Studying British Government: Reconstructing the Research Agenda
| Published date | 01 June 1999 |
| Author | R. A. W. Rhodes,Mark Bevir |
| Date | 01 June 1999 |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-856X.00012 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
British Journal of Politics and International Relations,
Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1999, pp. 215–239
Studying British government:
reconstructing the research agenda
MARK BEVIR AND R. A. W. RHODES
Abstract
This article seeks to place the study of British government in a broader context by exploring
the potential contribution of an anti-foundational epistemology. We seek to ‘reinvent’ a
self-conscious, sceptical and tentative approach rooted in philosophy and history. The
first section defines the Westminster model and the family of linked narratives: traditional
sceptics, social science, radical theory, new public management. The second section outlines
an anti-foundational epistemology, focusing on the notions of traditions, narratives, de-
centering and dilemmas. The third section applies this approach to one prominent school of
thought about British government: policy networks. We argue that an anti-foundational
approach will decenter networks, shifting the locus of analysis from the institutions to indi-
viduals, and focus on dilemmas to explain how networks change. Finally, we conclude there
is no essentialist account of British government, only complex and diverse narratives, and
no tool kit for solving problems, only lessons drawn from many stories.
Introduction
This article reviews the study of British government and seeks to meet the
editors aims of setting ‘traditional concerns’ in ‘a theoretical, historical and
comparative perspective’ (Marsh et al. 1999). The ‘State of the Discipline’
section focuses on contributions by British and European scholars, and
contributors are enjoined ‘to take epistemological questions more seriously’.
© Political Studies Association 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 215
The ‘traditional concerns’ on this occasion are encapsulated by the phrase
‘the Westminster model’. The article briefly outlines the Westminster model
and its ‘family’ of concepts. It then outlines an anti-foundational approach
before illustrating how it differs from the usual positivistic social science
approach through a discussion of one of the most prominent modern
schools of thought; policy networks.
The key difference between positivism and anti-foundationalism lies in
the answer to the question of ‘how do we know what we know about pure
facts’. Positivism adopts some variant of the natural science model, tries to
discover ‘pure facts’ and strives after successive approximations to given
truth. In Hayward’s (1986, 8) acerbic tones, political science was pervaded
by ‘portentous claims, methodological obsession and paltry performance’
as it tried to live up to its name. An anti-foundationalist epistemology rejects
all absolute truth claims, accepting there are no grounds for conclusively
asserting the superiority of one interpretation over another. Our objective
is to broaden the research agenda by showing how an anti-foundational
epistemology raises distinctive and interesting questions about British
government while, crucially, keeping an anthropological concept of
objectivity.
In the manner advocated by Dearlove (1982, 453), we challenge positiv-
istic social science and aim to be:
self conscious, sceptical and tentative about our theory, opening
ourselves up to a serious and sympathetic consideration of rival prob-
lematics and rejecting the philosopher’s stone of a single key to under-
standing; … And we need to be interested in disputes about all these
matters within the other social sciences, within the sociology of know-
ledge and within the philosophy of social science.
Philosophy and history once constituted the entrenched heart of British
political science (Hayward 1991, 94). We seek to ‘reinvent’ a self-conscious,
sceptical and tentative philosophical and historical approach that can
challenge the conventions of mainstream political science.
The Westminster model
The Westminster model refers to the concepts, questions and historical
story used to capture the essential features of British government which,
through sheer longevity, form the conventional or mainstream view.1There
is always the danger of erecting a straw man but we need a benchmark
Mark Bevir and R. A. W. Rhodes
216 © Political Studies Association 1999.
To continue reading
Request your trial