Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-tx785 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-09T01:39:18.173Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Technique Trumps Relevance: The Professionalization of Political Science and the Marginalization of Security Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2015


I explain here the disconnect between our discipline's self-image as balancing rigor with relevance with the reality of how we actually conduct our scholarship most of the time. To do so, I account for variation in social scientists' willingness to engage in policy-relevant scholarship over time. My theory is that social science, at least as it has been practiced in the United States since the early twentieth century, has tried to balance two impulses: To be a rigorous science and a relevant social enterprise. The problem is that there are sometimes tensions between these two objectives. First, historically the most useful policy-relevant social science work in the area of national security affairs has been interdisciplinary in nature, and this cuts against the increasingly rigid disciplinary siloes in the modern academy. Second, as sociologist Thomas Gieryn puts it, there is “in science, an unyielding tension between basic and applied research, and between the empirical and theoretical aspects of inquiry.” During wartime, the tensions between these two impulses have been generally muted, especially among those disciplines of direct relevance to the war effort; in peacetime, they reemerge and there are a variety of powerful institutional incentives within academe to resolve them in favor of a narrow definition of rigor that excludes relevance. My objective is to document how these trends in political science are marginalizing the sub-field of security studies, which has historically sought both scholarly rigor and real-world relevance. — Michael Desch.

This essay is followed by responses from Ido Oren, Laura Sjobreg, Helen Louise Turton, Erik Voeten, and Stephen M. Walt. Michael Desch then offers a response to commentators.

Reflections Symposium
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Aaron, Henry J. 1978. Politics and the Professors: The Great Society in Perspective. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on the Management of Behavioral Science Research in the Department of Defense. 1971. Behavioral and Social Research in the Department of Defense: A Framework for Management. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Art, Robert. 1973. “Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique.” Policy Sciences 4(4): 467–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Art, Robert, et al. . 2002. “WAR WITH IRAQ IS NOT IN AMERICA'S NATIONAL INTEREST,” paid advertisement on the Op/Ed page of New York Times September 26.Google Scholar
Avey, Paul C., and Desch, Michael C.. 2014. “What Do Policymakers Want from Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Decision-makers.” International Studies Quarterly 58(4): 227–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, David. 1995. “Review: Security Studies and the End of the Cold War.” World Politics 48(1): 117–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balz, John. 2008. “The Absent Professor: Why Politicians Don’t Listen to Political Scientists.” Washington Monthly 40(13): 1213.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert, Epstein, David, Goldstone, Jack A., Lustik, Michael, Marshall, Monty, Ulfelder, Jay, and Woodward, Mark. 2010. “A Global Model for Forecasting Political Instability.” American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 190208.Google Scholar
Bender, Thomas. 1993. Intellect and Public Life: Essays on the Social History of Academic Intellectuals in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Ikenberry, G. John. 2006. “ The Review’s Evolving Relevance for U.S. Foreign Policy 1906–2006American Political Science Review 100(4): 651–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Michael A. 2001. A Perilous Progress: Economists and Public Purpose in Twentieth-Century America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Betts, Richard K. 1997. “Should Strategic Studies Survive?” World Politics 50(1): 733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betts, Richard K. 2002. “Fixing Intelligence.” Foreign Affairs 81(1): 4359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Stephen, Friedman, Jeffrey, and Shapiro, Jacob N.. 2012. “Testing the Surge: Why Did Violence Decline in Iraq in 2007?International Security 37(1): 740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braumoller, Bear F., and Sartori, Anne E.. 2004. “Empirical-Quantitative Approaches to the Study of International Relations.” In Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, ed. Sprinz, Detlef and Wilinsky, Yael. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Brodie, Bernard. 1949. “Strategy as a Science.” World Politics. 1(4): 467–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, Bernard. 1964. “The American Scientific Strategists.” RAND Paper [P-2979]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Bundy, McGeorge. 1964. “The Battlefields of Power and the Searchlights of the Academy.” In The Dimensions of Diplomacy, ed. Johnson, E. A. J.. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., and Vavreck, Lynn. 2012. “Keeping It Contemporary: Report to the American Political Science Association of the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Understanding of Political Science.” Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Campbell, Peter, and Desch, Michael. 2013. “Rank Irrelevance: How Academia Lost Its Way.” Foreign, September 15 at, accessed July 1. 2014.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Charli. 2012. “You Talk of Terrible Things So Matter-of-Factly in This Language of Science: Constructing Human Rights in the Academy.” Perspectives on Politics 10(2): 363–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centeno, Miguel Angel. 1993. “The New Leviathan: The Dynamics and Limits of Technocracy.” Theory and Society 22(3): 307–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1968. “The Responsibility of Intellectuals.” In The Dissenting Academy, ed. Roszak, Theodore. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Clark, Burton R. 1966. “Organizational Adaptations of Professionals.” In Professionalization, ed. Vollmer, Howard M.. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cohn, Carol. 1987. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals.” Signs 12(4): 687718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collbohm, F. R., and Weaver, Warren. 1948. “Opening Plenary.” In Conference of Social Scientists, September 14 to 19, 1947 [R-106]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
