08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 1/10

The Professional Review Of The Italian Political Science Association

Political  science  in  Italy  after  the  last
University  reform
by  IPS  |  Published  in  issue7  /  Political  science  community

In   2010   the   Italian   parliament   approved   the   reform   of   the   university   system   proposed   by   Maria   Stella
Gelmini,   education   minister   of   the   fourth   Berlusconi   cabinet.   This   major   reform   affects   primarily   the
governance  system  of  universities  by  strengthening   the  powers  of   the  rectors  and  of   the  administrative
boards  (Consiglio  di  amministrazione)  responsible  for  university  finances.  It  changes  also  significantly  the
whole  structure  of  universities.  While  in  the  past  the  main  peripheral  units  of  Italian  universities  used  to  be
the  faculties,  large  and  multidisciplinary  bodies  in  charge  of  all  teaching  and  recruitment  matters,  after  the
reform  departments  (which  already  existed  but  with  a  lesser  role)  become  the  predominant  organizational
and  take  over  all  the  functions  of  faculties.  Faculties  or  schools  might  survive  but  only  as  secondary  bodies
with  functions  delegated  by  the  departments.
As  the  reform  prescribes  that  departments  should  be  formed  by  at  least  35  professors,  it  is  impossible  in
most  of  the  cases  to  have  homogeneous  single  discipline  departments.  More  than  one  discipline  have  to  be
aggregated   to   reach   the   threshold.   Since   the   numbers   of   political   scientists   are   in   Italian   universities
generally  small  they  have  to  join  forces  with  other  disciplines  (sociology,  anthropology,  history,  etc.).  IPS
has  asked  to  representatives  of  some  of  the  Italian  universities  where  political  science  has  a  particularly
strong  tradition  to  describe  the  new  environment.  We  have  here  the  answers  of  professor  Marco  Giuliani  of
the  University  of  Milano  Statale,  Filippo  Andreatta  of  the  University  of  Bologna,  Fulvio  Attinà  of  the  University
of  Catania,  Alessandro  Chiaramonte  of  the  University  of  Florence,  Pierangelo  Isernia  of  the  University  of
Siena,  and  Luigi  Bobbio  of  the  University  of  Torino.

Political  Science  in  Milan:  three  elements  and  four  scenarios1
Marco  Giuliani
Though  policy  scientists  always  warn  against  the  possibility  of  evaluating  the  effects  of  a  policy  immediately
after   its   first   implementation,   it   is   fair   to  say   that   the  Law  240/2010  (Legge  Gelmini)  and   its  connected
decrees   deeply   impacted   on   the   organization   of   the   Faculty   of   political   sciences   of   Milano   and   on   our
discipline.  At  the  mid  of  July  2012  most  of  the   institutional  adaptations  to  the  new  normative  framework
have  been  introduced  and  the  constitutive  phase  is  slowly  moving  to  its  end  with  the  election  of  the  new
rector  due  in  October  2012  and,  immediately  after,  the  composition  of  the  new  administrative  board.
Three  elements  may  be  peculiar  to  how  the  new  policy  has  been  translated  into  the  pre-­existing  academic
framework  of  the  University  of  Milano:  1)  the  continuous  regulative  drive  coming  from  the  highest  academic
position  of  the  University;;  2)  the  features  of  the  Faculty  of  political  sciences  and  3)  the  evolution  of  the
discipline  of  political  science  in  the  last  two  decades  in  that  same  faculty.  

First  element.  The  rector  of  the  University  of  Milano  used  to  be  the  president  of  the  CRUI  (the  Conference  of
the  Rectors  of  Italian  universities)  at  the  time  of  the  approval  of  the  Legge  Gelmini,  and  he  often  shouldered

http://www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/
http://www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform
http://www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/contributors/ips
http://www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/
http://www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/category/political-science-community/
http://www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform#fn153236471150857f4c2cf17


08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 2/10

the  minister,  arguing   in   favor  of  a  reform  that  would  have  prized  merit  and  excellence   in  research  and
teaching.  Once  approved,  he  aimed  at   implementing  the   law  as  soon  as  possible   in  spite  of  the  obvious
difficulties  (e.g.  the  dimension  of  the  University  of  Milano,  its  generalist  character  that  includes  humanities
and  hard  sciences,  the  competitive  metropolitan  context  with  several  others  private  and  public  universities
like  Bocconi,  Cattolica,  IULM,  Milano-­Bicocca,  Politecnico  and  San  Raffaele).  The  ”one-­size-­fits-­all”  strategy
that  was  followed  during  the  approval  of  the  University  statute,  in  the  name  of  an  increased  accountability  of
the  new  departments,  met  severe  opposition  especially   from  the  faculties  with  a  clearer   interdisciplinary
character.  Political  sciences  was  obviously  among  them,  and  not  because  of  a  peculiar  choice,  but  because
of  the  specific  rules  governing  the  adoption  and  approval  of  BA  and  MA  programs  in  the  class  of  political  and
international   sciences.   Nevertheless,   the   university   statute   was   eventually   approved   and,   after   “minor”
remarks   received   from   the   Minister,   formally   adopted   and   implemented   through   a   tight   schedule   for
establishing  departments,  electing  their  heads,  appointing  the  respective  departmental  giunta,  and  selecting
the  representatives  who  nominate  the  president  for  the  coordinating  institutions  (facoltà  or  schools),  etc.  The
swiftness  of  the  whole  process  contributed  to  disregarding  a  series  of  organizational  problems,  like  a  clearer
definition  of  the  allocation  of  competencies  between  university  as  a  whole,  departments  and  schools;;  the
reassignment   or   redesigning   of   technical   and   administrative   staff   (especially   those   of   the   former
presidencies   of   the   faculties);;   the   resolution   of   all   the   technical   problems   connected   with   the   unique
university  budget,  etc.  Formally,  the  new  departments  are  already  responsible  for  research  and  teaching
but,  at  least  in  this  transition  period,  they  lack  the  human  and  financial  resources  to  perform  those  tasks,  in
a  situation  of  still  ambiguous  local  regulative  framework.  

