If a Buddhist monk self-immolated himself, would he be acting rationally within his own preference system, or would it be an irrational action explicable only by the draw of religion or culture?

The Harvard government department has two answers, a division which reflects a split among political scientists throughout academia.

On the first side lie rational choice theorists, including department chair Kenneth A. Shepsle, who believe the increasing use of formal models has made the field more rigorous and respected.

"Quantitative and theoretical tools are part of the standard training of an Americanist today," Shepsle says, noting that he feels those tools will move into all other fields of political science, though he says that field work will be not change drastically in the "foreseeable future."

On the other side lie many of Harvard's brightest stars, so called 'area' specialists, many of whom feel that the increasing emphasis on rational choice has obscured the need to utilize a variety of other important modes of analysis.

"While I think rational choice analysis has added a great deal to the field and will continue to be influential, I don't believe it will become the dominant paradigm, nor do I think that statistical studies are the only way to study politics," says Professor of Government Peter A. Hall, who studies comparative political economy with an emphasis on Western Europe.

Implications of the Debate

At the center of much of the controversy is Eaton Professor of the Science of Government Robert H. Bates, himself a specialist in Africa, who sparked this debate throughout academia with a four page article in the June issue of Political Science and Politics.

In the article, Bates argues that area studies as traditionally defined have little place in universities. He asks that political science departments "re-think their approach to hiring junior personnel" suggesting that considering the limited time junior faculty members have, mastery over rational choice will suffice if a combination of the fields cannot be achieved.

Northwestern University professor Bruce Cumings responded in the fall issue of the Asian Studies Newsletter, saying that Bates' assertions reflect the reality of many current tenure proceedings.

"This statement, outrageous and arrogant as it is, nonetheless reflects a prevalent attitude that has threatened or derailed the careers of many young social scientists with language and expertise in recent years," Cumings writes.

Sources who asked not to be identified said the government department schism had begun to affect tenure cases at Harvard.

Last May, UCLA Political Science Chair Ronald L. Rogowski and University of California at Berkeley Professor Robert Powell came up for tenure at Harvard but were defeated at the departmental level.

Both heavily utilize rational choice in their work, which observers said could have influenced the decision not to give them tenure.

Although he refused to comment on individual cases, Shepsle responded to an e-mailed question about Powell and Rogowski and said candidates nominated for tenure are not considered on the basis of whether they use rational choice theory, but rather on the impact their work has on the field.