We should to encourage dissertation committees across sub-fields and consider appointments of faculty members who cross these boundaries. Universities must approach these changes carefully. The pressure to redefine ourselves creates dangers as well as opportunities. As political scientists try to think broadly, they usually move to the systematic investigation of many cases drawn from different regions. As a result, area specialization receives less attention, lower status, and fewer resources.
Glibness is a risk.
Moreover, traditional sub- field boundaries have a purpose, and departments must think creatively about new ways to fulfill the functions these divisions serve. For example, there is a broad societal interest in fostering expertise about politics in other parts of the world in this country. For this reason, the U.S. Department of Education has long offered incentives for the creation of area studies centers and area expertise in the disciplines. Moreover, it is all too easy for the standards applied in data-rich parts of the discipline, such as the study of American politics, to drive judgments about the form and character of research, as well as promotion and tenure. The old sub-field boundaries help limit the Americanization of the discipline.