Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-d5zgf Total loading time: 0.385 Render date: 2021-02-27T09:15:15.762Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2006

LEE SIGELMAN
Affiliation:
The George Washington University

Extract

In November of 1906, the 3-year-old American Political Science Association, boasting a membership of “nearly four hundred” (Shaw 1907, 185), launched a journal devoted to scholarship, reviews, and news of the profession. The fledgling American Political Science Review was not the first political science journal, having been preceded by Political Science Quarterly (founded in 1886) and the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1890). Nor, at first, was it even the foremost political science journal. Its founding editor, W. W. Willoughby of Johns Hopkins (1906–1916), and his immediate successor, John A. Fairlie of the University of Illinois (1917–1925), faced numerous challenges, not least that of finding enough papers to fill each issue; even after two decades the Review was still publishing “nearly all of the papers which have come to the editor…as well as articles from other sources” (Fairlie 1926, 182). For some time thereafter, Fairlie's successor, Frederic A. Ogg of the University of Wisconsin, handled just three dozen or so manuscripts per year (Patterson 1994, 6).

Type
“THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE” ESSAYS
Copyright
© 2006 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abbott Andrew. 1999. Department & Discipline: Chicago Sociology at One Hundred. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abbott Andrew. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Almond Gabriel A. 1988. “Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 21 (Autumn): 82842.Google Scholar
Amadae S. M., and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. 1999. “The Rochester School: The Origins of Positive Political Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science, ed. Nelson W. Polsby. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Volume 2, 26995.
Andrews William G. 1982. “Introduction: Freaks, Rainbows, and Pots of Gold.” In International Handbook of Political Science, ed. William G. Andrews. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 16.
Arnold R. Douglas. 1982. “Overtilled and Undertilled Fields in American Politics.” Political Science Quarterly 97 (Spring): 91103.Google Scholar
Bell Daniel. 1982. The Social Sciences Since the Second World War. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Bennett Andrew, Aharon Barth, and Kenneth R. Rutherford. 2003. “Do We Preach What We Practice? A Survey of Methods in Political Science Journals and Curricula.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (July): 37378.Google Scholar
Berndtson Erkki. 1987. “The Rise and Fall of American Political Science: Personalities, Quotations, Speculations.” International Political Science Review 8 (1): 85100.Google Scholar
Bluhm William T., Margaret G. Hermann, Walter F. Murphy, John S. Nelson, and Lucian W. Pye. 1985. “Political Science and the Humanities: A Report of the American Political Science Association.” PS 18 (Spring): 24759.Google Scholar
Bunche Ralph. 1954. “Presidential Address.” American Political Science Review 48 (December): 96171.Google Scholar
Büthe Tim. 2002. “Taking Temporality Seriously: Modeling History and the Use of Narratives as Evidence.” American Political Science Review 96 (September): 48193.Google Scholar
Cappell Charles L., and Thomas M. Guterbock. 1992. “Visible Colleges: The Social and Conceptual Structure of Sociology Specialties.” American Sociological Review 57 (April): 26673.Google Scholar
Carey George W. 1972. “Beyond Parochialism in Political Science.” In George J. Graham Jr., and George W. Carey (eds.), The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science. New York: David McKay, 3753.
Cobban Alfred. 1953. “The Decline of Political Theory.” Political Science Quarterly 68 (September): 32137.Google Scholar
Collini Stefan, Donald Winch, and John Burrow. 1983. That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth Century Intellectual History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Converse Jean M. 1987. Survey Research in the United States: Roots & Emergence 1890–1960. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Davis James A. 1994. “What's Wrong with Sociology?Sociological Forum 9 (June): 17997.Google Scholar
Deutsch Karl W., John Platt, and Dieter Senghaas. 1971. “Conditions Favoring Major Advances in Social Science.” Science 171 (5 February): 45059.Google Scholar
Dryzek John S., and Stephen T. Leonard. 1988. “History and Discipline in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 82 (December): 124560.Google Scholar
Easton David. 1997. “The Future of the Postbehavioral Phase in Political Science.” In Contemporary Empirical Political Theory, ed. Kristen Renwick Monroe. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1346.
Elman Colin. 2004. “Extending Offensive Realism: The Louisiana Purchase and America's Rise to Regional Hegemony.” American Political Science Review 98 (November): 56376.Google Scholar
Eulau Heinz. 1976. “Understanding Political Life in America: The Contribution of Political Science.” Social Science Quarterly 57 (June): 11254.Google Scholar
Fairlie John A. 1926. “The American Political Science Review.” American Political Science Review 20 (February): 18184.Google Scholar
Farr James. 1988a. “The History of Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (November): 117595.Google Scholar
Farr James. 1995. “Remembering the Revolution: Behavioralism in American Political Science.” In Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions, ed. James Farr, John S. Dryzek, and Stephen T. Leonard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198224.
Farr James, John Gunnell, Raymond Seidelman, John S. Dryzek, and Stephen T. Leonard. 1990. “Can Political Science History Be Neutral?American Political Science Review 84 (June): 587607.Google Scholar
Friedrich Carl J. 1947. “Political Science in the United States in Wartime.” American Political Science Review 41 (October): 97889.Google Scholar
Garand James C. 2005. “Integration and Fragmentation in Political Science: Exploring Patterns of Scholarly Communication in a Divided Discipline.” Journal of Politics 67 (November): 9791005.Google Scholar
Garand James C., and Micheal W. Giles. 2003. “Journals in the Discipline: A Report on a New Survey of American Political Scientists.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (April): 293308.Google Scholar
Gaus John M. 1934. “The Teaching Personnel in American Political Science Departments: A Report of the Sub-Committee on Personnel of the Committee on Policy to the American Political Science Association, 1934.” American Political Science Review 28 (August): 72665.Google Scholar
Giles Micheal W. 1996. “From Gutenberg to Gigabytes: Scholarly Communication in the Age of Cyberspace.” Journal of Politics 58 (August): 61326.Google Scholar
Goodin Robert, and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 1996. “Political Science: The Discipline.” In Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (Eds.), A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 149.
Gosnell Harold F. 1933. “Statisticians and Political Scientists.” American Political Science Review 27 (June): 392403.Google Scholar
Gow David John. 1985. “Quantification and Statistics in the Early Years of American Political Science, 1880–1922.” Political Methodology 11: 118.Google Scholar
Grant J. Tobin. 2005. “What Divides Us? The Image and Organization of Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38 (July): 37986.Google Scholar
Gregory Charles N. 1907. “The Recent Controversy as to the British Jurisdiction Over Foreign Fishermen More than Three Miles from Shore: Mortensen v. Peters.” American Political Science Review 1 (May): 41037.Google Scholar
Grofman Bernard. 1997. “Seven Durable Axes of Cleavage in Political Science.” In Contemporary Empirical Political Theory, ed. Kristen Renwick Monroe. Berkeley: University of California Press, 7386.
Gunnell John G. 1986. Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienation of Political Theory. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Guthrie Kevin M. 2000. “Revitalizing Older Published Literature: Preliminary Lessons from the Use of JSTOR.” PEAK Conference (23 March). http://www.jstor.org/about/preliminarylessons.html.
Hajjar Sami G., James S. Bowman, and John B. Richard. 1975. “A Portrait of the Discipline: The Professional Literature of Political Science in the Seventies.” Political Science Reviewer 5 (Fall): 36182.Google Scholar
Hamblin Robert L., and Jerry L. Miller. 1976. “Reinforcement and the Origin, Rate and Extent of Cultural Diffusion.” Social Forces 54 (June): 74359.Google Scholar
Hargens Lowell L., and Lisa Kelly-Wilson. 1994. “Determinants of Disciplinary Discontent.” Social Forces 72 (June): 117795.Google Scholar
Hawley Claude E., and Lewis A. Dexter. 1952. “Recent Political Science Research in American Universities.” American Political Science Review 46 (June): 47085.Google Scholar
Herring Pendleton. 1953. “On the Study of Government.” American Political Science Review 47 (December): 96174.Google Scholar
Hudson James R., and Patricia A. Hudson. 2005. “Associations and Their Journals: The Search for an ‘Official’ Voice.” Sociological Perspectives 48 (2): 27189.Google Scholar
Hull Adrian Prentice. 1999. “Comparative Political Science: An Inventory and Assessment since the 1980's.” PS: Political Science & Politics 32 (March): 11724.Google Scholar
Hutter James L. 1972. “Quantification in Political Science: An Examination of Seven Journals.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16 (May): 31323.Google Scholar
Katznelson Ira. 2005. “Which Liberalism?” Perspectives on Politics 3 (June): 310.Google Scholar
Katznelson Ira, and Helen V. Milner. 2002. “American Political Science: The Discipline's State and the State of the Discipline.” In Political Science: State of the Discipline, ed., Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner. New York: Norton, pp. 126.
