Comparative Politics and the New Area Studies

Abstract In the 1990s, a sharp divide emerged between area studies advocates and methodologically oriented political scientists. We revisit that debate, arguing that tensions between political science and area studies are neither intrinsic nor static but instead evolve in tandem with theoretical and methodological trends, as well as with broader political and technological developments. Drawing on an original survey of American Political Science Association members and an analysis of roughly 4,500 comparative politics articles in leading journals, we identify four shifts in the discipline: from a theoretical to an empirical orientation, from cross-national datasets to country- and region-specific studies, from macro- to micro-level analyses, and from descriptive to causal inference. We also document evolving patterns in language training, fieldwork, methods use, and data collection. Our findings suggest that political science and area studies are experiencing a reconciliation, but that the state of area studies is fragile and the subdiscipline of comparative politics must support it.