The Quality of Theory and the Comparative Disadvantage of Area Studies

Datos Bibliográficos

ID11565993
AutoresI S Lustick (0000-0001-7526-2679, California University of Pennsylvania, autor de correspondencia)
Año2000
Volumen34
Número2
Páginas189-192
Fecha de publicación2000-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaMiddle East Studies Association Bulletin (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0026-3184 • E-ISSN: 2329-3233
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0026318400040414
OpenAlexW2587231984
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas7
Referencias citadas2

The 1990s were not kind to area studies. They were particularly cruel to Middle East specialists, and even more particularly, perhaps, to social scientists. The job market has slumped as relevant departments have lost positions. Departures and retirements were only irregularly replaced. Foundation officers and other officials in other grant-making agencies who promote guidelines and programs stressed thematics, policy-relevance, and cross-cultural comparisons. Publishers came to avoid monographic studies and seemed increasingly allergic to single-country studies (of most countries). Rashid Khalidi’s Presidential Address to the 1994 MESA conference is only the best known of a host of warnings, jeremiads, and even eulogies offered with respect to current prospects for Middle East studies

Development economics · Disadvantage · Economics · Foundation (evidence · Middle East · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Presidential address · Presidential system · Quality (philosophy · Relevance (law · Sociology · African history and culture analysis · Asian Studies and History · History · Islamic Studies and History · Law · Public Administration