Can Political Science History be Neutral?

James Farr, John Gunnell, Raymond Seidelman, John S. Dryzek, Stephen T. Leonard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the December 1988 issue of this Review, 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)587-607
Number of pages21
JournalAmerican Political Science Review
Volume84
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1990
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

political science
history
political scientist
critic
criticism

Cite this

Farr, J., Gunnell, J., Seidelman, R., Dryzek, J. S., & Leonard, S. T. (1990). Can Political Science History be Neutral? American Political Science Review, 84(2), 587-607. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963537
Farr, James ; Gunnell, John ; Seidelman, Raymond ; Dryzek, John S. ; Leonard, Stephen T. / Can Political Science History be Neutral?. In: American Political Science Review. 1990 ; Vol. 84, No. 2. pp. 587-607.
@article{6ffae73efcb64649bb19451ab63dca84,
title = "Can Political Science History be Neutral?",
abstract = "In the December 1988 issue of this Review, 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.",
author = "James Farr and John Gunnell and Raymond Seidelman and Dryzek, {John S.} and Leonard, {Stephen T.}",
year = "1990",
doi = "10.2307/1963537",
language = "English",
volume = "84",
pages = "587--607",
journal = "American Political Science Review",
issn = "0003-0554",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

Farr, J, Gunnell, J, Seidelman, R, Dryzek, JS & Leonard, ST 1990, 'Can Political Science History be Neutral?', American Political Science Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 587-607. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963537

Can Political Science History be Neutral? / Farr, James; Gunnell, John; Seidelman, Raymond; Dryzek, John S.; Leonard, Stephen T.

In: American Political Science Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 1990, p. 587-607.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can Political Science History be Neutral?

AU - Farr, James

AU - Gunnell, John

AU - Seidelman, Raymond

AU - Dryzek, John S.

AU - Leonard, Stephen T.

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - In the December 1988 issue of this Review, 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.

AB - In the December 1988 issue of this Review, 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84971751210&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2307/1963537

DO - 10.2307/1963537

M3 - Article

VL - 84

SP - 587

EP - 607

JO - American Political Science Review

JF - American Political Science Review

SN - 0003-0554

IS - 2

ER -