Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:52:46.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Divides Us? The Image and Organization of Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2005

J. Tobin Grant
J. Tobin Grant
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question “What is political science?” is nearly as old as the discipline itself. Political science continually self-examines the discipline to evaluate who we are and how we have changed. In addition, there are numerous studies of groups within political science, including political science in the U.S. South and women in political science. There are also reviews of the development and state of subfields, e.g., urban politics , international relations, comparative politics, and political theory. Each of these histories provides an image of what political science is or what it should be. These self-reviews provide images of the discipline that shape our identities as political scientists and advance the progress of political science. Even if the images do not affect future directions in political science, they are “an important dimension of identity and critical reflection on the theory and practice of political science”. Developing and critiquing these images are important academic exercises.J. Tobin Grant is assistant professor, department of political science, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. He is coauthor (with Thomas Rudolph) of Expression vs. Equality: The Politics of Campaign Finance Reform (Ohio State University Press, 2004).I thank Badredine Arfi, Gregory Kasza, Scott McClurg, Thomas Rudolph, Edward Schatz, and Herbert Weisberg for their comments and suggestions on this article.

Type
THE PROFESSION
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 379 - 386
Copyright
© 2005 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

Almond, Gabriel A. 1990. A Discipline Divided. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A. 1988. “Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 21(4): 828–842.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A. 1966. “Political Theory and Political Science.” American Political Science Review 60(4): 869–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, Michael A., Malcolm E. Jewell, and Lee Sigelman, eds. 1991. Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Baum, William C., G. N. Griffiths, Robert Matthews, and Daniel Scherruble. 1976. “American Political Science before the Mirror: What Our Journals Reveal about the Profession.” Journal of Politics 38(4): 895–917.Google Scholar
Crick, Bernard R. 1959. The American Science of Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Danielson, Michael N., and Paul G. Lewis. 1996. “City Bound: Political Science and the American Metropolis.” Political Research Quarterly 49(1): 203–220.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Stephen T. Leonard. 1988. “History and Discipline in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 82(4): 1245–1260.Google Scholar
Easton, David, John G. Gunnell, and Luigi Graziano, eds. 1991. The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Survey. New York : Routledge.Google Scholar
Easton, David, John G. Gunnell, and Michael B. Stein, eds. 1995. Regime and Discipline: Democracy and the Development of Political Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabrikant, Sara Irina, and Barbara P. Buttenfield. 2001. “Formalizing Semantic Spaces for Information Access.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(2): 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, James, and Raymond Seidelman, eds. 1993. Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Finifter, Ada W., ed. 1993. Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Finifter, Ada W., ed. 1983. Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Flammang, Janet A. 1997. Women's Political Voices. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Garand, James C. 1990. “An Alternative Interpretation of Recent Political Science Journal Evaluations.” PS: Political Science and Politics 23(3): 448–451.Google Scholar
Garand, James C., and Michael W. Giles. 2003. “Journals in the Discipline: A Report on a New Survey of American Political Scientists.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36(2): 293–308.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 2004. Imagining the American Polity: Political Science and the Discourse of Democracy. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 1993. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 1988. “American Political Science, Liberalism, and the Invention of Political Theory.” American Political Science Review 82(1): 71–87.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 1986. Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienation of Political Theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 1981. “Encounters of a Third Kind: The Alienation of Theory in American Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 25(3): 440–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddow, Anna. 1939. Political Science in American Colleges and Universities, 1636–1900. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Holden, Matthew Jr. 2000. “The Competence of Political Science: ‘Progress in Political Research’ Revisited.” American Political Science Review 94(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Anne H. 1993. “Observations on Gender, Political Science, and the Academy.” Journal of Politics 55(3): 561–568.Google Scholar
Hull, Adrian Prentice. 1999. “Comparative Political Science: An Inventory and Assessment since the 1980's.” PS: Political Science and Politics 32(1): 117–124.Google Scholar
Kasza, Gregory. 2001. “Perestroika: For an Ecumenical Science of Politics.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34(3): 597–599.Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira, and Helen V. Milner, eds. 2002. Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1991. “On Political Methodology.” Political Analysis 2: 1–30.Google Scholar
King, M. D. 1980. “Reason, Tradition, and Progressiveness of Science.” In Paradigms and Revolutions: Appraisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn's Philosophy of Science, ed. Gary Gutting. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 97–116.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lepawsky, Albert. 1964. “The Politics of Epistemology.” Western Political Quarterly 17 (3, Supplement): 21–52.Google Scholar
Losco, Joseph. 1998. “Whither Intellectual Diversity in American Political Science? The Case of APSA and Organized Sections.” PS: Political Science and Politics 31(4): 836–846.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1992. “The State in Political Science: How We Become What We Study.” American Political Science Review 86(1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1926. “Progress in Political Research.” American Political Science Review 20(1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle 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 and Politics 29(1): 73–83.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 and Politics 23(1): 34–43.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 and Politics 21(4): 908–925.Google Scholar
Pye, Lucian W. 1990. “Political Science and the Crisis of Authoritarianism.” American Political Science Review 84(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George B. 1975. “An Introduction to Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling.” American Journal of Political Science 19(2): 343–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricci, David M. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven B. 2000. “Political Science and Political Philosophy: An Uneasy Relation.” PS: Political Science and Politics 33(2): 189–191.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. [1967] 1982. The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Storing, Herbert J., ed. 1962. Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Takane, Y., F. W. Young, and J. De Leeuw. 1977. “Nonmetric Individual Differences Multidimensional Scaling: An Alternating Least Squares Method with Optimal Scaling Features.” Psychometrika 42: 593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, Donald S. 1989. “Political Science in the South—Then and Now.” Journal of Politics 51(3): 497–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waever, Ole. 1998. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52(4): 687–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1986. Political Science: The Science of Politics. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Young, Cheryl D. 1995. “An Assessment of Articles Published by Women in 15 Top Political Science Journals.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28(3): 525–533.Google Scholar