Political Science, History of

Erkki Berndtson, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Political science as a discipline began to develop at American universities in the late nineteenth century. A new departmental
structure of American universities, a birth of the disciplinary association and the founding of specialized publications created
an academic community with transferable merits. After the war, the American model started to inuence the study of politics
worldwide, beginning in Western Europe. Today, the discipline is rapidly advancing especially in Asia and in Latin America.
The past 60 years have witnessed political science becoming a pluralist discipline with different research traditions.

Study of Politics vs Political Science as a Discipline
Politics has been discussed, evaluated and studied since the
ancient times. It has also been taught at universities for
centuries. However, the academic discipline of political science
dates only from the late nineteenth century. This contradiction
is due to the nature of academic disciplines. Although univer-
sities have existed at least since the founding of the University
of Bologna in 1088, the medieval universities did not have
much in common with modern universities starting to develop
in the nineteenth century. New European higher education
ideologies (Humboldt in Germany, Newman in Britain, the
Napoleonic reforms in France) changed universities thor-
oughly. At the same time, American universities adopted and
transformed European ideologies into a new mold. An
important American innovation was the departmental struc-
ture of universities, which was created between 1890 and 1910.
At that time, it was an internationally unique system. Depart-
ments stood between individual professors and the university
as a corporate body. They allowed the better recognition of
disciplines and formed a group of scholars with transferable
merits (Abbott, 2001: pp. 122123).
In spite of the long heritage of political thinking in Europe,
from the Sophists to Hegel and Marx, the modern political
science was born in the United States. The main reason for this
is the organizational and institutional change of American
universities. On the other hand, university departments are not
enough for a subject of teaching to be a discipline. A discipline
needs a community of scholars interacting and communicating
with each other across institutions. It also needs publishing
outlets, journals, and disciplinary series. Also in this respect,
American political scientists created conditions for the separate
political science discipline in the late nineteenth/early twen-
tieth century.
Scientic disciplines also need a favorable social environ-
ment to develop. For political science, free interaction and
communication between scholars are basic conditions for
research. That is why political science, more than many other
disciplines, has been tied to the development of democracy
(Easton et al., 1995). Without the freedom of association and
speech, the study of politics has been one sided, narrow, and
ideological. For this reason, authoritarian tendencies have
often limited the study of politics in many countries. The
United States as the rst modern democracy had an advantage
over many countries also in that respect. As Alexis de Tocque-
ville (180559) wrote in his Democracy in America (183540),
a new political science is needed for a world itself quite new
(Tocqueville, 1994: p. 12).
The Early Years of the Discipline of Political Science
The birth of political science as a discipline can be illustrated by
comparing American and European trajectories in the study of
politics. It is sometimes claimed that the rst political science
professorship was founded at the University of Uppsala in
Sweden in 1622 (a professor of Discourse and Politics).
However, a similar professorship had been founded at the
Dutch University of Leiden already in 1613. Politics had also
been taught at many German universities since the fourteenth
century. It became an important subject of teaching at the
Faculties of Staatswissenschaft (the sciences of the state) in the
nineteenth century. Mainly for political reasons, the subject
disappeared after the 1848/49 political upheavals. In the late
nineteenth century, however, the teaching of politics was
introduced as Allgemeine Staatslehre (the general theory of the
state) at German law faculties. In that sense, the study of
politics has been well rooted in European universities for
centuries. However, before the World War II, it was conducted
undifferentiated from neighboring elds, which later became
disciplines, such as history, philosophy, and constitutional law
(see the chapters in Klingemann, 2007).
At the beginning of the disciplinary development, Amer-
ican political science did not differ much from the study of
politics in Europe. Teaching and research were based on
European intellectual traditions. Francis Lieber (17981872),
who has been called the rst American political scientist (Farr,
1990), was a German, who had emigrated to the United States
in 1827 after having studied in German universities (as well as
being wounded at the Battle of Waterloo and participating in
the Greek War of Independence in 1821). Starting his life in
the United States as a swimming instructor, he became
a Professor of History and Political Economy at the South
Carolina College in 1835. In 1857, he moved to the Columbia
College in New York, becoming a Professor of History and
Political Science, the rst time political science was recognized
as part of an academic title. Through his career, Lieber had
close relations with European scholars (being, for instance,

466 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 18 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03042-7

one of Tocquevilles sources of information on American
democracy).
Furthermore, around the turn of the twentieth century,
hundreds of American PhD students went to study in Europe,
mainly in Germany, and introduced German scholarship and
teaching methods in American academia after their return
(Haddow, 1939: p. 172). One of these exchange scholars was
John W. Burgess (18441931), who studied in Germany and
France during 186973 and initiated a plan for the School of
Political Science at Columbia College (later University). One of
Burgesss main inspirations for the School was the Libre Ecole
des Sciences Politiques, which had been founded in Paris in 1872
to train civil servants, diplomats, and journalists as well as to
educate laymen in politics, economics, sociology, journalism,
and law. The Columbia School was opened in 1880 and
became an early center of the discipline of political science.
Burgess himself became a Professor of Political Science and
Comparative Constitutional Law. Because of the founding of
the School, Burgess has often been taken as one of the founding
fathers of political science (Somit and Tanenhaus, 1982).
The model of the Ecole Libre was imitated not only at
Columbia, but in many European countries as well. Some
of the new institutions which were founded included, e.g.,
the Facolt di scienze politiche in Florence (1874), schools for
political and social sciences at the Catholic University of
Louvain and at the Free University of Brussels (1893), the
London School of Economics and Political Science (1895), the
Ecole des Sciences Sociales et Politiques at Lausanne (1902),
the Deutsche Hochschule fr Politik in Berlin (1920), and
a Higher School of Political Sciences in Athens (1927) (see the
chapters in Klingemann, 2007).
The early Columbia School reminded its European coun-
terparts. The journal, Political Science Quarterly, which the
Columbia School had begun to publish in 1886, manifested
this well. It was a journal for political sciences, the articles were
written as well by economists, historians, and public law
scholars as political scientists. The focus of political science
was on the study of the state. In the rst issue of the journal,
the managing editor Munro Smith wrote, [t]he principal
legal question of the day, in our country is: to what organ or
organs of the state shall the development of law be trusted
to the judicial and legislative, or to the legislative alone? .
Whether the increasing of the state be deplored or applauded,
the fact remains that it is rapidly becoming, if it is not already,
the central factor of social evolution (Smith, 1886: p. 8).
In the 1890s, the School developed into a Faculty with three
internal groupings, economics and social science, history
and political science, and public law and comparative juris-
prudence. The Department of Political Science evolved only
later from the last of the three groupings (Somit and
Tanenhaus, 1982).
If Columbia had close relations with German scholarship
and public law, another important political science institution,
the Johns Hopkins University, was inuenced by historical
scholarship and the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Johns Hopkins
began its rst semester in 1876. In 1882, a Department of
Historical and Political Science was founded with Herbert
Baxter Adams (18501901) in charge of the Department. In
1883, Adams started the book series, The Johns Hopkins Studies
in Historical and Political Science, which was one of the rst
Political Science, History of 467
publishing outlets in the eld of political science. Although
also Adams had studied in Germany he was inuenced more by
the British historical scholarship.
Columbia and Johns Hopkins were the two main univer-
sities usually recognized as the founders of political science as
a discipline. However, there were similar developments in
Cornell, the University of Michigan and Yale. Besides, the rst
separate political science department was created at the
University of Chicago when it opened its doors in 1892. At the
same time, Chicago established the separate departments of
political economy, history, sociology, and philosophy.
Although the American and European study of politics did
not differ much from each other intellectually in the late
nineteenth/early twentieth century, organizationally American
political science began to develop rapidly. By 1914, there were
38 separate political science departments at American univer-
sities. Political science was also offered in 216 departments
with other disciplines (Anderson in Haddow, 1939: p. 263).
The number of independent political science departments
increased and with them the number of political scientists. The
American Political Science Association (APSA) was founded in
1903. In 1904, the membership of APSA was 214, by 1920 it
had increased to some 1300. Separate political science
departments, a disciplinary association and specialized publi-
cations in the eld (the rst real political science journal, the
American Political Science Review, was founded in 1906) made
the study of politics a discipline in the United States, while in
Europe it remained part of other academic subjects without any
organized interaction between the students of politics.
Political Science after the World War I
Between the World Wars I and II, the American and European
study of politics began to differ from each other intellectually.
