Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-08T10:07:35.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chicago School That Never Was

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2007

Michael T. Heaney
Michael T. Heaney
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Acentral problem in the development of political science has longbeen how to emulate the objectivity and rigor of natural sciencewhile simultaneously retaining relevance for conducting publicaffairs. For some observers, however, the very notion of anatural-scientific orientation to the study of politics isantithetical to its relevance to practical politics. Woodrow Wilson(1911, 10) struck at the heart of thematter when he proclaimed that “I do not like the term politicalscience” in his 1910 APSA Presidential Address. “Human relationships… are not in any proper sense the subject matter of science. Theyare the stuff of insight and sympathy and spiritual comprehension”(10–1; see also Ubertaccio and Cook 2006).This researchreceived financial support from the Institution for Social andPolicy Studies at Yale University and the department ofpolitical science at the University of Florida. For helpfulsuggestions, I am grateful to Michael Bloom, John Mark Hansen,Daniel Meyer, and Stephen Yoder.

Information

Type
THE PROFESSION
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 753 - 758
Copyright
© 2007 The American Political Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Almond, Gabriel A. 2004. “Who Lost the Chicago School of Political Science?” Perspectives on Politics 2 (1): 91–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annual Report of the Political Science Department, University of Chicago. 1926–1940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ashmore, Harry S. 1989. Unseasonable Truths: The Life of Robert Maynard Hutchins. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Brintnall, Michael. 2006. November 21. Personal email correspondence.Google Scholar
Bulmer, Martin. 1980. “The Early Institutional Establishment of Social Science Research.” Minerva 18 (1): 51–110.Google Scholar
Burgess, John W. 1898. “Private Corporations from the Point of View of Political Science.” Political Science Quarterly 13 (2): 201–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, John W. 1908. “The Chief Questions of Present American Politics.” Political Science Quarterly 23 (3): 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
City Club of Chicago. 1903–1909. Speaker Cards. Box 20, Folder 2. Chicago: Special Collections, Chicago Historical Society Research Center.Google Scholar
Critchlow, Donald T. 1985. The Brookings Institution, 1916–1952: Expertise and the Public Interest in a Democratic Society. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2006. “Revolutions Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 487–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David. 1969. “The New Revolution in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 63 (4): 1051–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Donald. 1993. Fundamental Development of the Social Sciences: Rockefeller Philanthropy and the United States Social Science Research Council. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gosnell, Harold F. 1927. Getting Out the Vote. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 2006. “The Founding of the American Political Science Association.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 479–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammack, David C., and Stanton Wheeler. 1994. Social Science in the Making: Essays on the Russell Sage Foundation, 1907–1972. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Heaney, Michael T., and John Mark Hansen. 2006. “Building the Chicago School.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 589–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In The New American Political System, ed. Anthony King. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 87–124.Google Scholar
Hutchins, Robert Maynard. 1936. The Higher Learning in America. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Karl, Barry D. 1974. Charles E. Merriam and the Study of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D. 1927. Propaganda Technique in the World War. New York: A. A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1906. Report of an Investigation of the Municipal Revenues of Chicago. Chicago: City Club of Chicago.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1907. “The Chicago Charter Convention.” American Political Science Review 2 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1908. Primary Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1913. “Outlook for Social Politics in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 18 (5): 676–88.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1915. “Findings and Recommendations of the Chicago Council Committee on Crime.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 6 (3): 345–62.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1921. “The Present State of the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 15 (2): 173–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. c1924. The School of Politics. Box 122, Folder 4. Chicago: Charles E. Merriam Collection, Special Collections, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. c1924. The School of Politics. Box 1925a. New Aspects of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. c1924. The School of Politics. Box 1925b. January 12. PROPOSAL for a Form of Developing An INSTITUTE OF POLITICS at the UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. Box 122, Folder 4. Chicago: Charles E. Merriam Collection, Special Collections, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. c1924. The School of Politics. Box 1926a. April 12. Letter to Leonard D. White. Box 42, Folder 18. Chicago: Charles E. Merriam Collection, Special Collections, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. c1924. The School of Politics. Box 1926b. “Progress in Political Research.” American Political Science Review 20 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1924. The School of Politics. Box 1931a. August 31. MEMORANDUM ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF UNITS OF GOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH. Box 108, Folder 1. Chicago: President's Papers, 1925–1945, Special Collections, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. c1924. The School of Politics. Box 1931b. The Making of Citizens. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. c1924. The School of Politics. Box 1934a. Civic Education in the United States. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. c1924. The School of Politics. Box 1934b. Political Power: Its Composition and Incidence. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Monroe, Kristen Renwick. 2004. “The Chicago School: Forgotten but Not Gone.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (1): 95–8.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael. 2004. “Giving Hands and Feet to Morality.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (1): 99–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Servi, H. 1931. September 17. Letter to Charles E. Merriam. Box 108, Folder 1. Chicago: President's Papers, 1925–1945, Special Collections, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1985. Charles E. Merriam and the “Chicago School” of Political Science. Urbana, IL: Department of Political Science, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1967. The Development of Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Task Force on Inequality, and American Democracy. 2004. American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Thomas, Bruce. 2004. “1313's Hidden History,” Hyde Park Herald, May 23.
Tsou, Tang. 1951. “A Study of the Development of the Scientific Approach in Political Studies in the United States.” Ph.D. diss. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Ubertaccio, Peter N., and Brian J. Cook. 2006. “Wilson's Failure: Roots of Contention about the Meaning of a Science of Politics.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 573–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of Chicago Library. 2006. Guide to the University of Chicago Department of Building and Grounds Records, 1892–1965. Chicago: Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.Google Scholar
White, Leonard D. 1926. April 15. Letter to Charles E. Merriam. Box 42, Folder 18. Chicago: Charles E. Merriam Collection, Special Collections, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
White, Leonard D. 1929. The Prestige Value of Public Employment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
White, Leonard D., ed. 1942. The Future of Government in the United States: Essays in Honor of Charles E. Merriam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. 1911. “The Law and the Facts.” American Political Science Review 5 (1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar