No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Great University Makes for a Great Department
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 December 2004
Extract
In the March 2004 Perspectives on Politics Gabriel Almond, Kristen Renwick Monroe, and Michael Neblo discuss what made the Chicago Political Science Department of the 1920s great. I believe that my distinguished friend and erstwhile colleague, Gabriel Almond, set this important discussion off on a misleading note by talking about a Chicago school of politics, thus inducing an unconvincing discussion of what the leading figures of the department supposedly had in common. The character of the university and the innovative work of its leaders did indeed make the department great. But collective greatness does not in itself constitute a school.In addition to his work in political science, Morton A. Kaplan has published in philosophy.
- Type
- PERSPECTIVES
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2004 American Political Science Association
References
REFERENCES
Almond, Gabriel A.
2004.
Who lost the Chicago school of political science?
Perspectives on Politics
2 (1):
91–93.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Morton A.
1976.
Justice, human nature, and political obligation.
New York:
Free Press.
Kaplan, Morton A.
1989.
Science, language, and the human condition.
New York:
Paragon House.
Kaplan, Morton A.
2002.
Evolving human nature and objective moral and political obligation.
International Journal on World Peace
19 (3):
63–66.Google Scholar
Monroe, Kristen Renwick.
2004.
The Chicago school: Forgotten but not gone.
Perspectives on Politics
2 (1):
95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, Michael.
2004.
Giving hands and feet to morality.
Perspectives on Politics
2 (1):
99–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman.
1951.
The two dogmas of empiricism.
Philosophical Review
60 (1):
20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar