesized role of causal
mechanisms in the context of individual
cases; (4) their capacity for addressing
causal complexity.
The case-study approach is not always
valuable. The quantitative method also has
advantages where the qualitative case-study
is weak. Case selection bias does matter.
When homogeneous data is available making
it possible to examine a large number of
cases, needless to say, it is not plausible to
employ small case analysis.This would limit
the scope of the research to generalized impli-
cations that can apply to the broad popula-
tion.
Nevertheless, context matters for many
political issues. Pilipino, American, British,
Japanese and other national polities set vital
contexts for the study of politics.Goodin and
Tilly (2006:6)clarify that
Political scientistsinquiries into
democratization and de-democratiza-
tion,civil and international wars,revolu-
tion and rebellion, nationalism, ethnic
mobilization, political participation, par-
liamentary behavior, and effective gov-
ernment all raise contextual questions:
when, where, in what settings, on what
premises, with what understandings of
the processes under investigation ?
Viable answers to questions of this sort
require serious attention to the contexts
in which the crucial political processes
operate.
Philippine politics significantly influ-
ences Pilipino people including scholars and
the study of politics (Abinales 2011). As sug-
gested above, the modest revival of qualita-
tive research is encouraging for Philippine
political science since it is an advantageous
method in the Philippines.However,refocus-
ing the advantages of the qualitative case
study inevitably provoke a controversial
response to, the so-called indigenization of
the discipline. Insofar as the potential for
achieving high conceptual validity in detailed
contexts is an advantage of the case study
approaches in Philippine political science,
political scientists have to face the issue of
theoretical advances in the discourse of in-
digenization (M endoza 2007). Influential
movements have progressed in other disci-
plines to revamp theorizing within the
Western-introduced academic disciplines in
the Philippine academy (Ibid : 242). Three
programmatic narratives emerged from the
disciplines of psychology, anthropology, and
history, notably, Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Fili-
pino Psychology), Pilipinolohiya (indigenized
Filipino studies), and Pantayoung Pananaw
 Shingo M IKAM O 信州大学経済学論集
(a Communication-based framework for his-
toriography), respectively (Ibid.). They share
the same principles of valuing pagsasarili
(self-determination)and pagtahak ng sariling
landas tungo sa kabansaan (charting an
autonomous path toward nation- or people-
hood)(Ibid.).
The use of Pilipino language is also a
controversial issue in Philippine political sci-
ence. Nobody who studies social science can
deny the importance and convenience of
English.However,if political scientists playa
role in accumulating scientific knowledge of
political issues in society and among
Pilipino people,the use of the most common-
ly used language, Pilipino, might be a practi-
cal choice.
Philippine politics is a small subfield but
it is still exciting, fascinating, and full of
wonders (Agpalo 1996a : xi). All including
foreign observers can share this view(Wurfel
2012). As Ileto (1999) also notes the issue in
the Philippine context, knowledge and
power should be of serious concern to for-
eign (and Pilipino)scholars.
Conclusion
Political science has developed in a his-
torical and political context. Although quan-
titative analysis is the mainstream of politi-
cal science in the United States,the discipline
is essentially weak and pluralistic. The
The proponents of Pilipinolohiya consider the
knowledge produced under rubric of Philippine
Studies as being mula sa labas (a view from
without) (Salazar 1998: 325, cited in M endoza
2007: 257). They are critical of Philippine
Studies as a system of knowledge production
initiated by, and for , First World nations con-
第64号（2013） ― 11 ―
development of political science is path-
dependent and the influence of the main-
stream is eclectic.Philippine political science
will continue to develop further. Political
scientists should not be always treated it just
as one of large-N. The strong sub-fields of
Philippine political science continue to be the
Philippine state and society,democratization,
civil society, agrarian reform, local govern-
ment and politics, and the Mindanao peace
process.These are also current national polit-
ical concerns. They might benefit to learn
from the more sophisticated methodology of
the United States. Comparative studies
involving other ASEAN or Asian or develop-
ing countries might also be of benefit to
Philippine political science. With respect to
methodological advancement, the current
progress being made in qualitative study
methodology and contextual analysis are
encouraging for Philippine political science,
which commonly employs theory building
approaches based on the single country case,
the Philippines.Insofar as precise conceptual
validity has a strong potential in qualitative
analysis, the indigenization of Philippine
political science will matter as the discipline
continues to evolve, although knowledge of
politics can hardly be accumulated without
learning English and other foreign languages.
References
Abinales, Patricio N.［2011］ Between State and
Revolution: Autobiographical Notes on Radical
sumption needs and, as such, deemed inimical to
Filipino interest (Ibid.). In contrast, Pilipinolo-
hiya proposes the development of a view that is
mula sa loob (from within)as the alternative way
of structuring knowledge on the Philippines
(Ibid.). For further discussion, see Salazar 1998.
― 12 ― The development of political science:Which way now in the Philippines?
Scholarship during the Marcos Dictatorship , in
Goh,Beng-Lang (ed.)Decentring and Diversifying
Southeast Asian Studies : Perspectives from the
Region. ISEAS
Abinales, Patricio N.［1996］ The Revolution Fal-
ters : The Left in Philippine Politics After 1986.
Cornell University Press
Abinales,Patricio N.and Donna J.Amoroso［2005］
State and Society in the Philippines. Manila:Anvil
Agpalo, Remigio E.［1999 ］ Political Science in the
Philippines:1880-1998 A Historyof the Discipline
for the Centenary of the First Philippine Repub-
lic , in Virginia A. Miralao (ed.) The Philippine
Social Sciences in the Life of the Nation.Volume
1,The Historyand Development of Social Science
Disciplines in the Philippines Quezon City:
Philippine Social Council
Agpalo, Remigio E.［1996a］Adventures in Political
Science. The University of the Philippines Press
Agpalo,Remigio E.［1996b］ Political Science in the
Philippines:1984 in Adventures in Political Sci-
ence. The University of the Philippines Press
Aquino, Belinda［1987］ Politics of Plunder : The
Philippines under Marcos.Great Books Trading in
cooperation with College of Public Administra-
tion, the University of the Philippines
Bautista, Maria Cynthia Rose Banzon［1999 ］ The
Social Sciences in the Philippines:Reflections on
Trends and Developments , in Virginia A. Mir-
alao (ed.)The Philippine Social Sciences in the Life
of the Nation. Volume 1, The History and Devel-
opment of Social Science Disciplines in the
Philippines Quezon City:Philippine Social Coun-
cil
Bautista, Victoria A., Ma. Concepcion P. Alfiler,
Danilo R.Reyes and Proserpina D.Tapales［2003］
Introduction to Public Administration in the
Philippines : A Reader. Quezon City: National
College of Public Administration and Governance,
University of the Philippines, Diliman
Bello, Walden［2004］The Anti-development State:
The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in the
Philippines. Department of Sociology, College of
Social Sciences and Philosophy,University of the
Philippines
Borras, Saturnino M.［2009 ］Competing Views and
Strategies on Agrarian Reform : Philippine Per-
spective. Ateneo de Manila Press
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Henry E. Brady, and
David Collier (eds.)［2008］The Oxford Handbook
of Political Methodology. Oxford University Press
Brady, Henry E. and David Collier［2004］Rethink-
ing Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Stan-
dards. Rowman & Littlefield
Buendia, Emmanuel Evangelista［2005］Democratiz-
ing Governance in the Philippines : Redefining
and Measuring the State of People s Participation
in Governance. Quezon City:Center for Leader-
ship,Citizenship and Democracy,National College
of Public Administration and Governance,Univer-
sity of the Philippines
Carino, Ledivina［2005］Mobilizing for Active Citi-
zenship : Lessons from Indonesia, Nepal and the
Philippines. Manila, Philippines : Center for
Leadership and Democracy, National College of
Public Administration and Governance University
of the Philippines
Clarke, Gerard［1998］ The Politics of NGOs in
South-East Asia : Participation and Protest in the
Philippines. London and New York :Routledge
Co, Edna E. A. et al.［2007］Philippine Democracy
Assessment : Minimizing Corruption. British
Council, Friedrich -Ebert -Stiftung, Philippine
Democracy Audit, and Transparency and
Accountability Network
Coronel,Sheila S.(ed.)［2000］Betrayals of the Public
Trust : Investigative Reports on Corruption.
