Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T07:25:33.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Use of Positive Words in Political Science Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2018

Nils B. Weidmann
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz
Sabine Otto
Affiliation:
Uppsala University
Lukas Kawerau
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz

Abstract

Political science takes pride in objective and methodologically rigorous research. This should be reflected in a clear and concise writing style that convinces readers by the content of the research, not by the language used to report about it. This article demonstrates that this is true but only to a limited extent. It shows that—similar to recent findings from natural-sciences research—the frequency of positive words that political scientists use to describe their research has increased markedly in recent decades. At the same time, however, the magnitude of this increase is much less pronounced. The article discusses and analyzes potential explanations for this trend. We suspect that it can be attributed at least partly to changing norms in the discipline, in which research framed in a positive way is more likely to be published.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Fisher, Bonnie S., Cobane, Craig T., Vander Ven, Thomas M., and Cullen, Francis T.. 1998. “How Many Authors Does It Take to Publish an Article? Trends and Patterns in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 31 (4): 847–56.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Nils Petter. 1993. “The Most-Cited Articles in JPR.” Journal of Peace Research 30 (4): 445–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyman, Stephen. 2015. “Google Books: A Complex and Controversial Experiment.” New York Times, October 28. Available at www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/arts/international/google-books-a-complex-and-controversial-experiment.html.Google Scholar
Lucas, Christopher, Nielsen, Richard A., Roberts, Margaret E., Stewart, Brandon M., Storer, Alex, and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. “Computer-Assisted Text Analysis for Comparative Politics.” Political Analysis 23 (2): 254–77.Google Scholar
Margolis, Michael. 1971. “The New Language of Political Science.” Polity 3 (3): 416–26.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Tien, Charles, and Peebler, Andrew A.. 1996. “The American Political Science Review Hall of Fame: Assessments and Implications for an Evolving Discipline.” PS: Political Science & Politics 29 (1): 7383.Google Scholar
Pechenick, Eitan Adam, Danforth, Christopher M., and Dodds, Peter Sheridan. 2015. “Characterizing the Google Books Corpus: Strong Limits to Inferences of Socio-Cultural and Linguistic Evolution.” PloS One 10 (10): e0137041.Google Scholar
Scott, Susannah L., and Jones, Christopher W.. 2017. “Superlative Scientific Writing.” ACS Catalysis 7 (3): 2218–19.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee. 2006. “The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 463–78.Google Scholar
Stotesbury, Hilkka. 2003. “Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4): 327–41.Google Scholar
The Writing Center at UNC–Chapel Hill. 2017. “Political Science.” Available at http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/political-science.Google Scholar
Vinkers, Christiaan H., Tijdink, Joeri K., and Otte, Willem M.. 2015. “Use of Positive and Negative Words in Scientific PubMed Abstracts between 1974 and 2014: Retrospective Analysis.” British Medical Journal 351:h6467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Weidmann et al. supplementary material 1

Appendix

Download Weidmann et al. supplementary material 1(PDF)
PDF 138.5 KB