From the editor

This issue of the journal features scholarship reflecting the diversity of methodological approaches used to study the American presidency, from case studies to quantitative analysis. So too do the articles herein employ both primary and secondary sources of data, from historical records and presidential memoirs to expert interviews and content analysis.

The state of scholarship in presidential studies is a topic that has generated debate among scholars: Does the field of study suffer from a lack of hypothesis testing and theory development? Do presidential scholars utilize scientifically rigorous approaches? Is there a core foundation of knowledge on which presidential scholars agree? And so on. While the debate is far from over, and I do not purport to have answers to the questions discussed at academic conferences or in graduate programs training Ph.D.s, it is worth noting that a plurality of approaches/methodologies, models, and research questions continues to define presidential studies. And this is not, as they say, a bad thing.

Although they are admittedly unscientific observations, I have also witnessed an increase in both the number and variety of manuscripts being submitted to the journal and more graduate students expressing an interest in studying the presidency. There are also, in my opinion, many impressive junior scholars who have established a productive publishing record and are beginning to develop a reputation for themselves. I have had colleagues across the country share similar observations with me. To that end, perhaps the immediate future of presidential studies is brighter than is otherwise often argued.

I hope this issue reflects my optimistic statement above.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group