Suchergebnisse

In the December 1988 issue of thisReview, John Dryzek and Stephen Leonard argued the need for "context-sensitive" histories of the discipline of political science. In their view, disciplinary history must guide practical inquiry if it is to be most useful. The course of their argument draws the criticisms of three political scientists concerned about the history of political science—James Farr, John Gunnell, and Raymond Seidelman. Dryzek and Leonard respond to their critics and underscore their own rationale for enhanced interest in the history of the discipline.

AbstractIn this address, I argue that the organizational and ideational evolution of political science is closely interconnected with Canada's history and unequal social relations since Confederation. This is because organized political science in Canada was really at heart a national venture. As a consequence, in order to understand the ideas animating early political scientists we have to consider Canada's foundational status as a settler colony in the North American space, with a privileged place in the British Empire. This perspective may also help to highlight the distinct features of the colonial present which are giving rise to multiple sites of knowledge production-or multiple knowledges.

After a close association in the first half of the 20th century, during the 1970s the political science & history disciplines parted company: political science embraced behavioral analysis of narrow questions & historians lost interest in government institutions & public policy. However, in the 1980s & 1990s, the field of American Political Development gained in popularity among political scientists who pursued broader historical questions, eg, Progressive Era reform, the New Deal, etc. Institutional political historians emerged to tackle issues surrounding law & public policy & the development of the modern administrative state. The exciting connections between political science & history should not be limited to American Political Development, however. Examples of other scholarship examining the connections are reviewed, eg, in civic participation, the relationship between race & politics, international political economy, & the philosophy of history. Each discipline still has its unique approach but for the study of politics, an understanding of the other is of great benefit. M. Pflum

This paper examines the changing relationship between the study of history and the study of political science. It reviews the tensions which produced a divorce between the two subjects, particularly in the United States when behavioural political science was dominant. It then examines five areas in which history has enriched the study of politics: as a source of material; as a demonstration of the links between the present and the past; as a body of knowledge to test theories; as a means of analysing political concepts and as a source of lessons. It concludes that the links between the two subjects today are strong, but that the contribution of history is more as a body of knowledge than as a set of distinctive methods.

The history of political science serves as a context within which we make sense of the nature and role of our discipline. Narratives about the past development of British and American political science help to frame debates, choices, and identities within the contemporary discipline in Britain. What do recent studies on the history of political science tell us about the character of political science in Britain and America? What do they suggest about the relation of the British study of politics to British identities more generally? Our review of recent work concentrates on three issues: (1) how historical studies of political science relate to approaches and identities within the contemporary discipline; (2) how they relate to the past, i.e. whether their historical vision is marred by presentism; (3) whether they look beyond the boundaries of the discipline.

Once sparce and sporadic, histories of political science have proliferated in recent years. We contend that such histories are a necessary feature of the discourse of political science, because there are essential connections between the history, identity, and actual practices of any rationally progressive discipline. In light of the fact that the objects political scientists study are historically and contextually contingent, there has been—and should be—a plurality of histories to match the diversity of approaches in politicalscience. Unfortunately, most histories of political science prove either "Whiggish" and condescending toward the past, or "skeptical" and negative. The consequence has been an inadequate understanding of the relationship between plurality, rationality, and progress in the discipline. Taking into account both the deficiencies and achievements of Whiggish and skeptical accounts, we argue that context-sensitive histories would better serve the rationality and progress of political science.

Regards the study of politics not so much as a discipline with a distinctive method but more as a field of study which is amenable to various approaches. Suggests that the contribution of history has been more a body of knowledge than a set of methods. (SJK)