, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 132–139 | Cite as

The Politics of Studying Politics: Political Science Since the 1960s

  • Daniel DiSalvoEmail author
Symposium: The Changing Shape of Higher Education Since the 1960s


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.


Political science Social sciences Rational choice Behavioralism Academic discipline Quatitative Qualitative 

Further Reading

  1. Almond, G. A. 1988. Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 21, 828–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond, G. A., Genco, S. J., & Clocks, C. 1977. The Study of Politics. World Politics, 29(4), 489–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, M. 1996. Imposters in the Temple (pp. 140–1). Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgaterner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bawer, B. 2012. The Victims Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind. New York: Broadside Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bosso, C. J. 1989. Congressional and Presidential Scholars: Some Basic Traits. PS: Political Science and Politics, 22(4), 839–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brady, H., & Collier, D. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (2nd ed.). Lanhan: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Ceaser, J. W. 1990. Liberal Democracy and Political Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Comte, A. 2011. Discours sur l'Esprit positif: Ordre et progrès (p. 1844). Paris: Nabu Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dryzek, J. S., & Leonard, S. T. 1988. History and Discipline in Political Science. American Political Science Review, 82, 1245–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, J. M. 2006. How Serious is the Damage? Academic Questions, 14(1), 15–21.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Fukuyama, F. 2006. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Gunnell, J. G. 1986. Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienation of Political Theory (p. 18). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hargens, L. L., & Kelly-Wilson, L. 1994. Determinants of Disciplinary Discontent. Social Forces, 72, 1177–95.Google Scholar
  19. Huntington, S. 1993. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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).Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Lowi, T. J. 1992. The State in Political Science: How We Become What We Study. American Political Science Review, 86, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mead, L. M. 2010. Scholasticism in Political Science. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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).Google Scholar
  26. Menon, R. 2011. Culture Wars. Survival, 53(6), 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Monroe, K. R. 2005. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Parenti, M. 1983. The State of the Discipline: One Interpretation of Everyone’s Favorite Controversy. PS: Political Science and Politics, 1(6), 193.Google Scholar
  29. Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Ricci, D. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Schwartz, D. C. 1974. Toward a More Relevant and Rigorous Political Science. Journal of Politics, 36, 103–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shapiro, I. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences (p. 198). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shapiro, I., & Green, D. 1996. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sigelman, L. 2006. The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 471.Google Scholar
  38. Skowronek, S., & Orren, K. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Somit, A., & Tanenhaus, J. 1964. American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline (p. 192). New York: Atherton.Google Scholar
  40. Verba, S. 1980. On revisiting the Civic Culture. In G. Almond & S. Verba (Eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited (p. 407). Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. White, L. D. 1950. Political Science, Mid-Century. Journal of Politics, 12, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceThe City College of New York—CUNYNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations