Latest Articles

Specialists in the philosophy of social sciences preach simplicity in choosing variables during research design, the aim of which is to avoid the complexity of abundance, reducing the clarity and logical consistency of the thesis. The rule of using limited variables is based on the methodological rule called the "Principle of Parsimony" which means that the most acceptable explanation is the simplest and stipulates the use of the lowest possible number of variables in order to explain the maximum possible number of phenomena. This study introduces this principle and examines the reasons for its absence from political research by assuming that the reason for the lack of parsimony in political research, and the tendency of researchers to use multiple variables, is the widespread "methodologist" tendency, which emerges as a type of excessive confidence in the reliability of the method.

This study explores a major predicament afflicting political science, focusing on the impact of ideology on knowledge. The study examines the influence of the "teleological" or ideological dimension, whether associated with the emergence of political science as a field of knowledge in the late eighteenth century, or one which continued during the Cold War era, on the knowledge and methodological structure of political science. The study argues that there is a cognitive predicament facing political science because it has become a "teleological" science in which the relationship between power and knowledge is clearly manifest. Therefore, it seems clear that ideology has an impact on the cognitive and methodological structure of political science. The study is divided into five parts: the first discusses epistemological and conceptual problems, the second describes the controversy and manifestations of the concept of ideology, the third studies the movement of political science between the ideological and knowledge, the fourth presents critical theses on the relationship between the ideological and cognitive in political science, and the fifth forecasts "post-ideology" political science.

The study presents the problems of structural politicization in political studies, and the danger of methodological debates transforming into political confrontations, a situation that has been repeated in the ongoing debate between the advocates and opponents of secularism. The study demonstrated that the necessity of the political dimension, and/or the political dependencies of every "scientific" approach to politics does not necessarily mean acceptance of unrestricted politicization. It is possible to acknowledge the political content of treatment without slipping into politicization. From this standpoint, criticism of underlying or structural politicization, as in Edward Said's criticism of Orientalism and Western Centralism, cannot be compared to the way that Israel's supporters crudely politicize US Middle East studies in their battle to hold it hostage to the interests of Israel and the extreme right. In the same vein, the study critically addresses the opinion that "area studies" in political science is marked by theoretical poverty and academic inferiority. The study itself leans towards the opinion that so called "theoretical studies" are in fact "area studies" that take western countries as the testing ground for political experiences and seek to generalize the results in the form of "theories" that enjoy universal validity.