Kaufman-Osborn Timothy V. 2006. “Dividing the Domain of Political Science: On the Fetishism of Subfields.” Polity 38 (January): 4171.Google Scholar
Key V. O., Jr. 1958. “The State of the Discipline.” American Political Science Review 52 (December): 96171.Google Scholar
King Gary. 1991. “On Political Methodology.” In James A. Stimson (Ed.), Political Analysis, Volume 2 1990. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 130.
Kuhn Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laponce J. A. 1980. “Political Science: An Import-Export Analysis of Journals and Footnotes.” Political Studies 28 (September): 40119.Google Scholar
Lepawsky Albert. 1964. “The Politics of Epistemology.” Western Political Quarterly 17 (September, supplement): 2152.Google Scholar
Lindblom Charles E. 1997. “Political Science in the 1940s and 1950s.” In American Academic Culture in Transformation: Fifty Years, Four Disciplines, ed. Thomas Bender and Carl E. Schorske. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 24369.
Lipsitz Lewis. 1972. “Vulture, Mantis, and Seal: Proposals for Political Scientists.” In The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science, ed. George J. Graham and George W. Carey. New York: McKay.
Losco Joseph. 1998. “Whither Intellectual Diversity in American Political Science? The Case of APSA and Organized Sections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 31 (December): 83646.Google Scholar
Lowi Theodore J. 1992. “The State in Political Science: How We Become What We Study.” American Political Science Review 86 (March): 17.Google Scholar
Luke Timothy W. 1999. “The Discipline as Disciplinary Normalization: Networks of Research.” New Political Science 21 (September): 34563.Google Scholar
Macridis Roy C. 1968. “Comparative Politics and the Study of Government: The Search for Focus.” Comparative Politics 1 (October): 7990.Google Scholar
Merriam Charles E. 1925. New Aspects of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merriam Charles E. 1926. “Progress in Political Research.” American Political Science Review 20 (February): 113.Google Scholar
Miller Arthur H., Charles Tien, and Andrew A. Peebler. 1996. “The American Political Science Review Hall of Fame: Assessments and Implications for an Evolving Discipline.” PS: Political Science & Politics 29 (March): 7383.Google Scholar
Miller Warren E. 1981. “The Role of Research in the Unification of a Discipline.” American Political Science Review 75 (March): 916.Google Scholar
Molotch Harvey. 1994. “Going Out.” Sociological Forum 9 (June): 22139.Google Scholar
Monroe Kristen, Gabriel Almond, John Gunnell, Ian Shapiro, George Graham, Benjamin Barber, Kenneth Shepsle, and Joseph Cropsey. 1990. “The Nature of Contemporary Political Science: A Roundtable Discussion.” PS: Political Science & Politics 23 (March): 3443.Google Scholar
Morton Herbert C., and Anne J. Price. 1989. The ACLS Survey of Scholars: Final Report of Views on Publications, Computers, and Libraries. Washington, DC: University Press of America/American Council of Learned Societies.
Norris Pippa. 1997. “Towards a More Cosmopolitan Political Science?European Journal of Political Research 31 (February): 1734.Google Scholar
Ogburn William F. 1934. “Trends in Social Science.” Science 79 (23 March): 25762.Google Scholar
Orr Marion, and Valerie C. Johnson. 2004. “Race and the City: The View from Two Political Science Journals.” Unpublished ms., Brown University.
Parenti Michael. 1983. “The State of the Discipline: One Interpretation of Everyone's Favorite Controversy.” PS 16 (Spring): 189196.Google Scholar
Patterson Samuel C. 1994. “The Itch to Publish in Political Science.” In Editors as Gatekeepers: Getting Published in the Social Sciences, ed. Rita J. Simon and James J. Fyfe. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Patterson Samuel C., Jessica R. Adolino, and Kevin T. McGuire. 1989. “Continuities in Political Research: Evidence from the APSR Since the 1960s.” PS: Political Science & Politics 22 (December): 86678.Google Scholar
Patterson Samuel C., Brian D. Ripley, and Barbara Trish. 1988. “The American Political Science Review: A Retrospective of Last Year and the Last Eight Decades.” PS: Political Science & Politics 21 (Autumn): 90825.Google Scholar
Patterson Samuel C., and Shannon K. Smithey. 1990. “Monitoring Scholarly Journal Publication in Political Science: The Role of the APSR.” PS: Political Science & Politics 23 (December): 64756.Google Scholar
Peng Yali. 1994. “Intellectual Fads in Political Science: The Cases of Political Socialization and Community Power Studies.” PS: Political Science & Politics 27 (March): 100108.Google Scholar
Peterson Susan, and Michael Tierney, with Daniel Maliniak. 2005. Teaching and Research Practices, Views on the Discipline, and Policy Attitudes of International Relations Faculty at U.S. Colleges and Universities. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary.
Pfoten hauer David. 1972. “Conceptions of Political Science in West Germany and the United Sates.” Journal of Politics 34 (May): 55491.Google Scholar
Rasmussen Jorgen. 1972. “‘Once You've Made a Revolution, Everything's the Same.’” In The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science, ed. George J. Graham Jr., and George W. Carey. New York: David McKay, 7187.
Report of the Committee on Journals, American Political Science Association.” 1968. PS 1 (Summer): 3033.
Rhoades Lawrence J. 1981. A History of the American Sociological Association 1905–1980. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Ricci David. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Riker William H. 1990. “Political Science and Rational Choice.” In Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, ed. James E. Alt and Kenneth A. Shepsle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 16381.
Rose Richard. 1991. “Comparing Forms of Comparative Analysis.” Political Studies 34 (3): 44662.Google Scholar
Ruget Vanessa. 2002. “Scientific Capital in American Political Science: Who Possesses What, When and How?New Political Science 24 (September): 46978.Google Scholar
Sartori Giovanni. 2004. “Where is Political Science Going?PS: Political Science & Politics 37 (October): 78586.Google Scholar
Schwartz David C. 1974. “Toward a More Relevant and Rigorous Political Science.” Journal of Politics 36 (February): 10337.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Shea Peregrine, and Dvora Yanow. 2002. “‘Reading’ ‘Methods’ ‘Texts’: How Research Methods Texts Construct Political Science.” Political Research Quarterly 55 (June): 45786.Google Scholar
Shapiro Ian. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shaw Albert. 1907. “Presidential Address: Third Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.” American Political Science Review 1 (May): 17786.Google Scholar
Sigelman Lee, and George H. Gadbois Jr. 1983. “Contemporary Comparative Politics: An Inventory and Assessment.” Comparative Political Studies 16 (October): 275306.Google Scholar
Silverberg Helene. 1993. “Gender Studies and Political Science: The History of the ‘Behavioralist Compromise.’” In Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. James Farr and Raymond Seidelman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 36381.
Smith Edward Munroe. 1886. “The Domain of Political Science.” Political Science Quarterly 1 (1): 18.Google Scholar
Somit Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1964. American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline. New York: Atherton.
Somit Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1967. The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Walker Jack L. 1972. “Brother, Can You Paradigm?PS 5 (Autumn): 41922.Google Scholar
Walton Hanes Jr. Cheryl M. Miller, and Joseph P. McCormick II. 1995. “Race and Political Science: The Dual Traditions of Race Relations Politics and African-American Politics.” In Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions, ed. James Farr, John S. Dryzek, and Stephen T. Leonard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14574.
White Leonard D. 1950. “Political Science, Mid-Century.” Journal of Politics 12 (February): 1319.Google Scholar
Zink Harold. 1950. “The Growth of the American Political Science Review, 1926–1949.” American Political Science Review 44 (June): 57265.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 83
Total number of PDF views: 255 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *