Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T17:32:53.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federalism and the Academic Community: A Brief Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Carl W. Stenberg  and
David B. Walker
Carl W. Stenberg
Affiliation:
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
David B. Walker
Affiliation:
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

No general consensus exists concerning the status of American State and local government and intergovernmental relations as fields within the discipline of political science. Any attempt to make such an evaluation by gauging the attention given to these subjects in colleges and universities should distinguish between the two basic roles of American higher educational institutions—research and teaching.

Some observers have noted that in recent years political scientists have become increasingly interested in conducting research in American State and local government. As late as 1963, however, a large number of the members of the American Political Science Association responding to a questionnaire survey of trends in their discipline indicated that State and local government were areas in which the least significant work was being done. Yet, five years later, in a symposium on the advance of political science as a discipline, it was contended that:

State and local politics as a field of political science is no longer a ‘lost world’ or the site of ‘Dullsville.’ Rather than being the laggard of the discipline that some political scientists perceive it to be, the study of state and local politics has reentered the mainstream of political research. Much of the work in political science which has influenced the drift of the profession has been within its domain.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Spring 1969 , pp. 155 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1969

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

1 See Jacob, Herbert and Lipsky, Michael, “Outputs, Structure, and Power: An Assessment of Changes in the Study of State and Local Politics,” Journal of Politics, 30, No. 2 (May 1968), pp. 510–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Somit, Albert and Tanenhaus, Joseph, “Trends in American Political Science: Some Analytical Notes,” American Political Science Revew, LVII, No. 4 (December 1963), pp. 993–47.Google Scholar

3 Jacob and Lipsky, op. cit., p. 510.

4 Smallwood, Frank, “The Role of the College in the New Federalism,” in The New Federalism: A Conference Report, Third Annual Orvil E. Dryfoos Conference on Public Affairs, ed. Smallwood, Frank (Hanover, N.H.: Public Affairs Center, Dartmouth College, March 1967), p. 73.Google Scholar

5 A copy of the ACIR-APSA questionnaire and a breakdown of respondents and non-respondents by institutional size, location, and control are continued in Appendix A1-A2.

6 Many respondents did not answer the two questions concerning works used for reading assignments in introductory, intermediate, and advanced level courses in State and local government and intergovern mental relations. They indicated that this was due to the number and variety of works assigned in these courses. Appendix J summarizes the replies to this question by listing the ten most frequently mentioned works in each of these subject areas.

7 The two questions dealing with the usefulness of ACIR reports were designed to elict information of primary interest to the Advisory Commission, and therefore are not treated in detail in this study. In summary, the 464 replies to a question concerning the usefulness of these reports in State and local government courses were divided as follows: “Very useful”—20.5 percent; “Occasionally useful”—55.2 percent; “Not useful”—11.8 percent; “Not received, not known”—12.5 percent. With reference to intergovernmental relations courses, the 231 replies were grouped as follows: “Very useful”—26.0 percent; “Occasionally useful”—37.6 percent; “Not useful”—11.7 percent; “Not received, not known”—24.7 percent.

8 Replies from institutions having a political science enrollment consisting wholly or predominantly of postbaccalaureate rather than undergraduate students were not tabulated.

9 U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Opening Fall Enrollment in Higher Education, 1967, Supplement A: Undergraduate and Postbaccalaureate Students, by Chandler, Marjorie O. and Rice, Mabel C. (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1968).Google Scholar

10 The eight-fold regional classification utilized in tabulating the questionnaire responses conforms to that used by the Office of Education in Openng Fall Enrollment in Higher Education, 1967. See Appendix Table A-3 for a listing of the number of institutions included in the survey by region and State.

11 Another variable affecting the number of courses in State government is the legislative requirement that publicly-supported institutions provide a course dealing with the government of their State—one which all students or only those enrolled in certain degree programs must complete in order to graduate. Comments on introductory, intermediate, and advanced level reading assignments indicate that courses are offered in the government and/or politics of about one-half of the States. Inquiries to selected chairmen of political science departments, however, reveal that only seven States—Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming—have laws which mandate the teaching of a course in the government and/or politics of the State at the college level.