Second  element.  The  former  Faculty  of  Political  Sciences  of  Milano  (now,  Faculty  of  Political,  Economic  and
Social  Sciences)  was  probably  the  purest  expression  of  the  original  Maranini-­Miglio  project  for  the  faculties
of  Political  sciences  (plural),  with  the  accent  on  the  plurality  of  potential  declinations  of  an  undefined  core  of
political  science  (singular).  The  typical  consensus-­oriented  decision-­making  structures  of  each  faculty  was
magnified   by   the   almost   perfectly   balanced   situation   between   disciplines.   Symbolically   it   could   have
represented  a  laboratory  for  interdisciplinary  research  and  teaching,  and  partly  it  even  managed  to  fulfill
this  ambition,  but  as  a  matter  of   fact   it  was  mostly  a  very  complex  organization  with  clear  disciplinary
factions  and  constituencies,  which  were  the  dominant  actors  in  each  decision  regarding  the  distribution  of
resources.  The  result  was,  especially  in  periods  in  which  merit,  evaluation  and  internationalization  were  not
ideas  in  good  currency,  logrolling  and  pork-­barrel  decisions.  Some  argued  that  this  outcome  was  the  logical
consequence  of   the   faculty  based  organization  of   the  university.   In   fact,   in   the  absence  of  any  kind  of
premiality,   no   one   wanted   to   run   the   risk   of   breaking   a   consensus   system   that   regularly   assured   the
distribution  of  a  certain  amount  of  spoils.
Jeopardizing  the   implicit   rules  of   the  game  could  have   led  to   inferior  results.  Thanks  to  some  additional
resources  of  the  University  of  Milano,  the  Faculty  of  Political  sciences  proliferated  through  the  years  (and  in
spite  of  two  marginal  disciplinary  secessions  among  economists  and  sociologists,  that  contributed  to  the  birth
of  the  University  of  Milano-­Bicocca)  becoming  one  of  the  biggest  faculties  of  political  sciences  in  Italy,  both
in   terms   of   professors   and   of   students.   In   its   last   period   it   had   almost   200   professors   and   lecturers,
organized   into   seven   departments:   Social   and   political   studies,   Labor   studies   and   welfare,   Economics,
History,  Law,  International  studies  and  Languages.  Each  of  them  represented  a  fierce  stakeholder,  often  with
recognized   intra-­departmental   factions,  mostly  endowed  with  veto  power.  Given   the  plural   status  of   the
faculty,  the  Bologna  process  further  promoted  a  proliferation  of  BA  and  then  MA  programs,  each  of  them
magnifying  some  elements  of  a  particular  discipline.  Eventually,  the  old  4-­years  course  in  Political  sciences,
produced   seven   new   BA   programs,   eight   MA   programs,   plus   four   in   cooperation   with   other   faculties   or
universities.   In   the   Academic   year   2011/12,   this   meant   more   than   4000   students   enrolled   in   programs
entirely  held  in  via  Conservatorio  (the  traditional  location  of  the  faculty).  
In  spite  of  the  high  rate  of  drop-­outs,  the  BA  program  in  Political  sciences  (officially  the  heir  of  the  old  four-­
years  course,   initially  believed   to  quickly  become  a   residual   choice  after   the  new  post  Bologna-­process
teaching   offer)   continues   to   have   the   highest   number   of   students,   and   to   propose   a   multidisciplinary
balanced   formation,   organized   into   four   curricula.   Its   capacity   to   attract   is   quantitatively   high,   but   on
average   its   freshmen  don’t  have  a  particularly  brilliant  high-­school  background,  risk   to  drop-­out  already



08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 3/10

before  the  end  of  the  first  year,  and  comparatively  take  a  long  time  before  graduating  with  low  marks.  But
the  variance  around  the  average  student  in  Political  sciences  is  very  high,  and  those  who  “survive”  are  often
as  brilliant  as  students  following  a  more  regular  career  in  other  BA  programs,  included  those  that  rely  on  a
selective  admission.  Since  then,  the  core  teaching  in  via  Conservatorio  has  remained  almost  unchanged.
The  new  accreditation  systems  and  criteria  put  forward  by  the  National  agency  for  evaluation  will  probably
represent   the   first   challenge   to   its   overall   organization.   More   generally,   in   the   medium   term,   there   will
probably  be  an  indirect  impact  because  of  the  “property  rules”  defined  by  the  new  statute  of  the  University
of  Milano.  Each  teaching  program  (Corsi  di  laurea)  has  been  assigned  (possibly)  to  one  department  on  the
basis  of  the  various  percentages  of  teaching  duties.  Majoritarian  (or  largely  pluralitarian)  departments  have
the  responsibility  of  the  program  as  principals,  although  there  may  be  other  associate  departments  if  they
teach  more  than  15%  of  the  credits.  Only  in  a  couple  of  cases  it  has  been  impossible  to  identify  a  majority
department,  and  in  that  event  (included  the  BA  in  Political  sciences)  the  program  has  been  assigned  to  an
interdepartmental  committee.  
Following  the   law,  and  the  stricter  rules  of   the  Statute,   the  number  of  departments   in  via  Conservatorio
came  down  to  three:  Social  and  political  sciences  (SPS),  Economics,  management  and  quantitative  methods
(DEMM),   and   International   studies,   law   and   political   history   (DILPHS).   There   are   both   explicit   rules   and
implicit  incentives  for  departments  to  assign  the  teaching  duties  of  their  professors  and  lecturers  on  their
own   programs,   leaving   the   teaching   of   their   disciplines   included   in   other   programs   to   internal   extra-­
assignments  (affidamenti)  or  external  contracts.  These  will  be  probably  paid  by  the  department  hosting  the
program  and  not  by  that  providing  the  teacher,  with  the  result  of  an  overall  “pass-­the-­buck”  non-­cooperative
game.  As  I  said,  in  the  mid-­term,  this  should  provide  the  incentives  for  a  further  departmentalization  of  the
teaching  programs,  reducing  the  level  of  interdisciplinarity,  in  spite  of  the  hybrid  education  that  seems  to  be
required  in  the  new  complex  labour  market.  It  is  evident  that  not  all  the  disciplines  can  easily  follow  that
strategy.  If  the  BA  (or  even  MA)  courses  in  Political  sciences  (plural)  still  follow  the  legacy  of  the  Maranini-­
Miglio  model  (for  good  or  for  wrong),  in  a  system  that  favors  “tit-­for-­tat”  games  between  departments,  they
could  remain  in  the  Bermuda  triangle  of  high  numbers,  low  quality  and  deadlock,  because  of  the  structure  of
interdepartmental  committees  in  a  context  that  will  gradually  lose  its  consensual  imprinting.  

