Element contents
Series: Elements in Public Policy
Pragmatism and the Origins of the Policy Sciences
Rediscovering Lasswell and the Chicago School
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 March 2019
Summary
This Element presents an examination of the origins of the policy sciences in the School of Pragmatism at the University of Chicago in the period 1915–38. Harold D. Lasswell, the principal creator of the policy sciences, based much of his work on the perspectives of public policy of John Dewey and other pragmatists at Chicago. Characteristics of the policy sciences include orientations that are normative, policy-relevant, contextual, and multi-disciplinary. These orientations originate in pragmatist principles of the unity of knowledge and action and functionalist explanations of action by reference to values. These principles are central to the future development of the policy sciences.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Public PolicyOnline ISBN: 9781108676540Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 14 March 2019
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1974b). Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Adelstein, R. (1992). Lindblom, Charles E.. Division II Faculty Publications. Paper 92. Available at: http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/div2facpubs/92.Google Scholar
Adler, M. J. (1977). Philosopher at Large: An Intellectual Autobiography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Almond, G. A. (1987). Harold Dwight Lasswell, 1902–1978: A Biographical Memoir. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Almond, G. A. (2004). Who Lost the Chicago School of Political Science? Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), pp. 91–93.Google Scholar
Ansell, C. K. (2011). Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning As Public Philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, W. (1978). Forecasting: An Appraisal for Policy-Makers and Planners. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Ascher, W. and Hirschfelder-Ascher, B. (2004). Revitalizing Political Psychology: The Legacy of Harold D. Lasswell. Chicago, IL: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Atkins, W. E. and Lasswell, H. D. (1924). Labor Attitudes and Problems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Auer, M. R. (2007). The Policy Sciences in Critical Perspective. In Rabin, J., Hildreth, W. B., Miller, G. J., and Rabin, J., eds., Handbook of Public Administration, 3rd edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, pp. 541–562.Google Scholar
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bimber, B. (1998). The Death of an Agency: OTA and Trophy Hunting in US Budget Policy. Policy Studies Review, 15(2–3), pp. 202–225.Google Scholar
Bower, J. L. (1968). Descriptive Decision Theory from the “Administrative” Viewpoint. In Bauer, R. A. and Gergen, K. J., eds., The Study of Policy Formation. New York, NY: Free Press, chapter 3.Google Scholar
Boyer, J. W. (2015). The University of Chicago: A History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Braybrooke, D. and Lindblom, C. E. (1963). A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation As a Social Process. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Brewer, G. D. and DeLeon, P. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Bromley, D. W. (2006). Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, S. R. (2002). Structural and Functional Information. Policy Sciences, 35(3), pp. 285–304.Google Scholar
Brunner, R. D. (1991). The Policy Movement As a Policy Problem. Policy Sciences, 24(1), pp. 65–98.Google Scholar
Brunner, R. D. (1997). Introduction to the Policy Sciences. Policy Sciences, 30(4), pp. 191–215.Google Scholar
Bulmer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, and the Rise of Sociological Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, E. W. (1916). The Social Survey: A Field for Constructive Service by Departments of Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 21(3), pp. 492–500.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1988). Epistemology and Methodology for Social Science: Collected Papers. Samuel Overman, E., ed., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Carey, J. T. (1975). Sociology & Public Affairs: The Chicago School. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest Editorial: Wicked Problems. Management Science 14(4), pp. B141–B142.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Corbacıoğlu, S. (2008). Invisible University in Public Policy Analysis: Cognitive and Social Networks among Six Social Scientists. Review of Public Administration, 2(4), pp. 27–54.Google Scholar
Couch, M. B. (2011). Causal Role Theories of Functional Explanation. In Fieser, J. and Dowden, B., eds., Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer Reviewed Academic Resource. Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/COUCRT [Accessed June 28, 2016].Google Scholar
Coughlin, N. (1973). Young John Dewey: An Essay in American Intellectual History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crick, B. (1959). The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
DeLeon, P. (1988). Advice and Consent: The Development of the Policy Sciences. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
DeLeon, P. (1992). The Democratization of the Policy Sciences. Public Administration Review, 52(2), pp. 125–129.Google Scholar
DeLeon, P. (1994). Reinventing the Policy Sciences: Three Steps Back to the Future. Policy Sciences, 27(1), pp. 77–95.Google Scholar
DeLeon, P. (1999). The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going? In Sabatier, P. A., ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 19–32.Google Scholar
DeLeon, P. (2006). The Historical Roots of the Field. In Moran, M., Rein, M., and Dery, R. E., eds., Problem Definition in Policy Analysis. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Deutsch, K., Platt, J., and Senghaas, (1970). Major Advances in Social Science since 1900: An Analysis of Conditions and Effects of Creativity. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
Deutsch, K., Markovits, A., and Platt, J., eds. (1986). Advances in the Social Sciences, 1900–1986. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1896). The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology. The Psychological Review 3(4), pp. 357–370.Google Scholar
Diesing, P. (1992). How Does Social Science Work? Reflections on Practice. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, W. N. (1988). Forethoughts: The Disputed Paternity of Technological Innovation. Knowledge in Society, 1(2), pp. 3–6.Google Scholar
Dzuback, M. A. (1991). Robert M. Hutchins: Portrait of an Educator. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Easton, D. (1950). Harold Lasswell: Policy Scientist for a Democratic Society. Journal of Politics, 12(3), pp. 450–477.Google Scholar
Eulau, H. and Zlomke, S. (1999). Harold Lasswell’s Legacy to Mainstream Political Science: A Neglected Agenda. American Review of Political Science, 2, pp. 75–89.Google Scholar
Falk, R. A., Higgins, R., Reisman, W., and Weston, B. (1998). Myres Smith McDougal (1906–1998). American Journal of International Law, 92(4), pp. 729–733.Google Scholar
Farr, J., Hacker, J. S., and Kazee, N. (2006). The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell. American Political Science Review, 100(4), pp. 579–587.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. and Miller, G.J. eds., (2006). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Garrison, J. (2009). Dewey’s Constructivism: From the Reflex Arc Concept to Social Constructivism. In Hickman, L. , S. Neubert and K. Reich eds., John Dewey: Between Pragmatism and Constructivism. New York, NY: Fordham University Press, pp. 84–105.Google Scholar
Gerring, J. (2010). Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But …. Comparative Political Studies, 43(11), pp. 1499–1526.Google Scholar
Goodspeed, T. W. (1916). A History of the University of Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gulick, L. and Urwick, L., eds. (1937). Papers on the Science of Administration. New York, NY: Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
Hausman, D. M. (1992). The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic Review, 35(4), pp. 519–530.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1959). The Logic of Functional Analysis. In Gross, L., ed., Symposium on Sociological Theory. Evanston, IL: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Hickman, L., Neubert, S. and Reich, K. eds. (2009). John Dewey: Between Pragmatism and Constructivism. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy Analysis, Science and Politics: From “Speaking Truth to Power” to “Making Sense Together.” Science and Public Policy, 26(3), pp. 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbens, G. and Rubin, D. (2015). Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism, a New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking: Popular Lectures on Philosophy. New York, NY: Longman, Green, and Company.Google Scholar
Jann, W. and Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the Policy Cycle. In Fischer, F. and G. J. Miller, eds., Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 69–88.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. and Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The Study of the Public Policy Process. In Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H. C., eds., Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Jones, C. O. (1977). An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, 2nd edn. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Kagel, A. and Roth, A. (1995). Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Karl, B. D. (1975). Charles E. Merriam and the Study of Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1938). Propaganda Technique in the World War. New York, NY: P. Smith.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1941). The Garrison State. American Journal of Sociology, 46(4), pp. 455–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. In Bryson, L., ed., The Communication of Ideas. New York, NY: Institute for Religious and Social Studies, pp. 215–228.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The Policy Orientation. In Lerner, D. and Lasswell, H. D., eds., The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1956a). The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. Lanham, MD: Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1956b). The Political Science of Science: An Inquiry into the Possible Reconciliation of Mastery and Freedom. American Political Science Review, 50(4), pp. 961–979.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1960). Technique of Decision Seminars. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 4(3), pp. 213–236.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1965). World Politics and Personal Insecurity. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1971a). The Cross-Disciplinary Manifold: The Chicago Prototype. In Lepawsky, A. and Buehrig, E., eds., Search for World Order. New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts, pp. 417–428.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1971b). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York, NY: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. and Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. and Leites, N. C. (1965). Language of Politics: Studies in Quantitative Semantics. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. and McDougal, M. S. (1943). Legal Education and Public Policy: Professional Training in the Public Interest. Yale Law Journal, 52(2), pp. 203–295.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. and McDougal, M. S. (1992). Jurisprudence for a Free Society: Studies in Law, Science, and Policy. 2 vols. New Haven, CT: New Haven Press/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Lerner, D., ed. (1959). The Human Meaning of the Social Sciences. New York, NY: World Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lerner, D. and Lasswell, H. D., eds. (1951). The Policy Sciences. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making through Mutual Adjustment. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. and Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lynd, R. S. (1939). Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in American Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
