In this article, the content of the book "Reviving Political Science; A Discourse on the practice of politics" by Hossein Bashiryeh is examined and evaluated; In this book, Hossein Bashiryeh, a researcher, lecturer, and translator of various works of political science, makes a serious critique from the perspective of efficiency by paying attention to the method and approach to political science; Criticism in the method of "positivism" and the need to go beyond "description" and "explanation" and present a path called "politics" - which is based on prescription and guidance based on wisdom and philosophy - is the main content of the book Revival of Political Science. In this article, in addition to re-reading the author's views and opinions on the shortcomings and problems of political knowledge, her views are evaluated by the method of qualitative content analysis. Findings indicate that the barriers to efficiency are beyond Bashiryeh's view in the book Revival of Political Science. Apart from the importance of the issue of the efficiency of political knowledge, it is also important how the issue is raised and its problematic nature, which is also evaluated.


Introduction

The importance of this book derives both from its author and from its subject matter, which addresses a challenging and significant issue concerning political science, namely the effectiveness and practical applicability of the discipline. The author is regarded as one of the prominent figures in political science in Iran, particularly in terms of theoretical innovation and the preparation and provision of important academic resources. The books and works of Hossein Bashiriyeh are considered among the major and reference texts in political science and academic scholarship in Iran. The hypothesis is that the obstacles to the effectiveness of political science are not limited to those identified by Bashiriyeh in Reviving Political Science, and that there are additional factors that contribute to this issue.

Materials & Methods
Reviving Political Science provides a historical presentation of the content, major themes, and appropriate methodology of political science. In its opening chapter, it begins with ancient Greece in the West—Plato and Aristotle—and Islamic political philosophy in the East—Al-Farabi and Avicenna—and then moves to the early modern West, particularly Machiavelli and Hobbes, as early thinkers in modern political science. It subsequently discusses thinkers who contributed to the development of the modern period while remaining, in some respects, aligned with the older tradition of political philosophy, such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Dewey. In another chapter, Bashiriyeh addresses the “separation of political science from politics.
According to the author himself, the central problem addressed by Reviving Political Science is that “during the last century, political science has become depoliticized; sociological and historical approaches have come to dominate it, and political science has become devoid of substantive content... The dominance of positivism and behaviorism, and the emphasis on explanation and description rather than policy, reform, and change, have caused political science to lose its significance, mission, and usefulness”.
In this regard, Bashiriyeh argues that in the past, thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Muslim and Christian religious scholars such as Al-Farabi and Avicenna engaged in practical philosophy. In their view, ethics and politics were inseparable, and power was an instrument for realizing the ultimate good and the highest ideals. However, as a result of conflicts between emperors, kings, and popes in the Christian world, and between caliphs and emirs in the Islamic world, a reversal occurred in the field of political thought. Within this conception, “ends” and “means” became conflated, and the means and instruments themselves became ends. In the past, power had been an instrument for achieving an end; during this period, power itself—its preservation and expansion—became the objective. Thinkers such as Machiavelli and Hobbes in the West and Nizam al-Mulk and Ibn Jama'ah in the Islamic world analyzed politics through such an approach, making power itself the object of concern.

Discussion & Result
The issue of the lack of connection between “political science” and the “sphere of practice,” as well as the loss of its usefulness and mission, has also been raised by other scholars, particularly within discussions concerning the effectiveness, efficiency, and practical application of the discipline. The overall result of their views concerning the condition of political science is the emergence of expressions and formulations that, taken together, can be understood as referring to a “crisis” within the discipline and body of knowledge of political science.
From the perspective of critics who characterize the current condition of political science as problematic and detrimental, attention should be paid, on the one hand, to the scientific discourse of the discipline and its epistemological and methodological issues and, on the other hand, to external issues that affect the discipline of political science in Iran and determine the way in which this science and its practitioners interact with the world outside the discipline.

1. Internal Issues and Challenges of Political Science in Iran
These include:
1. The problem of the unclear purpose and substantive content of political science, or the uncertainty surrounding the essential identity of the discipline of political science in Iran;
2. Method and methodology, including the dominance of positivist approaches in political science and weaknesses in critical methodology or in the analytical processing of political knowledge;
3. The dominant approach and logic governing political science, including:
- the tension between traditional and modern scientific logic and its influence on political knowledge;
- fragmentation of perspectives resulting from different viewpoints within the discipline of political science;
- disagreement concerning the conceptualization of power and differences in the epistemological foundations of political power;
- the structure of political knowledge;
4. Insufficient attention to Iran's political and social history;
5. The overly complex language of political science; and
6. The lack of clarity concerning the substantive dimensions of the political in the discipline of political science in Iran.

2. External Issues and Challenges of Political Science in Iran
These include:
1. Issues related to education, including:
- the failure to localize and indigenize the discipline of political science;
- issues concerning quality in the relationship between professors and students, as well as the quality of the professors themselves;
- issues concerning quality in relation to financial and budgetary resources;
2. The issue of indigenization and Islamization;
3. Unemployment among graduates and related issues;
4. Issues related to scientific and educational policymaking;
5. The increase in student enrollment at different educational levels;
6. The issue of collective rationality in communication and interaction among political science professors;
7. The culture of political research, as shaped by the prevailing social and political structure;
8. The shortage and absence of a liberal and open environment and a rule-based institutional context; and
9. The perceived lack of societal need for political science.

Conclusion
this book constitutes an important entry point for increasing the effectiveness and practical utility of political knowledge. Nevertheless, its various dimensions need to be further explored. The fact that a prominent scholar of political science has addressed this issue certainly makes the subject worthy of further examination and scrutiny. The significance of the work lies both in the standing of its author and in the problem he has raised concerning contemporary political science in Iran. It is also noteworthy that a significant change or transformation appears to have taken place in the thought and intellectual approach of such a prominent author and teacher. The reasons for this transformation and the process through which he arrived at the perspective presented in the book could themselves constitute a separate subject of investigation and analysis.