Third  element.  Political  science  (singular)  in  Milano  is  a  happy  story  with  an  uncertain  “ending”.  Not  more
than  25  years  there  wasn’t  a  single  course  in  political  science  in  the  public  University  of  Milano,  in  a  faculty
whose  unique  teaching  program  was  called  “Political  Sciences”.  Now  we  teach  around  40  courses  from  the
BA  to  the  doctoral  level.  Probably  a  garbage-­can  interpretation  of  this  proliferation  would  not  be  fair  enough
with  regard  to  the  efforts  and  strategies  brought  forward  by  a  number  of  agents,  but  their  entrepreneurship
was  certainly  facilitated  by  a  set  of  contingent  windows  of  opportunity,  started  by  the  3+2  reform  and  the
norms   regulating   the   programs   in   each   class   of   study.   Given   the   structure   of   many   programs   and   the
number  of  their  students,  we  now  offer  six  parallel   introductory  courses  in  Political  science  (included  one
taught   in   English).   Everything’s   fine   then?   It’s   not   so   simple.   Firstly,   it   should   not   have   been   very
complicated  to  regroup  all  political  scientists  in  a  unique  department  (formerly  we  were  separated  in  three
different  ones),  but  for  different  legacies  it  was  only  partially  possible.  If  the  department  is  the  new  basic
organizational  block  in  the  academic  architecture,  being  partially  dispersed  will  probably  be  a  disadvantage.
Secondly,  the  structure  of  opportunity  provided  by  the  national  rules  defining  how  to  construct  a  teaching
program  (at  BA  or  MA  level)  are  different  for  each  discipline,  and  particularly  damaging  for  political  science.  
Its  “natural  home”  is  conflated  by  other  disciplines  according  to  the  original  cognitive  model  derived  by  the
Marinini-­Miglio’s   imprinting,   and   since   all   political   scientists   belong   to   the   same   scientific   sector,   it’s
impossible  to  try  to  “control”  some  other  programs.  As  a  result,  though  we  participate  in  quite  a  few  Corsi  di
studio,  we  have  very  limited  chances  of  having  the  leadership  any  of  them.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  isn’t
any  political  scientist  directing  one  of  the  new  teaching  committees,  or  guiding  the  newly  established  faculty
of   political,   economic   and   social   sciences.   Thirdly,   whereas   other   disciplines   have   several   overlapping
scientific  sectors  (e.g.  law,  with  several  sectors  in  the  fields  of  public,  private  and  international  law),  in  fact,
the  SPS04  (Political  Science)  sector  masks  non  overlapping  trainings  and  capacities  going  back  to  the  three
original   subsectors:   IR,   public   administration   and   public   policy,   domestic   and   comparative   politics.   In   a
situation  of  scarce  resources,   future  retirements  and  a  block  of   turnover,   this  could   represent  a   further



08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 4/10

setback  for  our  discipline.  Without  the  possibility  of  even  partially  substituting  retiring  professors  (usually
teaching  2-­3  courses  at  all  levels)  with  colleagues  of  contiguous  sectors  (as  done  by  economists,  sociologists
and  jurists),  the  risk   is  that  of  gradually  abandoning  our  presence   in  those  teaching  programs  which  we
were  not  able  to  deeply  characterize,  but  still  see  our  qualified  presence.  Deciding  the  “core  business”  in
teaching  will  be  a  common  task  for  all  disciplines,  but  in  the  context  we’ve  just  described,  it  risks  to  be  a
retreat  without  strategy  and  without  any  safe  haven.

Having  said  this  regarding  the  impact  of  the  new  reform  for  our  discipline  in  the  University  of  Milano,  which
could  be  the  potential  scenario  for  the  future?  

Scenario  A:  “Gattopardo’s  rule”  (10%):  nothing  will  actually  change.  The  usual  Italian-­style  adagio  could
again  prevail  over  the  many  reforms  put  in  place.  In  spite  of  the  abolition  of  the  intermediary  level  between
the  university  and  the  departments,  which  assured  the  typical  room  for  compensating  opposing  tendencies,
the  consensus-­oriented  legacy  of  the  (ex-­)  faculty,  inspired  by  the  original  plural  model  of  Political  sciences,
will  survive  as  an  institutionalized  practice.  In  this  scenario,  Political  Science  (singular)  has  nothing  to  gain
and  nothing  to   lose,  compared  to   the  status  quo.  An  opportunity  would  be   lost,  and  a  risk  avoided.  My
personal  perspective  is  that  this  scenario  has  few  chances  to  be  realized,  because  of  the  new  structure  of
opportunity  which,  as  I  tried  to  demonstrate,  is  biased  in  favor  of  certain  disciplines  and  programs.

Scenario  B:  “Departments  rule”  (40%):  because  of  the  aforementioned  opportunity  structure,  maybe  not  in
the   near   future,   but   already   in   the   medium   period,   all   the   teaching   programs   intrinsically   based   on   an
interdisciplinary  (and  thus  interdepartmental)  cooperation  will  suffer  a  disinvestment  of  resources.  Firstly,  in
terms  of  human  resources  because  departments  will  first  assign  the  teaching  duties  to  their  own  programs
(and  possibly  to  their  best  teachers),  and  secondly  of  financial  resources  (with  no  one  wanting  to  pay  the  bill
–  contracts,  teaching  assistants,  marketing,  placement  strategies,  time,  energies,  etc.  –  for  someone  else).
BA   and   MA   programs   without   any   clear   departmental   “owner”   risk   the   most,   but   even   the   others   will
probably  experience  a  decrease  in  their  interdisciplinary  character,  insofar  as  the  national  rules  permit.  (A
“tragedy   of   the   commons”   translated   into   our   academic   organization).   Unfortunately,   this   is   the   worst
scenario   for   political   science   in  Milano.   Being  still   a   minoritarian  discipline,   fragmented  and  divided   into
several   departments   and   teaching   programs,   there   is   not   the   possibility   of   retreating   to   a   more
homogeneous   political   science   program   (that   cannot   exist).   Political   science   risks,   in   the   long   term,   to
become  a  supplementary  discipline,  relegated  to  first  year  classes  in  order  to  fulfill  the  minimal  ministerial
requirements.  

Scenario   C:   “A   new   constitutive   pact”   (20%):   The   old   faculty   was   built   on   the   basis   of   mutual   non-­
interference.  In  a  period  of  sufficient  resources,  no-­one  was  interested  in  questioning  the  assignment  of  a
new  position  or  even   the   record  of   research  and  publications  of  a  colleague.  There  wasn’t   the  need   to
choose,  and  quarreling  was  counterproductive  (the  gain  would  have  been  marginal,  and  could  have  negative
feedbacks   for   the   future).   Without   any   clear   central   strategy   or   evaluating   agency,   the   mutual   non-­
interference  has  been  applied  even  to  teaching  programs.  Milano  is  probably  the  only  Faculty  of  political
sciences  in  Italy  that  managed  to  increase  its  offer  in  the  last  five  years,  whereas  all  the  others  decided  to
close  or  aggregate  some  programs.   
Being  impossible  to  keep  up  to  that  attitude,  and  with  the  diffusion  at
each   level  of   the   logic  of  evaluation,   the  old   logrolling  habits  could  be  substituted  by  a  new,  commonly
agreed,  constitutive  pact.  For  example,  the  three  departments  could  decide  to  reorganize  and  reduce  the
offer  of  BA  level  courses  on  the  basis  of  a  common  commitment  assuring  proportional  human  and  financial
resources.  At  the  same  time,  there  could  be  free,  and  even  bitter  competition  at  the  MA  level.  The  problem
is  that  exactly  the  most  departmentalized  BA  programs  should  restructure  themselves  in  favor  of  the  most
interdisciplinary  ones:  something  that  goes  against  the  present  drift.  In  any  event,  this  scenario  offers  some
chances   for   political   science,   especially   in   terms   of   saving   human   resources   employed   in   introductory
courses  in  order  to  reorient  our  presence  in  more  politological  MA  programs  (or  curricula).  

Scenario  D:  “Variable  geometry”  (30%):  It  is  no  more  the  time  for  a  global  logrolling  alliance:  spoils  are  too



08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 5/10

low  for  avoiding  redistributive  choices.  But  this  could  not  necessarily  mean  an  Hobbesian  competition  among
departments,  each  one  with  its  stronghold.  There  could  still  be  place  for  common  projects,  for  ideas  and
programs  that  rise  above  disciplinary  barriers.  Welfare  and  labor  studies  is  a  pragmatic  example  of  this  type
of  program  that  we  inherited  from  the  past  faculty;;  Economics  and  political  science   is  a  more  theoretical
oriented  example  of  an  internationalized  MA  program  entirely  taught  in  English,  which  nicely  represents  a
niche  of   cooperation  between   “sects”  of   two  different  departments.  The   idea  of  variable  geometries   for
innovative  and  possibly   international  programs  could  appeal   to  a  variety  of  stakeholders   inside  different
departments.  It  is  not  necessary  to  share  everything  with  everyone,  but  it  could  make  sense  to  reduce  the
overall  effort  in  BA  programs  in  favor  of  some  well-­conceived  experiments  at  the  MA  level.  Along  the  same
line,  new  projects  should  start  together  with  foreign  partners  already  from  the  beginning  (double  or  joint
degrees),  in  order  to  increase  the  visibility,  share  the  costs,  and  raise  the  indices  of  internationality.  They
shouldn’t  be  necessarily  relegated  at  the  second  level  of  university  education.  It  is  possible  to  conceive  even
internationally   oriented   English-­speaking   BA   programs   in   Political   Sciences   sidelining   the   pre-­existing
traditional  ones:  the  first  one  would  be  more  clearly  inclined  towards  the  social  sciences,  whereas  the  others
would  preserve  the  tradition  of  the  humanities.  This  last  scenario  is  not  without  costs,  especially  in  terms  of
risks.  But  the  search  for  innovative  paths  is  probably  the  only  one  that  will  permit  to  our  discipline  to  avoid
playing  an  ancillary  role  in  the  reformed  Italian  university.  
Social   sciences   are   certainly   the   most   innovative   disciplines   among   the   broader   field   of   humanities
characterizing  the  original  organization  of  the  faculties  of  Political  sciences.  On  the  one  side,  the  university
reform  impacts  on  the  interdisciplinary  character  of  our  programs,  but  on  the  other  it  may  represent  the
opportunity   for   investing   in   qualitatively   different   projects:   more   scientific,   open   to   evaluations   and
internationally   oriented.   Political   science,   among   the   social   sciences,   is   well   equipped   to   accept   the
challenge.

Political  Science  in  Bologna:  from  the  old  “social  contract”  to  a  new
scenario
Filippo  Andreatta
Political  science  at  the  University  of  Bologna  had,  among  others,  two  main  peculiarities.  On  the  one  hand,
the  Departments  were  more  autonomous  than   in  other  universities,  with   informal  rules  allowing  them  to
control  recruitment  and  with  the  Faculty  Assembly  limited  to  a  ratification  role.  Since  their  inception,  the  four
founding  institutes,  which  eventually  developed  into  pre-­reform  departments,  were  largely  autonomous  and
shared  on  an  equal  base  resources  according  to  an  original  agreement,  named  «the  social  contract».  These
departments  were  therefore  already  in  tune  with  the  shift  dictated  by  the  Gelmini  reform  giving  them  more
responsibility,  even  if  their  established  tradition  made  them  reluctant  to  revise  their  composition.  On  the
other  hand,  because  of  the  multicampus  organization  of  the  University  of  Bologna  which  had  disseminated  a
series  of  new  faculties  in  the  Romagna  region,  there  were  two  Faculties  of  Political  sciences,  including  the
one  in  Forlì.  This  characteristic,  which  had  generated  unusual  amount  of  resources,  had  also  created  a  sense
of  territorial  identity  verging  on  competition.
Of  the  four  departments  –  Economics,  Sociology,  Politics  and  History,  Political  Science  –  only  the  first  one,
with  approximately  100  units  from  various  faculties,  had  a  sufficient  dimension  for  the  threshold  of  50  which
the  University  of  Bologna  had  adopted  (raising  it  from  the  number  prescribed  in  the  Gelmini  Reform).  The
other  three  departments  had  each  about  40  members  from  the  two  Faculties,  making  it  necessary  to  reduce
the  number  to  two  departments  at  most.  There  could  have  been  two  possible  solutions  which  proved  to  be
unfeasible  due  to  past  legacies  and  difficulties  in  the  negotiations.  First,  it  would  have  been  possible  to  follow
a  territorial  and  teaching  criterion  by  establishing  two  (very  similar)  departments  out  of  the  old  faculties,  one
in   Bologna   and   one   in   Forlì.   Second,   following   a   disciplinary   and   research   criterion   it   would   have   been
possible  to  unite  the  40  sociologists  from  the  political  science  faculty  with  the  about  20  sociologists  teaching
in  other   faculties,  allowing   the   remaining   two  departments   (politics  and  history,  and  political   science)   to
merge  given  their  cultural  proximity.  Given  the  problems  which  made  either  solution  impossible,  the  most



