Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-m789k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-04T05:07:51.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whither Intellectual Diversity in American Political Science? The Case of APSA and Organized Sections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Joseph Losco
Joseph Losco*
Affiliation:
Ball State University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
News
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 836 - 846
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1998

References

Almond, Gabriel A. 1988. “Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 21(Fall): 828–42.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. 1997. Handbook for Division Officers. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
“APSA Council Minutes.” 1982. PS 15(Fall): 750–51.Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L., and Luckman, Thomas. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Brintnall, Michael. 1991. “Organizational Sections: A Status Report.” PS: Political Science and Politics 22(September): 559–63.Google Scholar
Carley, Kathleen. 1991. “A Theory of Group Stability.” American Sociological Review 56(3): 331–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Draft Minutes: APSA Council Meeting.” 1994b. PS: Political Science and Politics 27(December): 814–18.Google Scholar
“Draft Minutes: APSA Council Meeting.” 1995. PS: Political Science and Politics 28(December): 856–60.Google Scholar
“Draft Minutes: APSA Council Meeting. 1996b. PS: Political Science and Politics 29(September): 618–23.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1993. “Political Science in the United States: Past and Present.” In Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. Farr, James and Seidelman, Raymond. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Farr, James. 1993. “Political Science and the State.” In Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. Farr, James and Seidelman, Raymond. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, James, and Seidelman, Raymond, eds. 1993. Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1993. “The State in Political Science: How We Become What We Study.” In Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. Farr, James and Seidelman, Raymond. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England.” In Osiris: Studies on the History and Philosophy of Science, ed. Merton, Robert K.. Bruges, Belgium: St. Catherine Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1973. “Paradigm for a Sociology of Knowledge,” In The Sociology of Science, ed. Storer, N.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1997. Survey of Earned Doctorates. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy. 1993. “The Development of the Social Sciences.” In Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. Farr, James and Seidelman, Raymond. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Rudder, Catherine. 1990. “Report of the Executive Director.” PS: Political Science and Politics 23(September): 478–82.Google Scholar
Rudder, Catherine. 1991. “Report of the Executive Director.” PS: Political Science and Politics 24(September): 556–59.Google Scholar
Rudder, Catherine. 1993. “Report of the Executive Director.” PS: Political Science and Politics 26(September): 582–87.Google Scholar
Rudder, Catherine. 1994a. “Report of the Executive Director.” PS: Political Science and Politics 27 (September): 580–83.Google Scholar
Rudder, Catherine. 1996a. “Report of the Executive Director.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29(September): 549–54.Google Scholar
Rudder, Catherine. 1997. “Report of the Executive Director.” PS: Political Science and Politics 30(September): 592–99.Google Scholar
Rudder, Catherine. 1998. “Executive Director's Report.” PS: Political Science and Politics 31(September): 659–72.Google Scholar
Seidelman, Raymond. 1993. “Political Scientists, Disenchanted Realists and Disappearing Democrats.” In Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. Farr, James and Seidelman, Raymond. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Slayton, Christa D. 1994. “Response to Organized Section Committee Decisions.” Submitted to APSA Committee on Organized Sections. Made available by author.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1967. The Development of American Political Science from Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Vernon. 1960. Political Science: A Philosophic Investigation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Zisk, Betty. 1997. “The Discipline At Century's End: Ecological Critique.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar