Understanding the Classification
Political science sits in a weird spot when you try to pin it down. Some departments call it a social science. Others treat it like humanities. The truth is messier than either label. I spent years watching grad students argue about whether political theory belongs in a social science framework or if it should just sit with philosophy. It happens every semester. The same debate, different faces.
Is Political Science A Social Science
Officially, yes. Most universities classify it that way. The American Political Science Association lists it as a social science. Government funding bodies treat it as one. When you fill out forms or apply for grants, you check the social science box and move on. But here is what they do not tell you in the orientation packet: political science is barely a social science in practice. Not because the questions are wrong. Because the methods keep splitting into two camps that refuse to talk to each other. I ran into this firsthand last year. I was reviewing a dissertation proposal that combined survey experiment methodology with thick ethnographic case studies from three different countries. The committee chair told me the methods section was "methodologically incoherent." Another committee member said it was "innovative triangulation." Both were right. Neither was wrong.
The workaround I suggest now is simple: ask prospective supervisors which camp they are in before you apply. Methodological political scientists want to see regression tables and clean identification strategies. Interpretive scholars want theoretical framing and contextual depth. Put both in the same proposal and you will confuse everyone.
Get the Full Details
Where the Classification Breaks Down
Social sciences share certain assumptions. You study observable behavior. You collect data. You test hypotheses. Political science follows some of those rules and ignores others. The quantitative subfield, usually called comparative politics or political methodology, operates exactly like sociology or economics. Survey data, regression models, causal inference frameworks borrowed from epidemiology. If you sit in on a APSA methodology section, you would think you walked into a different discipline entirely. The normative theory side looks nothing like social science. You read Rawls, Agamben, Foucault. You write interpretive essays. There are no datasets. No p-values. No falsifiable claims. This is closer to philosophy or critical theory than anything social scientists recognize.
Mixed methods programs try to bridge the gap. They usually fail. I have seen it happen. A scholar does five years of archival research, then tries to add a quantitative chapter to satisfy department requirements. The result is a thin regression tacked onto deep context. Nobody is happy.
International Differences Matter
Classification depends heavily on where you are. In the United States, political science is firmly a social science. Every major university houses it within that umbrella. Graduate programs require statistics coursework even for theory students. In the UK and parts of Europe, political science sometimes shares departments with government studies or public administration. Those programs lean toward practical policy analysis rather than theoretical inquiry. The social science label still applies, but the emphasis shifts. Germans classify political science as part of Staatswissenschaften or state sciences. That framework includes law, economics, and administration. It is wider than the Anglophone social science model. Italian programs often place political science within humanities faculties. Spanish universities tend to treat it as a social science but with strong institutionalist traditions.
This matters because your degree means something different depending on the country. A PhD in political science from Berlin will look unlike one from Chicago. Employers and academic hiring committees notice.
What Employers Actually Care About
I asked around after my own graduate work. Policy research firms do not care whether your program claimed social science status. They care whether you can produce deliverables on deadline. Quant methods programs tend to match that workflow better. Theory programs require different skills that translate to think tanks and advocacy organizations. Academic hiring is stricter. Political science departments still overwhelmingly hire from programs that emphasize quantitative methods. Not because theory is worthless. Because grant requirements and journal standards reward statistical rigor. I know theorists who struggled to place post-PhD. I know methodologists who got multiple offers within weeks. The gap between method and theory is real. It is not going away. The discipline keeps growing along both tracks. But the funding and placement advantages skew one direction.
Practical Advice
If you are deciding on a program, look at course requirements before applying. Check whether theory students must take econometrics. See if methods students read any normative theory. Programs that force both sides to learn each other languages tend to produce more adaptable graduates. My own experience taught me to pick a track early. I tried doing everything. Theory, methods, field research, formal modeling. By graduation I had shallow competence in each area and deep expertise in none. Colleagues who specialized earlier found their niche faster. That does not mean you cannot cross boundaries later. Post-PhD, I have collaborated with both camps successfully. But getting hired requires showing depth first. Breadth comes after.
The social science classification is useful for administrative purposes. Funding forms, accreditation, bureaucratic boxes. It does not capture what political science actually is. That remains contested. Probably always will be.