Manila:Philippine Center for Investigative Jour-
nalism
Crick, Bernard［1962］In Defense of Politics. Lon-
don:Weidenfeld and Nicholson
Domingo, Ma. Olivia Z.［2005］ Good Governance
and Civil Society: The Role of Philippine Civil
Society Boards. Quezon City:Center for Leader-
ship,Citizenship and Democracy,National College
of Public Administration and Governance,Univer-
sity of the Philippines
Dryzek, John S. ［2006］ Revolutions Without
Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Sci-
ence in American Political Science Review, Vol-
ume 100, Number 4, November 2006
Dunleavy, Patrick, P.J. Kelly and Michael Moran
 Shingo M IKAM O 信州大学経済学論集
［2000］ Characterizing the Development of
British Political Science in British Political Sci-
ence: Fifty Years of Political Studies. Political
Studies Associations and Blackwell Publishers
Fabros, Aya, Joel Rocamora and Djorina Velasco
［2006］Social Movements in the Philippines. Insti-
tute for Popular Democracy
George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett［2005］
Case Studies and Theory Development in the
Social Sciences. MIT Press
Gerring, John［2007］ The Case Study:What it is
and What it does , in Carles Boix and Susan C.
Stokes (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compara-
tive Politics, The Oxford Handbooks of Political
Science. Oxford University Press
Goodin, Robert E. and Hans-Dieter Klingemann
(eds.)［1996］A New Handbook of Political Sci-
ence. Oxford University Press
Goodin, Robert E. and Charles Tilly［2006］ It
Depends in Robert Goodin and Charles Tilly
(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Politi-
cal Analysis, The Oxford Handbooks of Political
Science. Oxford University Press
Hedman, Eva-Lotta［2006］In the Name of Civil
Society: From Free Election Movements to People
Power in the Philippines. University of Hawaii
Press
Hirst,Paul［2003］ The Future of Political Studies ,
in European Political Science,Autumm 2003,Issue
No. 3.1 (Internet Edition)
Hutchcroft, Paul D.［1998］Booty Capitalism : The
Politics of Banking in the Philippines. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press
Illeto, Reynaldo C.［1999 ］ Knowing Americas
Colony: A Hundred Years from the Philippine
War ,Philippine Studies Occasional Papers Series
No. 13, Center for Philippine Studies, School of
Hawaiian, Asian and Pacific Studies, University
of Hawaii at Manoa
Ishida, Takeshi［1984］ Nihon no Shakai-Kagaku
(Japanese Social Science). University of Tokyo
Press
Javata-de Dios, Aurora, Petronilo Bn. Daroy and
Lorna Kalaw-Tirol (eds.)［1988］Dictatorship and
Revolution : Roots of People s Power. Metro
Manila:Conspectus
第64号（2013） ― 13 ―
Kenny, Michael［2006］ History and Dissent :Ber-
nard Crick s The American Science ofPolitics ,in
American Political Science Review, Volume 100,
Number 4, November 2006
Kerkvliet, Benedict J.［1991］Everyday Politics in
the Philippines : Class and Status Relations in a
Central Luzon Village. Quezon City: New Day
Publishers
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba
［1994］Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Infer-
ence in Qualitative Research. Princeton University
Press
Kuhonta, Erik Martinez, Dan Slater and Tuong Vu
(eds.)［2008］Southeast Asia in Political Science:
Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis. Stanfor-
d, California:Stanford University Press
Laitin, David D.［1995］ Discipling Political Sci-
ence in The Qualitative-Quantitative Disputa-
tion:Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney
Verbas Designing Social Inquiry:Scientific Infer-
ence in Qualitative Research in American Politi-
cal Science Review, Volume 89, Number 2, June
1995
Magadia, Jose J.［2003］ State-Society Dynamics :
Policy Making in a Restored Democracy. Ateneo
de Manila University Press
Mahoney. James［2010］ After KKV : The New
Methodology of Qualitative Research , in World
Politics 62, no. 1 (January 2010), pp.120-47
Mendoza, Magdalena L. (ed.)［2000］ Measuring
Good Governance in the Philippines. Development
Academy of the Philippines
Mendoza, S. Lily L.［2007］ Theoretical Advances
in the Discourse of Indigenization in Atoy M.
Navarro, Flordeliza Lagbao-Bolante, Mga Pat-
nugot, Mga Babasahin sa Agham Panlipunang
Pilipino : Sikolohiyang Pilipino, Pilipinolohiya at
Pantatong Pananaw. Quzon City:C&E Publishing,
Inc.
