Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:32:10.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Founding of the American Political Science Association: Discipline, Profession, Political Theory, and Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2006

JOHN G. GUNNELL
JOHN G. GUNNELL
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the evolution of the social sciences, disciplines (forms of research, training, and instruction) preceded professions (distinct occupational identities). Although professionalism has often been viewed as a conservative force, what was arguably the most prominent transformation in the history of political science was the result of a professional challenge to the discipline. The founding of the American Political Science Association represented not only an ideological break with some of the principal voices in the discipline but a reformulation of the reigning vision of the relationship between political science and politics. Despite the markedly different circumstances, the dissenting claims emanating from the subfield of political theory during the behavioral era reflected, in many respects, a similar form of confrontation.

Type
“THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE” ESSAYS
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 100 , Issue 4 , November 2006 , pp. 479 - 486
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

“A Retrospect.” 1895. Political Science Quarterly 10 (December): 565 72.
“Constitution of the American Political Science Association.” 1903. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association 1: 6– 17.
Corwin Edwin S. 1929. “The Democratic Dogma and the Future of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 23 (August): 569– 92.Google Scholar
Dewey John. 1927. The Public and its Problems. New York: Henry Holt.
Dickinson John. 1930. “Democratic Realities and Democratic Dogma.” American Political Science Review 24 (May): 283– 309.Google Scholar
Easton David. 1951. “The Decline of Modern Political Theory.” Journal of Politics 13 (February): 36– 58.Google Scholar
Easton David. 1969. “The New Revolution in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 63: 1051– 61.Google Scholar
Elliott William Yandell. 1928. The Pragmatic Revolt in Politics: Syndicalism, Fascism, and the Constitutional State. New York: Macmillan.
Ely Richard. 1884. “The Past and Present of Political Economy.” Johns Hopkins Studies in History and Political Science 3.Google Scholar
Farr James. 2003. “Political Science.” In The Cambridge History of Science: The Modern Social Sciences, v. 7, ed. Theodore M. Porter and Dorothy Ross. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford Henry Jones. 1905. “The Scope of Political Science.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association 2: 198– 206.Google Scholar
Ford Henry Jones. 1904. “Municipal Corruption.” Political Science Quarterly 19 (December): 673– 86.Google Scholar
Furner Mary O. 1975. Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science 1865–1905. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
Goodnow Frank. 1904. “The Work of the American Political Science Association.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association 1: 135– 46.Google Scholar
Gunnell John G. 1993. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gunnell John G. 2004. Imagining the American Polity: Political Science and the Discourse of Democracy. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Jameson John A. 1890. “National Sovereignty.” Political Science Quarterly 5 (June): 193– 213.Google Scholar
Merriam Charles. 1925. New Aspects of Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
“Organization of the American Political Science Association.” 1904. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association I: 5– 15.
Ross Dorothy. 2003. “Changing Contours of the Social Science Disciplines.” In The Cambridge History of Science: The Modern Social Sciences, v. 7, ed. Theodore M. Porter and Dorothy Ross. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sabine George H. 1937. A History of Political Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Shaw Albert. 1907. “Presidential Address: Third Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.” American Political Science Review 1 (February): 177– 86.Google Scholar
Smith Munroe Smith. 1886. “Introduction: The Domain of Political Science.” Political Science Quarterly 1 (March): 1– 8.Google Scholar
Storing Herbert J. 1962. Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Weber Max. 1904. “The ‘Objectivity’ of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy.” Trans. Keith Tribe, ed. Sam Whimster, ed., The Essential Weber. London: Routledge, 2004.
Willoughby W.W. 1904a. “Report of the Secretary for the Year. 1904.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association 1: 27– 32.Google Scholar
Willoughby W.W. 1904b. “The American Political Science Association”, Political Science Quarterly 19 (March): 107– 11.Google Scholar
Willoughby W.W. 1905. “Report of the Second Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association 2: 21– 26.Google Scholar
Willoughby W.W. 1908. “The Political Theory of John W. Burgess.” Yale Review 17.Google Scholar
Wilson Woodrow. 1887. “The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly 2 (June): 197– 222.Google Scholar
Wolin Sheldon S. 1969. “Political Theory as a Vocation.” American Political Science Review 63 (December): 1062– 82.Google Scholar