Abstract
The field of political science has undergone significant change since the 1960s. The major shift was toward far greater quantification in the scholarly analyses. That movement sparked enduring controversies. These include disputes pitting scientific detachment against political relevance; specialization against accessibility; and quantitative against qualitative analysis. This article traces the contours of these controversies and offers some reflections on the discipline’s possible future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Sigelman, “Coevolution,” American Political Science Review.
V.O. Key, Jr. became a prominent dissenter from the conventional view. He argued that the electorate had sufficient information to send important signals and low voter turnout was not necessarily a sign of voter apathy. Rather, democracy could function legitimately if leaders led. See, The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936–1960 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968).
Reports suggest that this has not been the case elsewhere. See, (Bawer 2012)
Mead, “Scholasticism,” 454.
Further Reading
Almond, G. A. 1988. Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 21, 828–42.
Almond, G. A., Genco, S. J., & Clocks, C. 1977. The Study of Politics. World Politics, 29(4), 489–522.
Anderson, M. 1996. Imposters in the Temple (pp. 140–1). Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
Baumgaterner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bawer, B. 2012. The Victims Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind. New York: Broadside Books.
Bosso, C. J. 1989. Congressional and Presidential Scholars: Some Basic Traits. PS: Political Science and Politics, 22(4), 839–48.
Brady, H., & Collier, D. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (2nd ed.). Lanhan: Rowan and Littlefield.
Ceaser, J. W. 1990. Liberal Democracy and Political Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ceaser, J. W., & Maranto, R. 2009. Why Political Science is Left But Not Quite PC: Causes of Disunion and Diversity. In R. Maranto et al. (Eds.), Politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms (pp. 215–219). Washington, DC: AEI Press.
Comte, A. 2011. Discours sur l'Esprit positif: Ordre et progrès (p. 1844). Paris: Nabu Press.
Dryzek, J. S., & Leonard, S. T. 1988. History and Discipline in Political Science. American Political Science Review, 82, 1245–60.
Ellis, J. M. 2006. How Serious is the Damage? Academic Questions, 14(1), 15–21.
Farr, J. 1995. Remembering the Revolution: Behavioralism in American Political Science. In J. Farr, J. S. Dryzek, & S. T. Leonard (Eds.), Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions (p. 220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fukuyama, F. 2006. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
Goodin, R., & Klingemann, H.-D. 1996. Political Science: The Discipline. In R. Goodin & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), A new handbook of political science (pp. 1–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grofman, B. 1997. Seven Durable Axes of Cleavage in Political Science. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Contemporary Empirical Political Theory (pp. 79–80). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gunnell, J. G. 1986. Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienation of Political Theory (p. 18). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Hargens, L. L., & Kelly-Wilson, L. 1994. Determinants of Disciplinary Discontent. Social Forces, 72, 1177–95.
Huntington, S. 1993. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Ishiyama, J. Breuning, M., Lopez, L. 2006. A Century of Continuity and (Little) Change in the Undergraduate Political Science Curriculum. American Political Science Review 100(4).
Katznelson, I., & Milner, H. 2002. American Political Science. In I. Katznelson & H. Milner (Eds.), Political Science: The state of the Discipline (p. 1). New York: W.W. Norton.
Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. 2009. By the Numbers: The Ideological Profile of Professors. In R. Maranto et al. (Eds.), Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms (pp. 15–34). Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.
Lowi, T. J. 1992. The State in Political Science: How We Become What We Study. American Political Science Review, 86, 1–7.
Mead, L. M. 2010. Scholasticism in Political Science. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 453–464.
Melnick, R. S. 2012. Political Science as a Vocation: An Appreciation of the Life and the Work of James Q. Wilson, The Forum 10(1).
Menon, R. 2011. Culture Wars. Survival, 53(6), 185–196.
Monroe, K. R. 2005. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Parenti, M. 1983. The State of the Discipline: One Interpretation of Everyone’s Favorite Controversy. PS: Political Science and Politics, 1(6), 193.
Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. 2003. Historical Institutionalism. In I. Katznelson & H. Milner (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline. New York: W.W. Norton.
Ricci, D. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Riker, W. H. 1990. Political Science and Rational Choice. In J. E. Alt & K. A. Shepsle (Eds.), Perspectives on Positive Political Economy (p. 163–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanders, E. 2005. Work That Counts. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Perestroika!: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science (p. 177). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schwartz, D. C. 1974. Toward a More Relevant and Rigorous Political Science. Journal of Politics, 36, 103–4.
Shapiro, I. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences (p. 198). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shapiro, I., & Green, D. 1996. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sigelman, L. 2006. The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 471.
Skowronek, S., & Orren, K. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Somit, A., & Tanenhaus, J. 1964. American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline (p. 192). New York: Atherton.
Verba, S. 1980. On revisiting the Civic Culture. In G. Almond & S. Verba (Eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited (p. 407). Boston: Little Brown.
Weber, M. 1963. Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Philosophy of The Social Sciences (pp. 364–378). New York: Random House.
White, L. D. 1950. Political Science, Mid-Century. Journal of Politics, 12, 13–19.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
DiSalvo, D. The Politics of Studying Politics: Political Science Since the 1960s. Soc 50, 132–139 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9631-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9631-7