Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T15:42:44.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Quality of Theory and the Comparative Disadvantage of Area Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Ian S. Lustick*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania

Extract

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.

Type
Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Middle East Studies Association of North America 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 189 note 1 Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, July 1995.

page 189 note 2 Tessler, Mark with Nachtwey, Jody and Banda, Anne, eds., Area Studies and Social Science: Strategies for Understanding Middle East Politics (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies) 200 pages, notes, index. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999Google Scholar. $39.95 (Cloth) ISBN 0-253-33502-7.

page 192 note 1 My thanks to Ms Emily Perschetz for her help in compiling this data.