Crick, Bernard L. 1960. The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
de Sola Pool, Ithiel. 1967. “The Necessity for Social Scientists Doing Research for Governments.” In The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot, ed. Horowitz, Irving Louis. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.Google Scholar
Desch, Michael C. 1996. “War and Strong States, Peace and Weak States?International Organization 50(2): 237–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drezner, Daniel. 2014. “What Nicholas Kristof Doesn’t Get about the Ivory Tower.” Foreign, February 21., accessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
Dunn 1943, 1944, 1950 – see n. 88, 96. Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1969. “The New Revolution in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 63(4): 1051–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eimer, G. H. Theodor. 1887. “Specialization in Science.” Popular Science Monthly 32(11): at; accessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
Ekbladh, David. 2011/12. “Present at the Creation: Edward Meade Earle and the Depression Era Origins of Security Studies.” International Security 36(3): 107–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engerman, David C. 2009. Know Your Enemy: The Rise and Fall of America’s Soviet Experts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans 1951 – see n. 97. Google Scholar
“Excerpt from “Thomas Schelling’s Interview: 2. Why Were You Initially Drawn to Game Theory?” at, accessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
Farr, James, Hacker, Jacob S., and Kazee, Nicole. 2006. “The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell.” American Political Science Review 100(4): 579–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feaver, Peter D. 1999. “The Theory-Policy Gap in Political Science and Nuclear Proliferation.” National Security Studies Quarterly 5(3): 6982.Google Scholar
Fox, William T. R. 1962. “Frederick Sherwood Dunn and the American Study of International Relations.” World Politics 15(1): 1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frieden, Jeffrey, and Lake, David. 2005. “International Relations as a Social Science: Rigor and Relevance.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600: 137–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furman, Matthew, and Kreps, Sarah. 2010. “Targeting Nuclear Programs in War and Peace: A Quantitative Empirical Analysis, 1941–2000.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 54(6): 831–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gartzke, Erik. 2011. “Zombie Relevance.” February 27 at, accessed July 9, 2014.Google Scholar
Gelfand, Lawrence E. 1963. The Inquiry: American Preparations for Peace, 1917–1919. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L. 1993. Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. “Boundary Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48(6): 781–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Carol. 1975. Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of Higher Learning in America. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John. 1961. The Federalist Papers. New York: Mentor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, Steven F. 2010. “The Irrelevance of Modern Political Science,” The American September 14 at, accessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
H-Diplo/ISSF. 2010. “Politics and Scholarship.” June 1. Ed. Robert Jervis.∼diplo/ISSF/PDF/ISSF-Roundtable-1-2.pdf, accsessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
Herbst, Jeffrey. 1940. “War and the State in Africa.” International Security 14(4): 117–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershberg, James G. 1983. James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hintze, Otto. 1975. “Military Organization and the Organization of the State.” In The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze, ed. Gilbert, Felix. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirshman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1963. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Holpuch, Amanda, 2014. “Academic Group Proposes Editor Blogging Ban to Keep ‘Professional' Tone.” The Guardian, January 29., accessed July 14, 2014.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Michael. 2010. “Non-State Actors and the Diffusion of Innovations: The Case of Suicide Terrorism.” International Organization 64(1): 3364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1998. “One Soul at a Time: Political Science and Political Reform.” American Political Science Review 82(1): 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeaus, and Kaufman, Stuart J.. 2007. “Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy: A Study in Weberian Activism.” Perspectives on Politics 5(1): 95103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, Russell. 1987. The Last Intellectuals: American Academic Culture in the Age of Academe. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
Jentleson, Bruce. 2002. “The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In.” International Security 26(4): 169–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jentleson, Bruce, and Ratner, Ely. 2011. “Bridging the Beltway-Ivory Tower Gap.” International Studies Review 13(11): 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 2004. “Security Studies: Ideas, Policy, and Politics.” In The Evolution of Political Knowledge, ed. Mansfield, Edward D. and Sisson, Richard. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Fred. 1983. The Wizards of Armageddon. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Karl, Barry D. 1974. Charles E. Merriam and the Study of Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Barry M. 1989. Foreign Intelligence: Research and Analysis in the Office of Strategic Services, 1942–1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennan, George F. 1951. American Diplomacy, 1900–1950. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Ezra. 2013. “Full Text: Eric Cantor’s ‘Make Life Work’ Speech” Washington Post, February 5., accessed July 1. 2014.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen. 2009. Power, the State, and Sovereignty: Essays on International Relations. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristof, Nicholas. 2014. “Professors, We Need You!” New York Times, February 15., accessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
