But sociologists and historians are likely to pay greater attention to political theoretical developments in this field than they would in other political science subfields. The nomothetic versus ideographic debate plays out in this area as in others, and it is not clear that political science is the lead discipline in the study of civil-military relations anyway. Sociologists and historians would no doubt balk at the prominence given to political science theory in this essay. Factors of direct concern to sociologists-for instance, the integration of the military with society-are of interest only insofar as they may relate causally to the primary political question of who decides what, when, how, and with what effect. As distinct from sociologists, political scientists focus primarily on institutions of political control.
Political scientists seek not so much to describe what happened in a particular instance as to explain what happens in general and, if possible, predict what is likely to happen in the next case, given the ceteris paribus constraint. Political scientists, as distinct from historians, tend to look for patterned generalizations of cause and effect. This essay focuses on the political science component of the subfield, making mention of associated disciplines as necessary.
The interdisciplinary nature is neatly captured in the subfield's indispensable lead journal, Armed Forces & Society, and may help explain why nominally mainstream but increasingly insular political science journals such as American Political Science Review have made less of a contribution to the subfield in the past few decades. Historians, sociologists, political scientists, and policy analysts all have made major contributions to the field and, perhaps more surprising, regularly read and respond to each other's work in this area. Civil-military relations is one of the truly interdisciplinary fields of study in social science.