Miralao, Virginia A. (ed.)［1999 ］ The Philippine
Social Sciences in the Life of the Nation. Volume
1,The Historyand Development of Social Science
Disciplines in the Philippines Quezon City:
Philippine Social Council
Morada,Noel M.and Teresa S.Encarnacion Tadem
(eds.)［2006］Philippine Politics and Governance:
― 14 ― The development of political science:Which way now in the Philippines?
An Introduction. Quezon City: Department of
Political Science, University of the Philippines
Diliman
Morales,Jr.Horacio and James Putzel with Francis-
co Lara Jr., Eddie Quitoriano and Aurea Miclat-
Teves (eds.)［2001］Power in the Village: Agrar-
ian Reform, Rural Politics, Institutional Change
and Globalization. Quezon City:Project Develop-
ment Institute and the University of the
Philippines Press
Moreno,Antonio F.［2006］Church, State, and Civil
Society in Postauthoritarian Philippines : Narra-
tives of Engaged Citizenship.Quezon City:Ateneo
de Manila University Press
Ono, Koji (ed.)［2007］ The Annuals of Japanese
Political Science Association, 2006-II : New
Trends in Political Science Toward 21st Century
(Japanese)Bokutakusha
Otake, Hideo ［2007］ The U Turn of 1975 in
Japanese Politics and Political Science: Levia-
thans in these Thirty Years, (Japanese)in Levia-
than, The Japanese Journal of Political Science,
Vol.40 New Approaches to Political Analysis and
the Study of Japanese Politics.
Otake, Hideo［1999 ］Japanese Politics and Political
Analyses in the Era of High Economic Growth
(Japanese). University of Tokyo Press
Otake, Hideo［1994］Politics and Political Analysis
in Postwar Japan (Japanese).University of Tokyo
Press
Putzel, James［1992］A Captive Land : the Politics
of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. New
York :Monthly Review Press
Quimpo, Nathan［2008］Contested Democracy and
the Left in the Philippines after Marcos. Yale
University Press
Raquiza,Antoinette R.［2012］State Structure, Policy
Formation, and Economic Development in South-
east Asia : The Political Economy of Thailand
and the Philippines. Routledge
Rivera, Temario C.［1994］Landlords and Capital-
ists : Class, Family, and State in Philippine Manu-
facturing. Manila: University of the Philippines
Press
Salazar, Zeus ［1998］ Philippine Studies and
Pilipinolohiya :Past,Present and Future of Two
Heuristic Views in the Study of the Philippines ,
in The Malayan Connection. Palimbagan ng Lahi,
Lunsod Quezon
Santos, Jr., Soliman M.［2001］The Moro Islamic
Challenge: Constitutional Rethinking for the
Mindanao Peace Process. Quezon City:University
of the Philippines Press
Sidel, John［1999 ］ Capital, Coercion, and Crime:
Bossism in the Philippines. Stanford University
Press
Sigelman, Lee［2006］ Introduction to the Centen-
nial Issue , in American Political Science Review,
Volume 100, Number 4, November 2006
Silliman, G. Sidney and Lela Garner Noble (eds.)
［1998］Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil
Society and the Philippine State. Ateneo de Manila
University Press
Tan, Samuel K.［2003］Internationalization of the
Bangsamoro Struggle. Quezon City:CIDS,Univer-
sity of the Philippines
Tadem, Teresa S. Encarnacion［2009 ］ Localizing
and Transnationalizing Contentious Politics :
Global Civil Society Movements in the Philippines.
Lexington Books
Tadem,Teresa S.Encarnacion and Noel M.Morada
(eds.)［2006］Philippine Politics and Governance:
Challenges to Democratization & Development.
Quezon City: Department of Political Science,
University of the Philippines Diliman
Tapales,Proserpina Domingo,Jocelyn C.Cuaresma,
and Wilhelmina L. Cabo (eds.)［1998］Local Gov-
ernment in the Philippines : A Book of Readings.
(Three Volumes) Center for Local and Regional
Governance and National College of Public
Administration and Governance,University of the
Philippines
Thompson,Mark R.［1995］The Anti-Marcos Strug-
gle. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press
Wurfel,David［2012］ Doing Political Science in the
Philippines: 1962-2012 , in Philippine Political
Science Journal, Vol.33, No.2, pp.242-249
（受付日 2013年１月15日）
（受理日 2013年１月18日）