08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 6/10

ambitious  objective  of  a  single  department  was  even  more  out  of  reach.
Since  no  top-­down  solution  could  be  found,  one  group  of  professors  launched  a  bottom-­up  initiative,  inviting
all  of  their  colleagues  which  either  taught  in  one  of  the  political  science  faculties  or  were  specialized  in  a
socio-­political   discipline   to   join   a   new   Department   of   Social   and   Political   Sciences   (SPS).   Overall,   this
invitation  reached  about  150  individuals:  little  more  than  90  who  had  both  characteristics,  about  30  who  met
the  teaching  criterion  and  30  who  met  the  disciplinary  one.  About  half  (73)  replied  positively,  including  all
those  from  the  Political  Science  Department,  about  a  third  of  the  Politics  and  History  Department,  a   little
contingent   from   the   Sociology   Department   and   a   dozen   of   those   coming   from   other   faculties.   In   the
meantime,  the  Sociology  Department  had  reached  an  agreement  with  one  of  the  Law  departments,  leaving
without  a  solution  only  about  20  professors  from  the  old  Politics  and  History  Department,  who  were  assigned
to  the  SPS  Department  by  the  Academic  Senate.
The  new  SPS  Department  is  therefore  composed  of  about  90  professors.  Little  more  than  40%  of  these  are
political  scientists  stricto  sensu  reunited  after  having  traditionally  belonged  to  two  distinct  departments.  Most
political  scientists  came  from  the  Department  of  Political  Science  which  had  a  monodisciplinary  character,
while  a  smaller  but  significant  contingent  had  belonged  to  the  multidisciplinary  Department  of  Politics  and
History.  Even  if  there  is  no  longer  an  almost  monodisciplinary  department  of  political  science,  the  discipline
is  conspicuous  in  the  new  department  and  there   is  the  further  advantage  of  having  all  political  scientists
within  the  same  institution.  There  are  also  about  fifteen  sociologists  (about  a  quarter  of  the  University  total),
a  dozen  historians  of  political  thought  or  of  specific  geographic  areas  (almost  all  of  the  University  total),  nine
contemporary  historians,  ten  scholars  of  public  law,  and  a  few  more  belonging  to  other  disciplines  (linguistics
and  social  psychology).  The  dimension  of   the  Department   is  analogous   to   that  of   traditionally   important
departments  such  as  Economics  or  Business  and  this  should  enhance  the  influence  of  the  discipline  within
the  University  as  a  whole.  This  has  already  happened  on  the  teaching  side,  as  the  department  is  primarily
responsible  for  two  bachelor  degrees  (one  in  Forlì)  and  7  masters  degree  (three  in  Forlì),  and  it  participates
to  10  bachelor  and  9  master  degrees,  offering  courses  well  beyond  the  confines  of  the  two  old  faculties.

Political  Science  in  Catania:  a  ten  percent  minority  in  the  new  department  
Fulvio  Attinà
The  University  of  Catania  (UniCT)  moved  fast  and  stubbornly  to  adopt  the  main  aspects  of  the  reform.  The
new  Statute   incorporated   the   important   reform  principles   concerning  department   reorganization  and   the
establishment   of   the   new   teaching   structures,   generally   known   as   the   Schools.   But   only   the   School   of
Medicine  has  been  put  in  place,  and  no  other  School  is  in  sight,  at  present.  Undergraduate  and  graduate
Courses  are  organized  by  the  Departments.  The  end  of  the  Faculty  of  Political  Sciences  and  of  two  of  the
three  Departments  previously  existing  within  it  brought  to  the  incorporation  of  all   institutional  and  human
resources   in  the  DAPPSI,   the  Department   for   the  Analysis  of  Political,   Institutional  and  Social  Processes,
probably  to  be  renamed  in  the  future  as  the  Political  Sciences  Department.  The  merger  had  the  positive
effect  of  drawing  in  one  Department  the  thirteen  political  scientists  formerly  affiliated  to  the  DAPPSI  and  the
Political  Studies  Department.  The  political  science  share  of  the  DAPPSI  scientific  staff  is  a  little  bit  over  10  %.
It  falls  behind  the  sociologists’  share,  who  have  the  largest,  and  the  lawyers’  one.  History,  economics,  law,
sociology  and  other  social  and  human  studies  are  represented  at  the  same  time  in  the  DAPPSI  and  in  other
departments.  With  regard  to  teaching,  the  political  science  share  of  CFU/ECTS  is  also  around  10  %  of  the
DAPPSI’s  total.  The  undergraduate  political  science  course  on  Politics  and  International  Relations  has  given
way  to  an  interdisciplinary  (History  &  Political  science)  course  due  to  the  constraints  imposed  by  university
laws.   The   existing   graduate   political   science   course   (LM   62)   on   Global   Politics   and   Euro-­Mediterranean
Relations   (known  as   the  GLOPEM)  has  36  CFU/ECTS   in  Political   science  and   is  entirely  given   in  English.
Briefly,  the  reform  did  not  bring  any  remarkable  transformation  to  the  affiliation  and  teaching  tasks  of  the
political  scientists.  
The  small  reorganization  of  the  departments,  however,   is  a  true  failure.  At  mid-­large  Italian  universities,
academics  missed  the  opportunity  to  reorganize  the  Departments  by  strengthening  the  scientific  coherence
and   the  homogeneity   the   reform   law  wanted.   In  such  universities,   the  minimum  number  of  department

http://www.fscpo.unict.it/europa/glopem/index.htm


08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 7/10

members  required  by  the  law  is  a  hard  obstacle  to  those  who  want  to  make  homogeneous  social  science
departments  staffed  by  political  scientists,  sociologists,  political  philosophers  and  the  other  scientists  of  the
Area  14.  The  scientific  coherence  of  the  Department  is  key  to  enhance  political  and  social  science  research
in   Italy.   Political   scientists   share   few   research   interests   with   lawyers   and   economists   but   many   with
sociologists  and  other  social  scientists.  Homogeneous  departments  are  good  to  research  as  well  as  teaching.
They   will   offer   curricula   more   up   to   date   than   the   multidisciplinary   curricula   of   the   Faculty   of   Political
Sciences  that  belong  to  obsolete  notion  of  education  in  political  science.

Political  Science  in  Florence:  saving  the  “Cesare  Alfieri”  tradition
Alessandro  Chiaramonte
According  to  the  “Gelmini  reform”,  approved  in  December  2010,  broader  and  more  coordinated  functions  of
teaching   and   research   are   allocated   to   the   new   departmental   structures.   In   the   following   months,   the
governing  academic  bodies  of  the  University  of  Florence  began  to  discuss  and  work  on  its  implementation.  
On  the  24th  of  September  2011,  the  Senato  Accademico  and  the  Consiglio  di  amministrazione  approved  the
guidelines  for  the  departmental  reorganization.  The  main  points  decided  were:

the  membership  of  each  new  department  should  be  such  as  to  ensure  not  only  the  minimum
requirement  of  35  components  established  by  the  Law  240/2010,  but,  taking  into  account  the
planned  retirements,  a  higher  minimum  of  50  components  (counting  full  and  associate
professors,  and  researchers).  To  ensure  a  better  management  and  a  fair  representation  in
the  higher  bodies,  the  new  departments  should  not  have,  generally,  a  number  of  members
three  times  higher  than  the  minimum  for  activation.

the  fourteen  research  areas  defined  by  the  CUN  (National  University  Council)  should  be  the
first  reference  point  for  the  establishment  of  departments.  In  other  words,  the  new
departments  should  be  established  by  aggregating  scientific  sectors  in  the  same  CUN  area  or
sub-­area.  Only  reasonable  exceptions  to  this  rule  would  be  allowed  (see  later).  Moreover,
professors  and  researchers  of  the  same  scientific  sector  should  belong  to  only  one
department.

for  the  coordination  of  teaching  activities  and  for  the  management  of  related  facilities,  the
departments,  individually  or  jointly,  should  establish  connected  structures  (what  the  new
Statute  would  later  call  the  “schools”).  The  schools  would  play  a  primary  role  in  the  case  of
degree  courses  in  which  multiple  departments  contributed  significantly.

In   accordance   with   the   guidelines   and   rules   for   the   establishment   of   new   departmental   structures,   in
December   2011   the   professors   and   researchers,   belonging   to   the   fields   of   political   science,   sociology,
political  philosophy,  history  of  political   ideas,  history  of   institutions,  history  of   international  relations,  and
contemporary  history  proposed  to  establish  the  Department  of  Political  and  Social  Sciences.  The  promoters
came  from  different  departments  and  faculties,  but,  except  for  contemporary  history,  belonged  to  the  same
CUN   research   area   (Area   14:   political   and   social   sciences).   The   primary   scientific   objective   of   the   new
department   is   to   provide   a   qualified   contribution   to   the   study   of   contemporary   political   and   social
phenomena,   of   their   interdependence,   and   of   their   historical   roots.   Taking   into   account   this   scientific
objective,  it  is  clear  why  the  presence  of  contemporary  history  has  been  considered  necessary  for  the  new
department,  even  though  its  scientific  sector  belongs  to  a  different  CUN  research  area.  A  number  of  inter-­
university  and  inter-­departmental  research  centers,  previously  based  in  other  departments,  will  join  the  new
department.
The   official   constitution   of   the   new   Department   of   Political   and   Social   Sciences   will   take   place   at   the
beginning  of  2013,  while  the  election  of  the  director  is  scheduled  for  October  2012.  Subsequently,  the  new
departments  will  work  on  the  creation  of  the  schools  as  the  structures  in  charge  for  coordinating  teaching
activities.  The  Department  of  Political  and  Social  Sciences  is  expected  to  join  forces  with  the  departments  of
Law  and  of  Economics  in  order  to  create  a  school  in  continuity  with  the  cultural  inheritance  and  tradition  of



08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 8/10

the  “Cesare  Alfieri”  Faculty,  the  first  school  of  political  and  social  sciences  in  Italy.

Political  Science  in  Siena:  sentiments,  rational  calculations  and  windows
of  opportunity
Pierangelo  Isernia
Having,  over  the  years,  developed  a  modicum  of  skepticism  about  the  “reforming”  spirit  that  periodically
animates  the  Italian  political  and  administrative  system,  I  am  quite  reluctant  to  step  into  the  discussion  of
what  the  Gelmini  reform  might  imply  for  the  small  group  of  political  scientists  in  Siena,  for  their  role  in  the
University  of  Siena  and,  even  less,  for  the  Italian  University  system  as  a  whole.  To  meet  the  kind  invitation
of  IPS’s  editor,  however,   I  will   first   tell   the  story  of  goals,  calculations,  and  strategic  moves  behind  the
decision  of  the  Siena  team  in  Political  Science  to  help  setting  up  a  brand  new  department  hosting  together,
for  the  first  time,  most  of  the  social  sciences  present  in  our  University.  Second,  I  will  offer  a  few  disparate
thoughts  about  the  future.  For  the  sake  of  clarity,  I  will  use  the  capital  letters  to  indicate  our  discipline  and
the  lower  letters  to  indicate  the  late  Faculty  of  political  sciences.
Political  Science  in  the  city  of  Palio  is  a  very  tiny  reality,  made  of  just  5  people  –  4  full  professors  and  an
assistant   professor   –   surrounded   in   the   old   Faculty   of   political   sciences   by   historians,   lawyers   and
economists.  Once  Faculties  were  doomed  to  disappear  by  Gelmini’s  fiat  two  alternatives  faced  us.  The  first
option  was  to  simply  transpose  the  Faculty  into  the  new  Department.  This  was  a  tempting  option  indeed.
Over   the   last   two   years   Political   Science   had,   in   fact,   come   to   play   a   crucial   and   visible   role   in   the
management  of  both  the  Department  and  the  Faculty  of  political  sciences.  Both  the  Director  of  Department
and  the  Dean  of  Faculty  were  two  political  scientists  coming  from  our  small  group.  Should  we  have  tried  to
preserve  this  leading  role  and  influence  more  than  anything  else?  The  alternative  was  to  create  something
new.  And  being  Political  Science  a  party  of  five,  this  immediately  raised  another  question:  with  whom?  We
were  not,  flattering  as  it  might  be,  short  of  offers,  coming  especially  from  the  two  economics  departments.
So  what  was  to  be  done?
Our  story  is  made  of  three  elements:  sentiments,  rational  calculations  and  windows  of  opportunity  and,  of
course,  it  did  not  unfold  in  the  rational,  coherent  way  I  pretend  it  did,  but  very  much  in  bits  and  pieces.  
Starting  with  the  cool,  rational  calculations,  three  considerations  were  up  in  our  minds.  First,  an  assessment
of  the  structural  context.  As  others  might  have  experienced,  when  Political  Science  –  as  a  discipline  –  is  a
minority,   life   is  not  easy  in  political  sciences  –  as  a  Faculty.  Life  for  Political  Science  in  a  world  in  which
others  play  the  hegemon  can  be  nasty  and  brutal  (how  short  we  do  not  know  yet,  in  Siena…).  Not  being  able
(for  lack  of  resources,  not  for  lack  of  lust  for  aggrandizing  the  power  of  Political  Science  in  Siena)  to  become
an   hegemon,   we   thought   that   life   would   have   probably   been   better   in   a   multipolar   world   (pace
Mearsheimer…),   in   which   you   compete   with   other   disciplines   more   or   less   of   you   size.   And   to   add   a
constructivist  twist,  if  the  system  had  a  common  culture  (especially  in  methodological  terms),  such  as  the
one  that  is  shared  by  social  sciences,  we  could  have  come  to  live  in  an  age  quite  similar  to  the  golden  one  of
the  balance  of  power  in  the  Nineteenth  century;;  admittedly  not  an  era  of  peace,  but  of  limited  conflicts  and
cross-­cutting  alliances.
Assuming  that  life  would  have  been  better  in  a  multipolar  world,  which  partners  should  we  have  chosen?  We
did   choose   partners   whose   methodological   underpinnings   were   as   homogeneous   as   possible   (given   the
available  options,  of  course)  to  ours.  We  did  so  for  two  reasons;;  or,  if  you  like,  under  a  couple  of  working
hypotheses   that  are,  as   such,   still   untested  and  only   time  will   tell  whether   they  were  correct.  The   first
hypothesis  is  that  we  need  to  rethink  how  political  science  –  as  a  set  of  teaching  curricula  –  was  taught  in
Siena,  injecting  into  it  a  greater  dose  of  scientific  and  empirical  research  and  less  “interdisciplinarity”  à   la
carte.   Siena   is   a   medium-­size   University   that   has   not   the   luxury   of   a   vast   endowment   of   young   and
ambitious  would-­be  students   to  draw  upon.   It   crucially  depends  on   its  capacity   to  attract  students   from
Tuscany  and  outside  (around  35%  of  our  students  come  from  other  regions  of  Italy).  We  hypothesized  that
making  the  teaching  offer  (the  so  called  offerta  formativa)  more  coherent,  scientific  and  empirical   could
possibly   capture  an   increasing  share  of   this  mobile  group  of   Italian  students.  Unfortunately,  not  all   our



08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 9/10

colleagues  in  the  old  Faculty  of  political  sciences  shared  this  conviction.  On  the  contrary,  for  many  of  them
the  core  teaching  component  of  a  strong  political  sciences  department  was  and  still  is  a  solid  formation  in
legal  and/or  historical  disciplines  and,  the  more  of  them  the  better.  We  believe  otherwise.  
The  second  hypothesis  (or  bet?)  is  that,  in  the  future,  the  results  of  the  evaluation  system  for  both  teaching
and  research  will  play  a  greater  role   in  allocating  resources,   in   influencing  recruitment  and   in  catalyzing
projects  and  initiatives.  Any  future  Department  will  actively  compete  in  an  environment  in  which,  at  both  the
local  (i.e.  Siena)  and  national  level,  the  results  of  the  evaluation  process  will  determine  its  growth.  In  this
connection,  we  thought  that  we  needed  to  join  with  people  that  appreciated  the  need  to  carry  forward  a
vibrant  research  program.  
These  calculations  were  met  by  a  sentiment:  the  human  desire  for  change.  Having  (some  of  us)  spent  20  to
30  years  with  the  same  old  chaps,  Political  Scientists  wanted  to  try  new  ones.  In  marriage,  this  is  not  always
seen  as  positive.  We  think  it  has  a  positive  side  in  other  contexts.
As  in  the  garbage  can  model  of  decision  making  (not  incidentally  first  conceived  to  explain  the  University
system)   sentiments   and   calculations   –   no   matter   how   strongly   shared   by   our   small   group   of   Political
Scientists  –  had  to  find  a  window  of  opportunity  to  transform  themselves  into  an  institutional  program.  And
here  the  window  came,  when  we  were  approached  by  a  group  of  social  scientists,  based  respectively  in  the
Department   of   Communication   and   of   Social   Sciences   and   Philosophy   (both   located   in   the   Faculty   of
Humanities),  who  invited  us  to  consider  the  possibility  of  joining  forces  in  creating  for  the  first  time  a  social
science  department  at  the  University  of  Siena.  
To  go  down  this  road  was  quite  a  departure  from  our  initial,  incremental,  plans.  It  implied,  in  organizational
term,  to  fuse  scientific  groups  coming  from  different  walks  of  life,  never  used  to  work  together  and  to  face
resistances  (that  indeed  quickly  materialized)  from  those  sectors  of  the  old  Faculty  of  political  sciences  less
eager   to   see   legal   and   historical   studies   being   “diluted”   into   the   larger   (and   turbulent?)   sea   of   social
sciences.  And  here  the  major  debate  came.  It  was  acrimonious,  but  at  time  also  passionate  and  articulated,
both  within  the  old  Faculty  –  on  what  political  sciences  should  offer  both  in  terms  of  training  for  students  and
research  –  and  among  those  keener  to  follow  the  new  project  –  on  what  a  Department  of  Social  Sciences
means  in  Siena  and  what  it  should  and  could  offer  in  terms  of  teaching  and  research.  Let  me  add  that  the
Political   Science   team,   as   always   working   hand   in   hand,   played   a   key   role   in   making   all   this   possible,
following  to  the  word  the  teachings  of  strategists  like  Thomas  Schelling  and  Alexander  George.
The  results  are  not  exactly  what  an  Olympic  mind  would  have  designed.  Part  of  the  reason  is  that  in  Siena
we  are  short  of  gods,  and  professors  (myself  first  in  the  row)  are  much  more  at  ease  in  teaching  strategy
than   in   actually   practicing   it,   but   this   is   what   happened:   the   old   Faculty   of   political   sciences   split   itself.
Approximately  one  third  of  it  (including  all  those  trained  in  social  sciences  and  some  historians  more  used
and  keen  to  work  with  the  other  social  sciences)  decided  to  join  the  project  of  a  new  Department,  quickly
named  the  Department  of  Social,  Political  and  Cognitive  Sciences  (DISPOC),  while  those  remaining  set  up
another  Department  (also  with  political  sciences   in  the  title).  And  here  we  are,  ready  to  roll   in   this  new
Department,  made  of  more  than  40  people,  ranging  from  psychology,  to  economics,  from  political  science  to
anthropology,  from  sociology  to  geography,  with  some  engineers  and  computer  scientists  as  well.  Too  early
to  say  whether  the  bird  will  fly  high.  We  will  definitely  try  hard.  In  all  cases,  we  look  forward  to  the  fun  as
well  as  the  debates  and  controversies  and,  alas,  the  bureaucratic  hurdles.
What  have  I  learned  from  this  experience  that  can  be  relevant  for  others?  Some  lessons  are  more  personal
and,  may  be,  harder  to  generalize.  First  and  foremost  that  leadership,  when  you  embark  yourself  upon  the
task  of  changing  (no  matter  how  little)  things,  is  more  about  patience  and  tolerance  for  your  counterpart’s
arguments  than  about  power  and  influence.  
What  role  for  Political  Science  (the  discipline)  in  the  future  of  Siena?  My  impression  is  that  the  reform,  at
least  as  interpreted  locally,  makes  the  future  of  Political  Science  possibly  more  problematic,  especially  when
it   will   come   to   the   recruitment   stage   (a   prospective   quite   far   away   in   the   future   as   far   as   Siena   is
concerned).  In  the  past,  at  least  in  Siena,  major  decisions  about  recruitment  were  taken  through  logrolling
and  bargaining  first  at  the  faculty  level  and  then  at  the  Senate  level.  It  is  not  clear  how  all  this  process  will
unfold  in  the  future.  For  sure,  Departments  will  not  have  anymore,  like  old  Faculties  had,  a  sounding  board
like  the  Academic  Senate  to  make  the  voices  of  different  institutions  and  interests  heard.  In  Siena,  as  an
example,  out  of  13  departments  no  more  than  8  will  find  a  seat  in  the  Senate,  2  for  each  of  the  four  big



