"The field of political science underwent a behavioralist transformation in the postwar period due to the influence of private philanthropic foundations that funneled large amounts of money to public universities. Drawing extensively on the archival records, Hauptmann examines the interchanges between the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller philanthropies and the universities of California and Michigan. She uncovers the way these foundations spurred distinct academic innovations in the study of politics thatcontinue to shape the study of political science in the United States and elsewhere. The new, postwar emphasis on sponsored research sparked sharp controversies within the discipline over what its ultimate purpose should be and what kind of knowledge about politics is deemed legitimate. Funding Political Science is a story about the way academic research in the United States is often bound up with external sources of funding that end up transforming scholarly fields"--
Foundations in the United States have long exerted considerable power over education and scholarly production. Although todays titans of philanthropy proclaim more loudly their desire to transform schools and universities than did some of their predecessors, philanthropic programs designed to reshape educational institutions are at least a century old. In Foundations and American Political Science, Emily Hauptmann focuses on the postwar Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller programs that reshaped political science. She shows how significant changes in the methods and research interests of postwar political scientists began as responses to the priorities set by their philanthropic patrons.
Informed by years of research in foundation and university archives, Foundations and American Political Science follows the course of several streams of private philanthropic money as they wended their way through public universities and political science departments in the postwar period. The programs launched by the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller philanthropies as well as their reception at the universities of California and Michigan steered political scientists towards particular problems as well as particular ways of studying them. The rise of statistical analyses of survey data, the decline of public administration, and persistent conflicts over the disciplines purpose and the best methods for understanding politics, Hauptmann argues, all had their roots in the ways that postwar universities responded to foundations programs. Additionally, the new emphasis universities placed on sponsored research sparked sharp disputes among political scientists over what should count as legitimate knowledge about politics and what the ultimate purpose of the discipline should be.
Biežāk uzdotie jautājumi par e-grāmatām