The Political Scientist

International Relations scholars often talk about the "diffusion" of norms, behaviors, security worries, etc. throughout the international system. Foreign aid policy is one such norm -- one that developed, democratic countries often are peer-pressured into sharing. But which countries lead the way in terms of aid commitments? Why Network Analysis? The study of networks in the social sciences has largely been restricted to sociology; however, more recently, other fields such as political science (international relations in particular) have adopted network science as a tool in the study of social phenomena. Networks provide a visually intuitive graphical representation of the multiple connections among numerous actors. Aside from being a visually appealing representation of a network of relationships, network analysis of the international system helps to bring to light (and also account for) the fact that international politics is inherently multilateral . Most analyses in

It seems a question as old as old as time by this point, but its salience grows with each passing moment: "When will China surpass the U.S.?" And this question inevitably is followed by the question: "And what will that mean for Sino-U.S. relations?" Work by a prominent international relations scholar suggests that, within the context of systemic theory, the international system is a product of the simultaneous activities of individual actors (states) whose individual behavior is prompted by the international system. States work to change the system, which results in change, and this change in turn impels a response by the other actors in the system. Systemic theory, therefore, expects states will engage in active and reactive behaviors -- i.e., if country X increases its arms production, this prompts behavior from country Y who desires to maintain a suitable balance of military capabilities between itself and X. X has introduced change to the system by upset

Not long into the process of working toward a terminal master's degree in political science, I realized I couldn't not pursue a Ph.D. -- the field was too interesting, and (strange as it is) I had come to the realization that I wanted to teach and do research. Once I made this decision and began the process of applying to various programs, my naiveté soon caught up to me. Through discussions with my professors I discovered that all doctoral degrees in political science were not equal, ceteris paribus . To the contrary, the rule of thumb iterated to me was this (more or less): you can only get a job at a university of equal or lesser rank than the school where you earned your Ph.D. Though some might argue this rule of thumb is unfair, it makes some sense; though, it nevertheless alarmed me. While getting a faculty position at an especially prestigious school didn't necessarily concern me, the idea that pedigree could either help or hurt my chances of finding a job did.