08/07/2013 Italian Political Science: Political science in Italy after the last University reform

www.italianpoliticalscience.eu/issue7/political-science-in-italy-after-the-last-university-reform 10/10

“Areas”  in  which  sciences  have  been  divided  in  Siena.  
In  the  new  Gelmini  system,  I  suspect  that  small  size  disciplines  like  ours  that  cannot  play  the  hegemon  will
be  able  to  make  themselves  heard  both  in  the  Departments  and  at  the  University  level  only  through  two
indirect  channels:  students  and  research;;  how  many  students  you  attract  and  how  much  money  you  bring  to
the  University.  This  might  be  good  or  bad,  as  far  as  it  goes.  Political  Science  is  no  match  for  natural  science
departments   (although   DISPOC   budget,   based   on   the   last   three   years   average,   in   terms   of   financial
resources   ranks   first   among   the   soft   sciences   and   fifth   overall).   But   we   do   feel   we   can   compete   for
excellence  and  quality.  However,  for  leveling  the  playing  field  we  need  a  strong  and  independent  evaluation
system,   able   to   take   into   account   the   specificities   of   the   different   disciplines   and   to   reward   those
Departments  that  do  good  and  to  punish  those  that  do  badly,  with  a  view  to  encouraging  them  to  do  better
next  time.  How  much  the  ANVUR  system  is  able  to  deliver  such  a  result  it  is  probably,  like  for  the  French
Revolution,  too  soon  to  say,  but  it  is  something  that  deserves  a  careful  monitoring  by  all  of  us  in  Political
Science,  the  discipline.

Political  Science  in  Turin:  three  departments  into  one
Luigi  Bobbio
There  are  at  present  16  political  scientists  at  the  University  of  Turin  (5  ordinari,  1  associato,  10  ricercatori).
Fifteen  of  them  are  classified  in  the  sector  SPS/04  (Political  science)  and  one  in  the  sector  SPS/11  (Political
sociology).   In  a   couple  of  months  we  will   have   four  new  entries   (three  SPS/04   and   one   SPS/11)   –   as
temporary  “Gelmini”  researchers  –  and  the  overall  number  of  political  scientists  will  rise  to  twenty.  
All  political  scientists  were  part  of  the  Faculty  of  Political  Sciences  which  is  soon  going  to  disappear.  Political
science  was  taught  only  in  courses  run  by  this  faculty.
The  new  department.  A  new  large  department  has  been  set  up,  through  the  fusion  of  three  pre-­existing
departments  (Political  studies,  Social  sciences,  and  Anthropology).  The  new  Department  of  “Cultures,  Politics
and   Society”   gathers   sociologists,   political   scientists,   anthropologists,   political   philosophers,   historians   of
political   thought,   some  historians,   some  geographers  and  some   foreign   language  specialists.  All  political
scientists  but  one  have  joined  the  new  department.  They  are  then  15  over  a  total  membership  of  97.  The
director  of  the  new  department   is  a  sociologist.  There  are  two  vice-­directors:  a  political  scientist  and  an
anthropologist.
Nothing  changed  in  the  courses  that  are  at  present  run  by  the  Department  often  in  cooperation  with  other
Departments  (mainly  Law  and  Economics).
Phd  program.  The  institution  of  the  new  department  has  entailed  a  change  in  the  Phd  program,  that  from
the  next  year  will  be  called  “Doctoral  school  in  sociology  and  political  studies”  and  will  gather  sociologists,
political  scientists,  political  philosophers  and  historians  of  political  thought.
Perspectives.  Perspectives  for  political  science  at  the  University  of  Turin  seem  to  be  not  too  bad.

Notes
1  The  views  expressed  in  this  paper  are  entirely  personal,  and  do  not  institutionally  involve  any  academic
organization  to  which  the  author  belongs.