Political participation, political parties and groups, became
a new focus of research in the United States. The study of
the functioning of mass democracy required new research
methods. Historical and judicial analyses were replaced by the
use of current documents and rst attempts to use interviews as
data and statistics as a research method appeared. Psychology
was seen as an important discipline to explain citizens political
activity. Other social sciences, especially sociology, were seen as
allies instead of the old partners, history, and constitutional
law. The department of political science at the University of
Chicago under the leadership of Charles E. Merriam became an
innovative center of the discipline focusing on New Aspects of
Politics (Merriam, 1925).
Old concepts were replaced by new ones. Power gave a more
dynamic view on politics than sovereignty. One of the theo-
retical innovations was the theory of pluralism. Although the
concept had European roots, as it had been introduced earlier
by such scholars as Leon Duguit in France and Harold Laski in
England, in the United States it became a theory that empha-
sized group activity as the basis of politics. Pluralism focused
on the limitations of state sovereignty and argued that the state
was not the only unit in society, which commanded the alle-
giance of its subjects. More importantly, pluralism was used as
a theoretical framework in empirical studies on political parties
and pressure groups.
468 Political Science, History of
Empirical research also inuenced a new theory of democ-
racy, which later has been called the relative theory of
democracy (Purcell, 1973). It emerged as a response to
national and international challenges. In the 1920s, American
political scientists discussed the unforeseen tendencies of
democracy, such as low political participation (nonvoting) and
the role of special interests in politics. These tendencies did not
t well with the ideal of democracy. In the 1930s, American
political scientists still faced another problem. The develop-
ment of authoritarian political systems in Europe and in Asia
posed a threat to American democracy struggling with
economic recession. A new theory of democracy tried to solve
these internal and external challenges. It was argued that
nonvoting was not a problem, as it guaranteed the stability of
the political system. Instead, the most important condition on
democracy was a democratic culture, a common way of acting.
Furthermore, a new theory praised the value of compromises in
politics. Democracy was an agreement to disagree. There was
no place for absolutes in politics.
The relative theory of democracy emphasized empirical
research. However, it soon had to face a theoretical challenge,
which was posed by European refugees, especially from
Germany. Many of them represented philosophical traditions,
which challenged the principles of the new American empirical
research. These refugee scholars inuenced theoretical discus-
sion in American social science (e.g., Leo Strauss, Hannah
Arendt, Max Horkheimer), but at the same time, they were
creating a rift between the empirically minded and more
theoretically oriented political scientists, leading into a division
between empirical political science and normative political
theory (Gunnell, 1993).
Political Science after the World War II
After the World War II, the model of empirical American
political science was introduced in other parts of the world. For
a number of reasons, the American inuence was the biggest in
Western Europe. The time was ripe for the empirical study of
politics in many European countries, as many thought that
a better understanding about politics could have prevented the
catastrophe of the War. At the same time, UNESCO wanted to
create international social science associations. Political science
was one of the rst of these (sociologists establishing their own
international association at the same time).
The International Political Science Association (IPSA) was
founded in 1949 under UNESCOs auspices although political
science as a discipline hardly existed outside North America
(Coakley and Trent, 2000). IPSA was designed as an association
with collective members (national political science associa-
tions). However, in addition to the American association, only
the Canadian (established in 1929), the Finnish (1935), the
Indian (1938), and the Japanese (1948) associations were in
existence. The Chinese association (1932) had become inactive
during the war. At the beginning, IPSA had to rely on individual
political scientists to be able to begin its activities. In the
meeting, which drafted the Constitution in 1949, it was
decided that IPSA would become into legal existence, when
four national associations had joined it. This happened later in
1949 after the French association had been set up and became
a founding member of the IPSA together with American,
Canadian, and Indian associations. Other national associations
followed. The rst of these were established in the United
Kingdom (1950), the Netherlands (1950), Belgium (1951),
and Germany (1951).
At the beginning, most European scholars were skeptical
about the American model, which emphasized the scientic
study of politics as an independent discipline. In the late 1940s,
the general opinion in Europe was that [p]olitical science, as
a distinct branch from speculation concerning political
phenomena or the history of these phenomena, is of fairly
recent development, more recent, certainly, than other social
sciences such as law, political economy and sociology
(Salvadori in UNESCO, 1950: p. 1). Besides, there were
differences between the British, French and German traditions
in the study of politics. These differences were displayed also in
other countries, as the British study of politics was inuential in
most Commonwealth countries (including India), the French
legal tradition was followed in the Mediterranean countries,
and even in many Latin American countries, while the German
tradition of Allgemeine Staatslehre had followers in Austria, the
Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, as well as in Japan
(Coakley and Trent, 2000: p. 3).
The British scholars argued that the history of political
ideas must have a prominent place in political theory and one
cannot understand government without knowing its histor-
ical background and growth (Robson in UNESCO, 1950:
p. 306). The best example of the British skepticism toward
American political science was Bernard Cricks book The
American Science of Politics (1959), which argued that the idea
that politics can be understood by the method of the natural
sciences is embedded in American political culture (Crick,
1959: p. v). On the other hand, French scholars thought
that the term political science is familiar mainly to scholars
in the Anglo-Saxon countries. In France, one was used to
understand the study of politics as part of the political
sciences, as practically all of the social sciences could be
qualied, at least in certain aspects, as political sciences
(Kopelmanas in UNESCO, 1950: pp. 647648). Germans
were more divided in their attitude toward the scientic study
of politics as an independent discipline. The lost war had
discredited the German scholarship and the study of politics
was highly fragmented after the war. At the same time, some
returning migr scholars introduced American political
science in Germany, which made German political science
responsive to the idea of the scientic study of politics.
In spite of the early skepticism about the idea of political
science as an independent discipline, the separate departments
of political science were founded in many West European
universities between 1945 and 1960. The pace of development
varied, however, as the discipline took off rst in northern
Europe, where the old German Allgemeine Staatslehre tradition
was replaced with the American model of political science. The
British and German political scientists started to adopt Amer-
ican theories and methods only later. Close relations with
American universities and the founding of new universities in
both countries helped to move the discipline closer to
American political science in the 1960s.
For cultural and organizational reasons the disciplinary
development in France and in southern Europe was much

slower. The French political science has been a divided disci-
pline with the majority of political science chairs at law facul-
ties and the minority at eight Institut dEtudes Politiques, where
political science has often been understood as political soci-
ology. Although the situation has changed, the idea of an
independent political science discipline raises still opposition
among some French quarters. Organizational difculties have
also hindered the development of Italian political science. In
Italy, the rst political science chair was established at the
University of Florence as late as 1966. In Italy, political science
has been part of the faculties of political sciences, where
paradoxically the discipline has been a minor subject. The same
organizational difculties have been noticeable also in
Portugal and Spain. Besides, because of the authoritarian
political systems until the 1970s, the discipline has been able to
develop in these two countries only since the 1980s (see the
chapters in Klingemann, 2007).
The organizational development of the discipline has been
still slower in the other parts of the world. The idea of political
science as an independent discipline has been accepted in
many countries only since the 1960s on (Jinadu, 1991 on
Africa; Atal in Easton et al., 1995 on Asia).
American Behavioralism
The themes that had emerged during the interwar period in
American political science developed further in the 1950s
and 1960s. The discipline adopted a more systematic
perspective on the study of politics. One of the early calls
for a more scientic approach was David Eastons book The
Political System (1953) which criticized American political
science about hyperfactualism (empiricism without theory).
The new political science was soon labeled as behav-
ioralism. Dwight Waldo has expressed the change in the
following way:
By almost any measure the most important aspect of postWorld
War II political science has been the rise of behavioralism: the
controversies it engendered, its success to coming to dominate much
of organized political science, the changes it brought in the matters
to which political scientists attend, and the manner in which they are
addressed.
(Waldo, 1975: p. 58)
The heyday of behavioralism was from the mid-1950s to the
mid-1960s (Somit and Tanenhaus, 1982: p. 185). It was the
main intellectual approach that Americanized the study of
politics in Europe and in the other parts of the world. Writing
about European political science in the early 1990s, Ken
Newton and Josep Valls noted that it is, nevertheless, true
that the behavioral revolution transformed large parts of
political science in Western Europe, and its effects were so
profound that some on the European side of the Atlantic claim
that their traditions of political inquiry were abandoned or
forgotten to such an extent that the American approach
colonised the West European profession (Newton and Valls,
1991: pp. 234235). Although Newton and Valls see the
colonization thesis as an exaggeration, they do not deny the
American inuence. This inuence was also due to an
Political Science, History of 469
increasing interest in comparative politics. American political
scientists traveled around the world gathering data and trying
to develop a cross-cultural theory of politics (see the chapters in
Daalder, 1997).
In spite of its importance, behavioralism has not been easy
to dene. Most histories of political science agree that its
origins are somewhat obscure (Waldo, 1975: p. 58) and
attempts at coming to any complete denition . are probably
futile given the diversity of those who followed its banner
(Seidelman and Harpham, 1985: p. 151). However, one of the
most inuential denitions has been David Eastons list of the
characteristics of behavioralism: (1) search for regularities,
which can be expressed in generalizations or theories with
explanatory and predictive value, (2) the verication of prop-
ositions by testable data, (3) the development of research
techniques which can be used for the rigorous observation and
analysis of behavior, (4) the precision of data and ndings with
quantication and measurement when possible and relevant,
(5) keeping ethical evaluation and empirical explanations
analytically distinct, (6) the systematization of research with
theory and empirical research as intertwined parts of a coherent
body of knowledge, (7) the application of knowledge as part of
the scientic enterprise, but pure science preceding the appli-
cation of knowledge, and (8) the integration of political science
with other social sciences to analyze the whole human situa-
tion (Easton, 1965: p. 7).
One of the main dividing lines within behavioralism has
been between those who conduct empirical studies based on
surveys (mainly voting studies) and those who have wanted to
develop theoretical (conceptual) frameworks for political
analysis, such as systems analysis (David Easton), structural
functionalism (Gabriel A. Almond), or cybernetics (Karl W.
Deutsch). On the other hand, the most important empirical
theory that emerged as part of behavioralism was the pluralist
theory of democracy. One of its main early works was Robert A.
Dahls Who Governs? (1961). Dahl criticized the elitist
conception of power (the existence of one power elite in
society) and described politics as a struggle for power between
many unequal elites. Different elites were making decisions in
different policy areas.
Postbehavioral Revolution
In the end of the 1960s, the opponents of behavioralism
launched a counterattack, which changed the contours of the
discipline. Criticism arose from different sources, conservative,
radical, and liberal. Conservative political philosophers were
often unsatised with the results and ideology of empirical
political science. The most outspoken critics were Leo Strauss
and his followers, who accused behavioralism for relativism
and for pretending to represent value free research while
promoting liberal democracy (Storing, 1962). Another source
was a heterogenous group of left wing academics, who founded
the Caucus for a New Political Science in 1967 in response to the
social upheavals of the times. Many of these scholars partici-
pated in the antiwar, civil rights, and feminist movements. The
postbehavioral revolution included even liberals, often policy
analysts hoping to make political science a more socially rele-
vant discipline.
470 Political Science, History of
In 1969, it was David Easton again, who summarized the
views of this heterogenous movement as postbehavioral revo-
lution and identied seven of its tenets: (1) substance must
precede technique, as it is better to be relevant and sometimes
vague rather than nonrelevantly precise, (2) behavioral science
conceals an ideology of empirical conservatism, (3) behavioral
research has lost touch with reality, (4) research about and
constructive development of values are part of the study of
politics and one must be aware of ones own value premises,
(5) political scientists bear the responsibility of all intellectuals
to protect the humane values of civilization, (6) knowledge
means the responsibility to act and to engage in reshaping
society, and (7) the politicization of political science is ines-
capable as well as desirable (Easton, 1969: p. 1052).
The postbehavioral revolution ended the hegemony of
behavioralism. However, behavioralism has not disappeared,
but exists along new competing research traditions. Political
philosophy, policy analysis, and various critical approaches,
including historical institutionalism, have become strong
research areas. In addition, since the publication of Anthony
Downs The Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), rational
choice theory has become a widely held paradigm in American
political science. The theory has many variations, however,
from the scal conservative public choice theories to William
H. Rikers studies on voting and group behavior and to a Nobel
laureate Elinor Ostroms Governing the Commons (1990). These
developments have led to the fragmentation of political science
into competing theoretical schools.
Fragmentation of Political Science
As the history of political science shows, the development of
the discipline has proceeded through continual attempts to
legitimize and delegitimize various research traditions. In that
sense, it is no wonder that the so-called Perestroika movement
emerged in 2000 to oppose the strong position of rational
choice theory in American political science (Monroe, 2005).
The movement criticized the elitist nature of the American
Political Science Association with its white and male leadership. It
also criticized the irrelevancy of the American Political Science
Review, which was seen to contain mainly articles based on
statistics and game theory, while ignoring articles based on
other research methods. The revolt has led into a more pluralist
American discipline, as the APSA has responded to criticism by
renewing its decision-making procedures, encouraging quali-
tative research and offering new publishing outlets to its
members. The change has vitalized the discipline, but at the
same time it has become still more fragmented into different
theoretical schools.
The American postbehavioral revolution coincided with the
strengthening of the discipline in Western Europe. The European
Consortium for Political Research was established in 1970
(Newton and Boncourt, 2010). This has led to an increasing
cooperation between European political scientists and for
further growth of the discipline. The breakdown of the
European communist regimes in 1989/91 has also changed the
landscape of political science (Eisfeld and Pal, 2010). Still in
1982, the editor of the International Handbook of Political Science,
William G. Andrews (1982: p. 3), estimated that the American
political scientists represented 7580% of the worlds supply.
Recently, however, Hans-Dieter Klingemann (2008: p. 376) has
estimated that around 2005 there were some 10 000 political
scientists in Europe, half of them being in the Central and
Eastern Europe. That roughly equals the number of American
political scientists. Besides, the growth of the political science
profession has been impressive in Asia during the last 30 years.
There are some 5000 political scientists in Japan and some
2500 in South Korea alone (Inoguchi, 2012: p. 17). In addi-
tion, India has a long tradition of political studies. The disci-
pline has developed rapidly also in Latin America during the
last two decades. Although there are no exact gures available,
it is safe to say that the increase of the number of political
scientists around the world during the past 30 years has made
political science a global discipline and diminished the
previous central role of American political science in the
profession.
Especially many European scholars have inuenced theo-
retical discussion in the social sciences all over the world.
German critical theory (Jrgen Habermas), French philosophy
and sociology (Michel Foucault), as well as British intellectual
history (Quentin Skinner) have opened new perspectives also
for the study of politics. There are no paradigmatic theories in
contemporary political science, but many competing theories
and intellectual cultures. The globalization of the discipline has
increased the diversity of theoretical perspectives. Different
countries have their own intellectual traditions and scholars
have become aware that they have to take into account local as
well as global conditions when explaining politics. A good
example is a study of democracy. There is no single theory of
democracy today. Instead, the theories of deliberative, partici-
patory, delegative, cosmopolitan, and global democracy,
among others, are offered as solutions to the problems of
contemporary politics.
The fragmentation of the discipline is displayed by the
growth of different subdisciplinary specialties. Many scholars
identify themselves more as members of a specic research eld
than as political scientists in general. International relations
and public administration have founded their own associa-
tions and journals, and especially the study of public admin-
istration has in many countries cut itself off from the rest of
political science. The identity politics has also become impor-
tant, especially in regard to gender and race. Feminist political
theory has become one of the fastest growing elds within
political science.
Globalized Political Science
This historical account has focused mainly on the United States
and Europe. This can be justied by the fact that the birth of
political science as a discipline has been closely linked to the
American and European scholarship. One cannot deny the
organizational and theoretical inuence of American political
science in other countries (Inoguchi, 2012: p. 11). Since the
1970s, also European political science has grown in impor-
tance. This is not to deny the role of political science in other
parts of the world. However, political science is still an
unevenly developed discipline worldwide. One of the signs of
this is the existence of political science associations in the world

and their membership in the International Political Science
Association. Currently (2013) there are 51 collective IPSA
members, 31 of them are from Europe, 2 from North America,
3 from Africa, 8 from Asia, 6 from Latin America, and 1 from
Oceania. However, the change in that respect is evident in the
future, as recent developments in Asia and Latin America show.
Political science has become an international discipline, but it
has not reached its limits yet.
See also: Cultural Studies of Science; Dahl, Robert A
(19152014); Democracy: Normative Theory; Democratic
Theory; Discipline Formation in the Social Sciences;
Educational Institutions, History of; Educational Systems:
North America; Intellectual History; Knowledge, Sociology of;
Pluralism; Political Sociology; Political Theory, History of;
Quantication in the History of the Social Sciences; Science and
Politics: Value Neutrality; Science, History of; Science,
Sociology of; Scientic Disciplines, History of; Scientic
Knowledge, Sociology of; Social Science and Universities;
Tocqueville, Alexis de (180559).
Bibliography
Abbott, A., 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Andrews, W.G., 1982. Introduction: freaks, rainbows, and pots of gold. In:
Andrews, W.G. (Ed.), International Handbook of Political Science. Greenwood
Press, Westport, CT, pp. 16.
Coakley, J., Trent, J., 2000. History of the International Political Science Association
19491999. IPSA, Dublin.
Crick, B., 1959. The American Science of Politics. Its Origins and Conditions. Rout-
ledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Daalder, H. (Ed.), 1997. Comparative European Politics. The Story of a Profession.
Pinter, London.
Dahl, R.A., 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Downs, A., 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper & Row, New York.
Easton, D., 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science.
Knopf, New York.
Easton, D., 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Easton, D., 1969. The new revolution in political science. The American Political
Science Review 55 (4), 550559.
Easton, D., Gunnell, J.G., Stein, M.B. (Eds.), 1995. Regime and Discipline. Democracy
and the Development of Political Science. The University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor, MI.
Eisfeld, R., Pal, L.A. (Eds.), 2010. Political Science in Central-East Europe.
Diversity and Convergence. Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen & Farmington
Hills.
Farr, J., 1990. Francis Lieber and the interpretation of American political science. The
Journal of Politics 52 (4), 10271049.
Political Science, History of 471
Gunnell, J.G., 1993. The Descent of Political Theory. The Genealogy of an American
Vocation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Haddow, A., 1939. Political Science in American Colleges and Universities 16361900
(Edition with an Introduction and Concluding Chapter by Anderson, W.).
D. Appleton-Century Company, New York and London.
Inoguchi, T., 2012. Political science in three democracies, disaffected (Japan), third-
wave (Korea) and possibly edgling (China). In: Trent, J., Stein, M. (Eds.), The
World of Political Science: A Critical Overview of the Development of Political
Studies Around the Globe: 19902012. Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen,
Berlin, and Toronto, pp. 1139.
Jinadu, L.A., 1991. Political science in Anglophone Africa. Its context and devel-
opmental logic in historical perspective. In: Easton, D., Gunnell, J.G., Graziano, L.
(Eds.), The Development of Political Science. A Comparative Survey. Routledge,
London and New York, pp. 252274.
Klingemann, H.-D. (Ed.), 2007. The State of Political Science in Western Europe.
Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen and Farmington Hills.
Klingemann, H.-D., 2008. Capacities: political science in Europe. West European
Politics 31 (12), 370396.
Merriam, C.A., 1925. New Aspects of Politics. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Monroe, K.R. (Ed.), 2005. Perestroika! the Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. Yale
University Press, New Haven and London.
Newton, K., Boncourt, T., 2010. The ECPRs First Forty Years 19702010. ECPR,
Colchester.
Newton, K., Valls, J.M., 1991. Introduction: political science in Western Europe,
19601990. European Journal of Political Research 20 (34), 227238.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Purcell Jr., E.A., 1973. The Crisis of Democratic Theory. Scientic Naturalism & the
Problem of Value. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.
Seidelman, R., Harpham, E.J., 1985. Disenchanted Realists. Political Science and the
American Crisis, 18841984. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Smith, M., 1886. Introduction: the domain of political science. Political Science
Quarterly 1 (1), 18.
Somit, A., Tanenhaus, J., 1982. The Development of American Political Science: From
Burgess to Behavioralism. Irvington Publishers, Inc., New York.
Storing, H.J. (Ed.), 1962. Essays on the Scientic Study of Politics. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York.
Tocqueville, A. de, 1994 (orig. 18351840). Democracy in America. G. Lawrence,
Trans. and Mayer, J.P. (Ed.). Fontana Press, London.
UNESCO, 1950. Contemporary Political Science. A Survey of Methods, Research and
Teaching. UNESCO, Paris.
Waldo, D., 1975. Political science: tradition, discipline, profession, science, Enterprise.
In: Greenstein, F.I., Polsby, N.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Political Science, vol. 1.
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 1130.
Relevant Websites
http://www.apsanet.org/ American Political Science Association.
http://www.auspsa.org.au/ Australian Political Studies Association.
http://www.ecpr.eu/ European Consortium for Political Research.
http://www.ecpsa.org/ European Confederation of Political Science Associations.
http://www.ipsa.org/ International Political Science Association.
http://www.jpsa-web.org/ Japanese Political Science Association.
http://alacip.org/ Latin American Political Science Association.
http://www.saaps.org.za/ South African Association of Political Studies.