While the American origins of the discipline of political science have often been noted and stressed, it has also been argued that the field has been fundamentally transformed as it has migrated and been adapted to new political and scientific contexts. There is thus a question of the extent to which it is still an American science of politics. Although one might assume that the recent genre of English language handbooks and state-of-the-discipline studies devoted to establishing the identity of political science would contribute to a better understanding of this matter, this literature has lacked an adequate historical perspective. Representative examples of this genre, both those generated in the United States and those with an ostensibly more international focus, have remained bound to an American vision of the past and present of the discipline and have failed to take account of recent scholarship on the history of political science.
Almond, G. (1988). “Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science.”PS, 21: 828-842.
2.
Almond, G. (1996). “Political Science: The History of the Discipline.” In A New Handbook of Political Science (R. Goodin and H.-D.Klingemann, eds), 50-96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
Almond, G. , and S. Verba (1963). The Civic Culture. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press.
4.
Anckar, D. (ed.) (1988). The Development of Political Science. Helsinki: Finnish Political Science Association.
5.
Anckar, D. and E. Berndtson (1987). “The Evolution of Political Science: Selected Case Studies.”International Political Science Review, 8.
6.
Andrews, W.G. (1982). International Handbook of Political Science. Westport, ct.: Greenwood Press.
7.
Crick, B. (1958). The American Science of Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
Crotty, W. (1991). Political Science: Looking to the Future, 4 vols. Evanston, il: Northwestern University Press.
9.
Dryzek, J.S. and S.T. Leonard (1988). “History and Discipline in Political Science.”American Political Science Review, 82: 1245-1260.
10.
Easton, D. (1969). “The Postbehavioral Revolution.”American Political Science Review, 60: 1051-1061.
11.
Easton, D. , J.G. Gunnell, and L. Graziano (eds) (1991). The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Survey. London: Routledge.
12.
Easton, D. , J.G. Gunnell, and M. Stein (eds) (1995). Regime and Discipline: Democracy and the Development of Political Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13.
Farr, J. , Dryzek, J.S., and S. Leonard (1995). Political Science and Its History: Research Programs and Political Traditions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Farr, J. , J. Gunnell, R. Seidelman, J.S. Dryzek, and S. Leonard (1990). “Can Political Science History be Neutral?”American Political Science Review, 84: 587-607.
15.
Farr, J. and R. Seidelman (eds) (1993). Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
16.
Finifter, A. (ed.) (1983). Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Washington, dc: American Political Science Association.
17.
Finifter, A. (1993). Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington, dc: American Political Science Association.
18.
Freeman, D.M. (1991). “The Making of a Discipline.” In Political Science: Looking to the Future (W. Crotty, ed.), 15-44. Evanston, il: Northwestern University Press.
19.
Goodin, R. , and H.-D. Klingemann (eds) (1996). A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
Greenstein, F. and N. Polsby (eds) (1975). Handbook of Political Science, 8 vols. Reading, ma: Addison-Wesley.
21.
Gunnell, J.G. (1983). “Political Theory: The Evolution of a Sub-field.” In Political Science: The Sate of the Discipline (A. Finifter, ed.), 3-45. Washington, dc: American Political Science Association.
22.
Gunnell, J.G. (1993). The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Gunnell, J.G. (1998). The Orders of Discourse: Philosophy, Social Science and Politics. Lanham, md: Rowman and Littlefield.
24.
Hartz, L. (1955). The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
25.
Moon, J.D. (1975). “Political Inquiry: A Synthesis of Opposed Perspectives.” In Handbook of Political Science (F. Greenstein and N. Polsby, eds), 131-228. Reading, ma: Addison-Wesley.
26.
Moon, J.D. (1991). “Pluralism and Progress in the Study of Politics.” In Political Science: Looking to the Future (W. Crotty, ed.), 35-46. Evanston, il: Northwestern University Press.
27.
Ricci, D.M. (1984). The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy. New Haven, ct: Yale University Press.
28.
Ross, D. (1991). The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Seidelman, R. (with E. Harpham) (1985). Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884-1984. Albany, ny: State University of New York Press.
30.
Somit, A. and J. Tanenhaus (1967). The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
31.
Valles, J.M. and K. Newton (eds) (1991). “Political Science in Western Europe, 1960-90.”European Journal of Political Research, 20: 225-466.
32.
Waldo, D. (1956). Political Science in the United States of America: A Trend Report. Paris: unesco.
33.
Waldo, D. (1975). “Political Science: Tradition, Discipline, Profession, Science, Enterprise.” In Handbook of Political Science (F. Greenstein and N. Polsby, eds), 1-130. Reading ma: Addison-Wesley.
