This timely volume raises important questions relating to the direction of Canadian political science. Generally speaking, the volume focuses on the extent to which Canadians are engaged with comparative political science both as “makers” and “takers” of theories and models. The chapters cover a wide spectrum of the discipline examining Canadians' contribution to scholarship in three large fields: diversity, multiculturalism and rights; political parties, voting and public policy; and, federalism. I was surprised not to find a chapter on women and politics, a field in which scholars, such as Jill Vickers, were in the vanguard and continue to make significant contributions.
Not surprisingly, the contribution of Canadians to the comparative literature is found to be uneven. For example, Robinson highlights important contributions by scholars such as Carens, Kymlicka, Taylor and Tully to the literature on justice and diversity while Hirschl remarks on a “tendancy towards parochialism” and finds fewer theoretically significant contributions in the fields of constitutional and judicial politics.
It is not always clear whether the focus is on the practice of political science in Canadian universities or rather on the sub-field of Canadian politics. For example, at times the discussion is about the traditionally parochial nature of the study of Canada and the extent to which Canadianists engage with external literature, while at other times the focus seems to be on the relative comparative contributions of those at Canadian universities. These of course are two very different things. We might find lots of Canadians publishing in international journals, and Montpetit's empirical analysis does find a significant increase, but this is not necessarily evidence that Canadianists are infusing their study of Canada with comparative theories and placing their work in a wider international context.
While there is an implicit bias in this book towards the “comparative turn” as a good thing, I would have liked more consideration of the cost of this. For example, Vipond describes changes in graduate training at the University of Toronto resulting in PhD students who specialize in Canadian politics receiving considerably less training in this sub-field and instead more in the comparative field. This is presented as a good thing as it encourages Canadianists to be outward looking, to contribute to international debates and to use comparative theories and models in their work.
This is all fine, but what is not addressed is the purpose of Canadian as a sub-field in our departments and as an area of scholarship. An argument can be made that its primary purpose is to produce scholarship that advances our understanding of Canada and that provides analytical tools to address the challenges of a dynamic Canadian society. Not being parochial and learning from work done in other parts of the world can only aid in this enterprise. Yet in this volume this is characterized as “taking” theory and is implicitly seen as inferior to producing theories that are exportable to other regions. For example, Tanguay minimizes the importance of work around the “brokerage” model of party politics because, while it is widely used in the Canadian literature, it is rarely picked up internationally. However, this model has proven extremely useful for those wishing to understand the organization, behaviour and role of Canada's parties.
It may be a good thing that not all departments producing PhDs in Canadian politics have taken the University of Toronto approach and downgraded the core course in Canadian politics to a single term. The best and most enduring work on Canadian politics is by those with a deep and broad understanding of the country and its history. Political scientists who are not only specialists in a narrow field but who have read and contributed to Canadian literature across different sub-fields have made some of the most important contributions. Contemporary scholars such as Alan Cairns, Peter Russell, Graham White, Janine Brodie and Kenneth McRoberts come to mind (and there are others to be sure). Their work displays a deep understanding not of a narrow aspect of political science (though they have all made important contributions to particular sub-fields) but rather of the country, its history and its people.
For example, Kenneth Carty's work on the Canadian party system is rich in historical perspective and understanding of broad changes to the nature of Canadian society. It is insular insofar as it differs from the traditional definition of party system found in the comparative literature, but is infinitely richer in its contribution to our understanding of Canada precisely because it does not confine itself to considering variables, such as the number of parties and the patterns of government formation, that typically define comparative work on party systems. Can PhD programs that minimize training in Canadian politics, and, perhaps even more worrisome, hire as Canadianists those whose real interest is comparative politics, with Canada as one of their cases, produce such scholars?
And, with an increasing emphasis within the Canadian sub-field on cross-national work, what happens to the study of provincial politics? Recent job searches in Canadian politics reveal very few new PhDs with a focus on this important level of Canadian government and politics. Comparative work need not always look outside our borders.
Linda White and her colleagues are to be commended for producing a volume that makes several important contributions. First, the individual chapters highlight the contributions and trends of Canadian political science in a number of sub-fields. Second, and most importantly, they raise an interesting and timely debate about the purpose of the Canadian sub-field and how it can best serve both the citizens who support the public institutions where we toil and the broader discipline we are all a part of.