May, J. V. and Wildavsky, A., eds. (1979). The Policy Cycle. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
McDougal, M. S., Lasswell, H. D., and Reisman, W. M. (1967). The World Constitutive Process of Authoritative Decision. Journal of Legal Education, 19(3), pp. 253–230.Google Scholar
McDougal, M. S., Lasswell, H. D., and Reisman, W. M. (1972). The Intelligence Function and World Public Order. Temple Law Quarterly, 46, p. 365.Google Scholar
Mitroff, I. I. (1974). The Subjective Side of Science: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Psychology of the Apollo Moon Scientists. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific.Google Scholar
Moore, A. W. (1910). Pragmatism and Its Critics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1968). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York, NY: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Nakamura, R. T. (1987). The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research. Review of Policy Research, 7(1), 142–154.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences (2009). The Use of Scientific Evidence in Public Policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (2016). Comparative Governance: Rediscovering the Functional Dimension of Governing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, J. D. and Simonson, P. (2004). Mass Communication and American Social Thought: Key Texts, 1919–1968. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Polsby, N. W., Dentler, R. A., and Smith, P. A. (1963). Politics and Social Life: An Introduction to Political Behavior. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Quade, E. S. (1989). Analysis for Public Decisions. 3rd rev. edn., Carter, G. M., ed. New York, NY: North Holland.Google Scholar
Rein, M. and White, S. (1977). Policy research: Belief and doubt. Policy Analysis, 4(3), pp. 239–271.Google Scholar
Reisman, W. M. (1998). Theory about Law: Jurisprudence for a Free Society. Yale Law Journal, 108, pp. 935–937.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1980). Induction: An Essay on the Justification of Inductive Reasoning. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1995). Pragmatism. In Honderich, T., ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 710–714.Google Scholar
Rice, S. and Lasswell, H. D., eds. (1931). Methods in the Social Sciences: A Case Book. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1999). Truth without Correspondence to Reality. In R. Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
Rucker, D. (1969). The Chicago Pragmatists: Dewey, Ames, Angell, Mead, Tufts, Moore. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1987). Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change: An Advocacy Coalition Framework. Science Communication, 8(4), pp. 649–692.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), pp. 129–168.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. PS: Political Science and Politics 24(June), pp. 147–156.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. ed. (1999, 2006). Theories of the Policy Process. 1st and 2nd edn. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C., eds. (2014). Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd edn. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schickore, J. and Steinle, F., eds. (2006). Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, Vol. 14. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Shadish, W., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Chicago, IL: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Shields, P. (2004). Classical Pragmatism: Engaging Practitioner Experience. Administration & Society, 36(3), pp. 351–361.Google Scholar
Shook, J. R. and Backe, A. (2001). The Chicago School of Functionalism. 3 vols. Bristol, UK: Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1944). Decision-Making and Administrative Organization. Public Administration Review, 4(1), pp. 16–30.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1973).The Structure of Ill Structured Problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), pp. 181–201.Google Scholar
Storr, R. J. (1966). A History of the University of Chicago: Harper’s University – The Beginnings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tomas, V., ed. (1957). Charles S. Peirce: Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Edited with an introduction by Vincent Tomas. New York, NY: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Torgerson, D. (1985). Contextual Orientation in Policy Analysis: The Contribution of Harold D. Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 18(3), pp. 241–261.Google Scholar
Tribe, L. H. (1972). Policy Science: Analysis or Ideology? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2(Fall), pp. 66–110.Google Scholar
Van Doren, J. and Roederer, C. J. (2012). McDougal-Lasswell Policy Science: Death and Transfiguration. Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, 11(2), pp. 125–157.Google Scholar
Von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and Understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, P., Weiss, C. H., Wittrock, B., and Wollman, H. (1994/2008). Social Science and Modern States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., and Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences (Vol. 111). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Webber, M. M. and Rittel, H. W. (1974). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), pp. 155–169.Google Scholar
Weimer, D. and Vining, A. (2015). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 5th edn. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository (1973). “Myres S. McDougal.” New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
- 26
- Cited by