Roy Germano argues for an “analytic filmmaking,” which would use film as a means to elucidate social scientific laws and generalizations. Yet film, even when it seeks simply to document the truth, is a form of narrative. To strip these ambiguities away in the name of a crude empiricism would rob these narratives of just that kind of information that makes them most valuable—the subtleties and nuances that they can capture and that simple transcripts cannot. Better models for understanding film can be found either in the direct acknowledgment and exploration of these ambiguities, or, alternatively, in the “analytic narratives” approach. Unlike Germano’s analytic film making, which prizes the abstract over the particular, analytic narratives gather their energy from the continuing tension between the particular and the abstraction.

Few, if any, political scientists currently study climate change adaptation or are even aware that there is a large and growing interdisciplinary field of study devoted not just to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions but to reducing our vulnerability to the now-inevitable impacts of climate change. The lack of political science expertise and research represents an obstacle for adapting to climate change, because adaptation is fundamentally political. Technical advances in adaptations for infrastructure, agriculture, public health, coastal protection, conservation, and other fields all depend on political variables for their implementation and effectiveness. For example, adaptation raises questions about political economy (adaptation costs money), political theory (adaptation involves questions of social justice), comparative politics (some countries more aggressively pursue adaptation), urban politics (some cities more aggressively pursue adaptation), regime type (democracies and authoritarian regimes may differently pursue adaptation), federalism (different levels of government may be involved), and several other fields of study including political conflict, international development, bureaucracy, migration, media, political parties, elections, civil society, and public opinion. I review the field of climate change adaptation and then explore the tremendous contributions that political scientists could make to adaptation research.

Charge: War is a defining political experience, and the study of war—its causes, its dynamics, its consequences–is a central theme of political science. It is an organized activity that involves both men and women, as combatants and as civilians, as perpetrators and as victims. Laura Sjoberg's Gendering Global Conflict: Toward a Feminist Theory of War (Columbia University Press, 2013) is an important new book that argues that the fields of international relations and security studies are impoverished by an insufficient attention to the gendering of conflict, and that a “feminist theory of war” is therefore indispensable to an adequate understanding of the politics of war. This symposium brings together a range of prominent political science scholars, writing from a range of theoretical perspectives, to comment critically on Sjoberg's book and on the broader theme of the gendering of global conflict. —Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

In this response I discuss the cinema ontology of Roy Germano’s project of analytic filmmaking. I argue that though the project is at once compelling and ambitious, there are challenges posed by the medium of cinema itself that ultimately undermine Germano’s commitments to indexicality, referentiality, and continuity in political science research.

I would like to begin by thanking Jeff Isaac for organizing this symposium. I am also grateful to the five commentators—Henry Farrell, Jeffrey Gould, Davide Panagia, Sunita Parikh, and Dvora Yanow—for taking the time to think about my target essay and to offer such thought provoking comments and critiques. Even if the commentators have reservations about the analytic filmmaking approach, I am encouraged by their enthusiasm for the fundamental idea contained in my target essay: Audiovisual media can and should be used to publish social science research. This rejoinder aims to briefly clarify my positions on some of the major issues raised by the commentators. The first part addresses questions about how we should structure audiovisual publications, while the second part examines the nexus between analytic filmmaking and scientific inquiry.

Many American professors are looking for innovative ways to engage policymakers and fellow citizens—and the boldest new endeavor is the fast-growing Scholars Strategy Network. Since 2011, “SSN” (as it is called) has enrolled more than 470 scholars from many disciplines working at over 140 colleges and universities. Many members participate in issue-oriented groups to address major national challenges—ranging from voting rights and the effects of mass incarceration, to health reform implementation, and to women’s roles in politics and government. SSN also supports nineteen regional chapters operating autonomously in states and metropolitan areas from Maine to Hawaii and Minnesota to Texas. Each member presents research findings in vividly written two-page briefs. In turn, SSN staffers and volunteer leaders link members and their research to journalists and bloggers, to policymakers and their staffs, and to citizens associations and advocacy groups concerned with public issues. The Network as a whole is not aligned with any ideology, political party, or candidate. Members espouse varied views and make individual choices about civic engagement, yet they share a belief that scholars should reach beyond the ivory tower and draw from academic research to improve public policy and enhance democracy.

Ira Katznelson’s Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time is a big book, and it addresses a big theme: the historical significance of the New Deal, as a watershed moment in U.S. political history, as a form of “social democracy, American style” that allowed liberal democracy to prevail in competition with Soviet communism and fascism, and as the “origin” of key features of contemporary politics in the United States. The book is a contribution to the study of U.S. politics, but also to the study of comparative politics, international relations, political theory, and comparative history. We have thus invited a range of political science scholars to comment on the book as a work of general political science; as an account of the New Deal and its political legacies in the United States; as a contribution to the comparative analysis of social democracy and the welfare state; and as a way of integrating the study of domestic and foreign policy, and in particular the study of U.S. politics and international relations.