Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why European Political Science Organisations? A Diachronic, Comparative and Fairly Short Explanation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The early 1950s and the late 1960s saw the setting up of many European political science organisations. The first wave was that of the foundation of an International Political Science Association and several national associations. The second was that of the creation of a Pan-European organisation: the European Consortium for Political Research. The rationale behind these two waves was different: it was very political in the 1950s and based on more properly scientific considerations in the 1960s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Blondel and Hurtig had known each other for a long time (Hurtig, 2008: interview) and were seeing each other on a regular basis as Blondel was teaching British politics at the FNSP (ECPR, 1967). It was thus natural for them to exchange views about the state of political science: ‘after all, the first time we discussed this was in your rue Saint-Guillaume office!’ (ECPR, 1969f, translation).

  2. It is the presence of so many forceful personalities that explains the strained atmosphere that surrounded the Consortium from its prehistory onwards (De Janosi, 2010: interview). Indeed, it resulted in a series of heated arguments, notably between Blondel and Hurtig in July 1969 (see, e.g., Ford Foundation, 1969) and between Blondel and Rokkan, for example, in 1971 and 1976 (ECPR, 1971; Ford Foundation, 1976a, 1976b.

  3. The notion of dilemma comes from Adcok, Bevir and Stimson: ‘a dilemma arises when a new idea stands in opposition to existing beliefs and so forces a reconsideration of them leading to at least somewhat new beliefs, and so typically inspiring at least slightly different actions and practices’ (Adcock et al, 2007: 5).

References

  • Adcock, R., Bevir, M. and Stimson, S.C. (2007) ‘A History of Political Science: How? What? Why?’, in R. Adcock, M. Bevir and S.C. Stimson (eds.) Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, pp. 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bibic, A. (1982) ‘Yugoslavia’, in W.G. Andrews (ed.) International Handbook of Political Science, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 383–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blondiaux, L. (2002) ‘Pour une histoire sociale de la science politique’, in Y. Deloye and B. Voutat (eds.) Faire de la science politique, Paris: Belin, pp. 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boncourt, T. (2007) ‘The evolution of political science in France and in Britain: a comparative study of two political science journals’, European Political Science 6 (3): 276–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boncourt, T. (2009) Une histoire de l’Association Internationale de Science Politique, Montréal: Association Internationale de Science Politique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boncourt, T. and Newton, K. (2010) A History of the European Consortium for Political Research, Wivenhoe: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1976) ‘Le champ scientifique’, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 2 (2–3): 88–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (2001) Science de la science et réflexivité, cours du collège de France, Paris: Raisons d’Agir.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, M. (2007) ‘Is there a European political science and, if so, what are the challenges facing it?’ European Political Science 6 (4): 427–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deloye, Y. (2009) ‘AFSP 1949–2009 60 ans d’histoire disciplinaire’, 10th AFSP Congress, 7–9 September 2009, Grenoble, France.

  • ECPR. (1967) ‘Letter from Serge Hurtig to Jean Blondel’, 10 March 1967.

  • ECPR. (1969a) ‘Letter from Serge Hurtig to Jean Blondel, Norman Chester, Hans Daalder, Gerard Lehmbruch, Nicola Matteucci, Stein Rokkan, Rudolf Wildenmann and Jorgen Westerstahl’, 8 May 1969.

  • ECPR. (1969b) ‘Réunion “européenne” du 16 juin 1969’, 16 June 1969.

  • ECPR. (1969c) ‘Letter from Jean Blondel to Jean Touchard’, 20 June 1969.

  • ECPR. (1969d) ‘Letter from Jean Blondel to Serge Hurtig’, 4 July 1969.

  • ECPR. (1969e) ‘Letter from Jean Blondel to Peter de Janosi’, 11 September 1969.

  • ECPR. (1969f) ‘Letter from Jean Blondel to Serge Hurtig’, 18 December 1969.

  • ECPR. (1971) ‘Consortium Européen de recherche politique: réunion du Comité exécutif. Bruges’, 24–25 September 1971.

  • Favre, P. (1995) ‘Retour à la question de l’objet ou faut-il disqualifier la notion de discipline?’ Politix 10 (29): 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford Foundation. (1969) ‘Ford foundation inter-office memorandum by W.L. Kohl’, 9 December 1969.

  • Ford Foundation. (1976a) ‘Letter from Peter de Janosi to Stein Rokkan’, 26 February 1976.

  • Ford Foundation. (1976b) ‘Letter from Stein Rokkan to Jean Blondel’, 16 February 1976.

  • Furlong, P. (2007) ‘The European Conference of National Political Science Associations: Problems and Possibilities of Cooperation’, in H.-D. Klingemann (ed.) The State of Political Science in Western Europe, Opladen and Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers, pp. 401–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, W. (2010) The Development of a Discipline: The History of the Political Studies Association, London: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogerwerf, A. (1982) ‘The Netherlands’, in W.G. Andrews (ed.) International Handbook of Political Science, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPSA. (1950) ‘Letter from Jean Meynaud’, 16 March 1950.

  • IPSA. (1951a) ‘Letter from Jean Meynaud to Francesco Vito’, 16 January 1951.

  • IPSA. (1951b) ‘Letter from Jean Meynaud to Harold Zink’, 4 February 1951.

  • IPSA. (1952a) ‘Letter from Jean Meynaud’, 4 February 1952.

  • IPSA. (1952b) ‘Letter from Jean Meynaud to Kazimierz Szczerba-Likiernik’, 4 September 1952.

  • IPSA. (1954) ‘Letter from William A. Robson to Jean Meynaud’, 24 December 1954.

  • Kuhnle, S. (1982) ‘Norway’, in W.G. Andrews (ed.) International Handbook of Political Science, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 256–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leca, J. (1991) ‘French Political Science and Its “Subfields”; Some Reflexions on the Intellectual Organisation of the Discipline in Relation to its Historical and Social Situation’, in D. Easton, J. Gunnell and L. Graziano (eds.) The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Survey, London: Routledge, pp. 147–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philippart, A. (1982) ‘Belgium’, in W.G. Andrews (ed.) International Handbook of Political Science, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 93–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, F.X. (1998) ‘The Ford Foundation and Europe: Ambitions and Ambivalences’, in G. Gemelli (ed.) The Ford Foundation and Europe (1950's–1970's). Cross-Fertilization of Learning in Social Science and Management, Brussels: European Interuniversity Press, pp. 21–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trent, J.E. and Coakley, J. (2000) History of the International Political Science Association 1949–1999, Dublin: International Political Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (1949a) ‘International conference on: Methods in political science, 13 September 1948–16 September 1948. Statement issued by the members of the conference, 16 September 1948’, 28 April 1949.

  • UNESCO. (1949b) ‘International political science conference. Summary record of the second meeting, held at UNESCO house, 19 Avenue Kléber, Paris 16e on Monday, 12 September 1949 at 2.30 p.m.’, 25 October 1949.

  • Von Beyme, K. (1982) ‘Federal Republic of Germany’, in W.G. Andrews (ed.) International Handbook of Political Science, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 169–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wemegah, M. (1982) ‘Switzerland’, in W.G. Andrews (ed.) International Handbook of Political Science, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 327–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1989) ‘The Sociology of Science’, in N.J. Smelser (ed.) Handbook of Sociology, London: Sage Publications, pp. 511–574.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Bordeaux, Sciences Po Bordeaux, CNRS, SPIRIT Science Politique, Relations Internationales, Territoire, 11 allée Ausone, Pessac, 33600, France

    Thibaud Boncourt

Authors
  1. Thibaud Boncourt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendix

Appendix

See Table A1.

Table A1 Table of interviews
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boncourt, T. Why European Political Science Organisations? A Diachronic, Comparative and Fairly Short Explanation. Eur Polit Sci 9 (Suppl 1), S38–S49 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.43

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.43

Keywords

Search

Navigation