Kroenig, Matthew. 2009. “Exporting the Bomb: Why States Provide Sensitive Nuclear Assistance.” American Political Science Review 103(1): 113–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, Paul. 2009. “How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?” New York Times Magazine, September 6., accessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
Kruzel, Joseph. 1994. “Review: More of a Chasm Than a Gap, but Do Scholars Want to Bridge It?Mershon International Studies Review 38(1): 179–81.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuklick, Bruce. 2006. Blind Oracles: Intellectuals and War from Kennan to Kissinger. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lafforgue, Laurent. 2011. “Does Basic Research Have Meaning: A Few Remarks by a Catholic Mathematician.” South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Langer, William L. 1948. “Scholarship and the Intelligence Problem.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 92(1): 43–5.Google Scholar
Lehman, David. 1991. Signs of the Times: Deconstruction and the Fall of Paul de Man. New York: Poseidon.Google Scholar
Lepgold, Joseph. 1998. “Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and the Problem of Policy Relevance.” Political Science Quarterly 113(1): 4362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepgold, Joseph, and Nincic, Miroslav. 2001. Beyond the Ivory Tower: International Relations Theory and the Issue of Policy Relevance. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberthal, Kenneth. 2006. “Initiatives to Bridge the Gap,” Asia Policy 1(1): 715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Aurthur. 2014. “What Is the Value of Social Science? Challenges for Researchers and Government Funders.” PS: Political Science and Politics 47(1): 17.Google Scholar
Lyall, Jason, and Wilson, Lt. Col. Isiah III. 2009. “Rage against the Machines: Explaining Outcomes in Counterinsurgency Wars.” International Organization 63(1): 67106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynd, Robert S. 1939. Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in American Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, Gene M. 1969. The Uneasy Partnership: Social Science and the Federal Government in the Twentieth Century. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lyons, Gene M., and Morton, Louis. 1965, Schools for Strategy: Education and Research in National Security Affairs. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1952. The Prince. New York: Mentor Classic.Google Scholar
Mahnken, Thomas. 2010. “Bridging the Gap between the Worlds of Ideas and Action.” Orbis 54(1): 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Oakes, Amy, Peterson, Susan, and Tierney, Michael J.. 2011. “International Relations in the Academy.” International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 437–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mankiw, N. Gregory. 1990. “A Quick Refresher Course in Macroeconomics,” The Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4): 1645–60.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Snyder, Jack. 1995. “Democratization and War.” Foreign Affairs 74(3): 7997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Snyder, Jack. 2005. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lisa L. 1999. “The Contributions of Rational Choice: A Defense of Pluralism.” International Security 24(2): 7483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurtie, Beth. 2014. “Scholars Wrestle with Challenges of Engaging with Policy Makers.” Chronicle of Higher Education, April 30., accessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
Mead, Lawrence M. 2010. “Scholasticism in Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 8(2): 453–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John. 2004. “A Self-Enclosed World?” In Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Smith, Rogers M., and Masoud, Tarek E.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John, and Walt, Stephen. 2013. “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing Is Bad for International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 427–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menand, Louis. 2010. The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1945. “Role of the Intellectual in Public Bureaucracy.” Social Forces 23(4): 405–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1956. On Liberty. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Miller, Steven E. 2001. “ International Security at Twenty-five: From One World to Another.” International Security 36(1): 539.Google Scholar
Mole, Beth. 2013. “NSF Cancels Political-Science Grant Cycle.” Nature, August 2., accessed July 1, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mommsen, Wolfgang J. Max Weber and German Politics: 1890–1920. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Multhauf, Robert. 1959. “The Scientist and the ‘Improver’ of Technology.” Technology and Culture 1(1): 634–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Intelligence Council. 2012. Global Trends: 2030. Washington, DC: NIC.Google Scholar
Neumann, Franz, Marcuse, Herbert, and Kirchheimer, Otto. 2013. Secret Reports on Nazi Germany: The Frankfurt School Contribution to the War Effort. Ed. Laundani, Raffaele. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Newsom, David D. 1995/96. “Foreign Policy and Academia,” Foreign Policy 10: 5267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitze, Paul 1958. “The Role of the Learned Man in Government.” Review of Politics 20(3): 275–88.Google Scholar
No Author. 1964. “5,000 Scholars Ask a Neutral Vietnam,” New York Times, July 11, 1 and 2.Google Scholar
Norton, Anne. 2004. “Political Science as a Vocation.” In Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Smith, Rogers M., and Masoud, Tarek E.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S Jr. 2008. “International Relations: The Relevance of Theory to Practice.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. Jr., 2009. “Scholars on the Sidelines.” Washington Post, April 13, A15.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1982 The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1995. “Engineering or Science: What Is the Study of Politics?” In The Rational Choice Controversy, ed. Friedman, Jeffrey. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Oren, Ido. 2003. Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, Samuel C., Ripley, Brian D., and Trish, Barbara. 1988. “The American Political Science Review: A Retrospective of the Last Year and the Last Eight Decades.” PS: Political Science and Politics 21(4): 908–25.Google Scholar
Perret, Geoffrey. 1989. A Country Made by War: From the Revolution to Vietnam –The Story of America’s Rise to Power. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Porter, Bruce D. 1994. War and the Rise of the State: The Military Foundations of Modern Politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Posen, Barry R. 1984. The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Posen, Barry R. 1993. “Nationalism, the Mass Army, and Military Power.” International Security 18(2): 80124.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert N. 1991.Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2003. “APSA Presidential Address: The Public Role of Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 1(2): 240–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricci, David M. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy. 2003. “Changing Contours of Social Science Disciplines.” In The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 7 of The Modern Social Sciences, ed. Porter, Theodore M. and Ross, Dorothy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sapolsky, Harvey M. 1990. Science and the Navy: The History of the Office of Naval Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schaar, John H., and Wolin, Sheldon S.. 1963. “ Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics: A Critique.” American Political Science Review 57(1): 125–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. “Academics, Decision Makers, and Security Policy during the Cold War: A Comment on Jervis.” In The Evolution of Political Knowledge, ed. Mansfield, Edward D. and Sisson, Richard. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Schilling, Warner R. 1962. “Scientists, Foreign Policy, and Politics.” American Political Science Review 56(2): 287300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, James R. 1963. “Quantitative Analysis and National Security.” World Politics 15(2): 295315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1949. “Science and Ideology.” American Economic Review 39(2): 345–59.Google Scholar
Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy. 2004. “An Open Letter to the American People.” October., accessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sherry, Michael S. 1995. In the Shadow of War: The United States since the 1930s. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sherwin, Chalmers W., and Isenson, Raymond. 1967. “Project Hindsight.” Science [new series] 156(3782): 1571–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shils, Edward. 1949. “Social Science and Social Policy.” Philosophy of Science 16: 219–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee. 2006. “The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review .” American Political Science Review 100(4): 463–78.Google Scholar
Silver, Nate. 2012. The Signal and the Noise: Why so Many Predictions Fail—but Some Don't. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2003. “Doubly Engaged Social Science: The Promise of Comparative Historical Analysis.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, ed. Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Mark C. 1994. Social Science in the Crucible: The American Debate over Objectivity and Purpose, 1918–1941. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers. 2002. “Should We Make Political Science More of a Science or More about Politics.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35(2): 199201.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers. 2011. “Public Sphere Forum” at, accessed June 30, 2014.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack. 1984. The Ideology of the Offensive: Military Decision Making and the Disasters of 1914. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack. 1988. “Science and Sovietology: Bridging the Methods Gap in Soviet Foreign Policy Studies.” World Politics 40(2): 169–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1967. The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, Marc. 2010. “Social Scientists and National Security Policymaking.” Unpublished manuscript. Notre Dame International Security Program Conference, April 23.Google Scholar
Trilling, Lionel. 1990. The Liberal Imagination. New York: New York Review of Books.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1972. “Economic Imperialism.” In Theory of Public Choice: Political Applications of Economics, ed. Buchanan, James M.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Tugwell, R. G. 1968. The Brains Trust. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Van, Evera, Stephen, . 1984. “The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War.” International Security 9(1): 58107.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 2010. “Director’s Statement: Trends in Political Science and the Future of Security Studies.” In MIT Security Studies Program Annual Report, 2009–2010. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
Vogel, Ezra F. 2006. “Some Reflections on Policy and Academics.” Asia Policy 1: 3134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1991. “The Renaissance of Security Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 35(2): 211–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1999. “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies.” International Security 23(4): 548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 2005. “The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations.” Annual Review of Political Science 8: 2348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
White, Leslie A. “Sociology, Physics and Mathematics.” American Sociological Review 8(4): 373–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiting, Allen S. 1972. “The Scholar and the Policymaker.” World Politics 24(supplement): 229–47.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1972. “The Self-Evaluating Organization.” Public Administration Review 32(5): 509–20.Google Scholar
Wilensky, Harold L. 1964. “The Professionalization of Everyone?” American Journal of Sociology 70(2): 137–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willits 1951 – see n. 95.Google Scholar
Wilson, Ernest J III. 2007. “Is There Really a Scholar-Practitioner Gap? An Institutional Analysis.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40: 147–51.Google Scholar
Winks, Robin W. 1996. Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939–1961. 2d ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Zelikow, Phillip. 1984. “Foreign Policy Engineering: From Theory to Practice and Back Again.” International Security 18(4): 143–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar