The question, “What kind of political science would you like to seein the next 10 years?” raises several problems: Should I consult myself-serving or my communitarian self in framing an answer? Should Isay what practices I would prefer? Or should I recommend whatdirections the profession should take? More generally, should we betalking about the organization of political science? Or should werefer to the profession's current epistemological conundrums? In hisScience as a Vocation, Max Weber firstaddresses the structure and economic incentives of German universitycareers, then turns to more philosophical questions: What is“science”? What meanings and usages does “science” convey? Whatquestions can it answer? (Answer: it cannot tell us how to live.) Isit cumulative? Or is Thomas Kuhn right about the noncumulativenature of scientific revolutions? Focusing on the epistemologicalissues, I'll try to avoid the monopolistic question, “What directionshould the profession take?” in favor of the pluralist question,“What variety of knowledge regimes would I like the profession toenable?”