Recently, it has been debated whether to continue supporting political science research by National Science Foundation . The debate is taking place at Congress level and political scientists have been informed by ongoing debates , mobilized by emails, written petitions etc. to keep their funding. To start with, NSF funds are crucially important for research in U.S and a substantive numbers of Polsci students have used them so far.
As in all cases, when an issue is being debated, we are likely to see contradicting opinions from experts. In a recent one of them, a NY Times op-ed from a Political Scientist herself Jacqueline Stevens revealed her critical opinion towards polsci and its conclusions as being predictive with statistical modelling. You can find the article here.
On the opposing side, polsci researchers started arguing against her in their blogs etc.
I will share some of these responses to her here,
Jay Ulfelder: an American political scientist who theorizes and forecasts political development and instability. Here is what he thinks, in his blog.
Monkey cage: Here is what they think. Why Stevens is wrong?
The Duck of Minerva: When political scientists do not understand political science.
You can suggest any further links on the topic, I will add once I come across with anymore.