Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Use of Positive Words in Political Science Language

  • Nils B. Weidmann (a1), Sabine Otto (a2) and Lukas Kawerau (a1)
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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
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.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter. 1993. “The Most-Cited Articles in JPR.” Journal of Peace Research 30 (4): 445–9.
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.
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.
Margolis, Michael. 1971. “The New Language of Political Science.” Polity 3 (3): 416–26.
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.
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.
Scott, Susannah L., and Jones, Christopher W.. 2017. “Superlative Scientific Writing.” ACS Catalysis 7 (3): 2218–19.
Sigelman, Lee. 2006. “The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 463–78.
Stotesbury, Hilkka. 2003. “Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4): 327–41.
The Writing Center at UNC–Chapel Hill. 2017. “Political Science.” Available at http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/political-science.
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.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

PS: Political Science & Politics
  • ISSN: 1049-0965
  • EISSN: 1537-5935
  • URL: /core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Weidmann et al. supplementary material 1
Appendix

 PDF (139 KB)
139 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed