Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:28:12.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Political Science History be Neutral?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

James Farr ,
John Gunnell ,
Raymond Seidelman ,
John S. Dryzek  and
Stephen T. Leonard
James Farr
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
John Gunnell
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Raymond Seidelman
Affiliation:
Sarah Lawrence College
John S. Dryzek
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Stephen T. Leonard
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the December 1988 issue of this Review, John Dryzek and Stephen Leonard argued the need for “context-sensitive” histories of the discipline of political science. In their view, disciplinary history must guide practical inquiry if it is to be most useful. The course of their argument draws the criticisms of three political scientists concerned about the history of political science—James Farr, John Gunnell, and Raymond Seidelman. Dryzek and Leonard respond to their critics and underscore their own rationale for enhanced interest in the history of the discipline.

Type
Controversies
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 587 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Battistoni, Richard M. 1985. Public Schooling and the Education of Democratic Citizens. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press.Google Scholar
Collini, Stefan, Winch, Donald, and Burrow, John. 1983. That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth Century Intellectual History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crick, Bemard. 1959. The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1987. “Discursive Designs: Critical Theory and Political Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 656–79.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Leonard, Stephen T.. 1988. “History and Discipline in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 82: 1245–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of the Discipline. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Farr, James. 1988a. “The History of Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 1175–95.Google Scholar
Farr, James. 1988b. “Political Science and the Enlightenment of Enthusiasm.” American Political Science Review 82: 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, Duncan. 1975. “Skeptical Whiggism, Commerce, and Liberty.” In Essays on Adam Smith, eds. Skinner, Andrew S. and Wilson, Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy. 1987. Democratic Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Haddow, Anna. 1939. Political Science in American Colleges and Universities, 1636–1900. New York: D. Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1826. Philosophical Works. Vol. 3. Edinborough: Adam Black.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Norman. 1963. “Political Science and Political Education.” American Political Science Review 57: 561–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janos, Andrew C. 1986. Politics and Paradigms: Changing Theories of Change in Social Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, Paul F. 1973. Social Science and the Idea of Progress: The Ambiguous Legacy of Arthur F. Bentley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold. 1935. World Politics and Personal Insecurity. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, Stephen T. 1985. “Context and Critique: Putting Practice Back into Theory.” Presented at the meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Nashville.Google Scholar
Leonard, Stephen T. 1990. Critical Theory in Political Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1925. New Aspects of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1931. The Making of Citizens: A Comparative Study of Methods of Civic Training. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1939. Civic Education in the United States. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Ricci, David. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Seidelman, Raymond, and Harpham, Edward J.. 1985. Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884–1984. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1976. The Wealth of Nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1980. Philosophical Subjects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, James F. 1984. Language, Form, and Inquiry: Arthur F. Bentley's Philosophy of Social Science. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar