Notes
1. Recently I was an international assessor on a national selection board for Political Science research grants. A third of the applications were in the traditional field of comparative quantitative political science – comparative studies of elections and so on. However, of the remaining two-thirds, with a qualitative and theoretical bent, the overwhelming majority were Foucauldian. In short, Foucauldian analysis constitutes a dominant paradigm. These observations also mirror my experience as editor of this journal.