American Political Science Review Vol. 100, No. 4 November 2006 Building the Chicago School MICHAEL T. HEANEY University of Florida JOHN MARK HANSEN University of Chicago he Chicago School of Political Science, which emerged at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, is widely known for its reconception of the study of politics as a scientific endeavor T on the model of the natural sciences. Less attention has been devoted to the genesis of the school itself. In this article, we examine the scientific vision, faculty, curriculum, and supporting institutions of the Chicago School. The creation of the Chicago School, we find, required the construction of a faculty committed to its vision of the science of politics, the muster of resources to support efforts in research and education, and the formation of curriculum to educate students in its precepts and methods. Its success as an intellectual endeavor, we argue, depended not only on the articulation of the intellectual goals but also, crucially, on the confluence of disciplinary receptiveness, institutional opportunity, and entrepreneurial talent in support of a science of politics. central force in the evolution of political sci- After World War II, the apostles of the Chicago ence, like other of the social sciences, has been School—–those who pursued doctoral studies at Athe incorporation of the methods of the nat- Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s—–moved to faculty ural sciences. During the 1920s and 1930s, a group of positions at leading universities around the United scholars advocating the development of a “science” of States: V.O. Key Jr. to Johns Hopkins, Yale, and Har- politics assembled at the University of Chicago under vard, Harold D. Lasswell to Yale, David B. Truman to the tutelage of Charles E. Merriam, who chaired the Columbia, Gabriel A. Almond to Princeton and Stan- Department of Political Science from 1923 to 1940. ford, Avery Leiserson to Vanderbilt, and Herbert A. The “Chicago School of Political Science,” although Simon to the Carnegie Institute of Technology. not the only voice for a science of politics, was still for (C. Herman Pritchett remained at Chicago as depart- its day the most cohesive, productive, and influential ment chair.) These graduates of the Chicago School contributor to the development of political science on were the vanguard of the behavioral revolution that a natural scientific model. fundamentally reshaped political science. Together The faculty of the Chicago School produced semi- they created the science of politics that became the nal studies of voting behavior, urban politics, African mainstream of the discipline during the 1950s and American politics, political psychology, comparative 1960s—–and remains with us still. politics, the causes of war, political parties, public ad- The substantive and methodological contributions ministration, and methodology (e.g., Gaus, White, and of the Chicago School have been widely appreciated Dimock, 1936; Gosnell 1927, 1930, 1934, 1935, 1937; and discussed (e.g., Almond 2004; Hansen 1997; Karl Lasswell 1927, 1930, 1935, 1936; Merriam 1923, 1925, 1974; Monroe 2004; Neblo 2004; Oren 2003; Ross 1991; 1929; Merriam and Gosnell 1924; White 1929; Wright Simon 1985; Somit and Tanenhaus 1967; Tsou 1951; 1935). These studies were among the first to use ad- White 1942). Less attention has been devoted to the vanced empirical methods in political science, including genesis of the school itself. How did Merriam go about survey experiments (e.g., White); content analysis (e.g., building a “school”? What occurred to make possible Lasswell 1927); field experiments (e.g., Gosnell 1927); the success of a new conception of political science and correlation, regression, and factor analysis (e.g., as a scientific discipline? In this article, we examine Gosnell 1937). At the same time, the Chicago School’s the scientific vision, faculty, curriculum, and supporting notion of “science” embraced qualitative methods and institutions of the Chicago School. The creation of the historical analysis, which often were presented side-by- Chicago School, we find, required the construction of a side with quantitative analysis (e.g., Gosnell 1935). faculty committed to its vision of the science of politics, the muster of resources to support efforts in research Michael T. Heaney is Assistant Professor, Department of Po- and education, and the formation of curriculum to ed- litical Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 ucate students in its precepts and methods. Its success (mtheaney@ufl.edu). as an intellectual endeavor, we argue, depended not John Mark Hansen is Dean of the Social Sciences, Charles L. only on the articulation of the intellectual goals but Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Political Science and the College, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 also, crucially, on the confluence of disciplinary recep- ([email protected]). tiveness, institutional opportunity, and entrepreneurial For assistance with various aspects of the research, we owe spe- talent in support of a science of politics. cial thanks to Kathy Anderson, Jonathan Bruner, Christina Greer, Andrew Hammond, Ira Katznelson, Daniel Meyer, Clayton Nall, Vijay Phulwani, Adam Sheingate, James Stimpert, Jocelyn Wilk, the editors, and three anonymous reviewers. Financial support was A VISION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE provided by the Division of the Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, the Center for the Study of American Politics at Yale In its first decades, the fledgling discipline of political University, and the Department of Political Science at the University science looked toward history and toward law, though of Florida. the balance differed by department. At Johns Hopkins 589 Building the Chicago School November 2006 University, Henry Baxter Adams established a politi- plied science—–much as Merriam and his associates cal science curriculum firmly rooted in history (Somit were active themselves in government—–but rather a and Tanenhaus 1967, 25). Adams’s motto, inscribed on basic science oriented toward deeper understanding of the wall of the “Historical Seminary” where he taught, the issues that confront modern government. It was expressed his view succinctly. “History is past Politics,” Merriam’s (1926, 12) intention that “social science and it read, “and Politics present History” (Bishop 1987, natural science come together in a common effort and 505). At Columbia University, in contrast, the politi- unite their forces in the greatest tasks that humanity has cal science department sought to combine compara- yet faced—–the intelligent understanding and control of tive historical analysis with administration and law. human behavior.” Its faculty covered a range of specialties, from John Even in 1921, Charles Merriam was hardly the only W. Burgess in comparative law to Frank J. Goodnow advocate for a scientific approach to the study of pol- in administrative law to William A. Dunning in his- itics. The idea of a social science that was unified, sys- tory and political philosophy, but law reigned supreme tematic, and practical was circulating widely. It owed (Karl 1974, 24–25). “Law is, with us,” the Columbia de- much to the philosophical pragmatism of John Dewey, partment proclaimed, “the chief avenue into politics” an important influence in the social sciences at Chicago, (Columbia University 1897–1898, 12). where he served for ten years as a professor in philos- In a 1921 article in this Review, Charles Merriam out- ophy and education, and nationwide (see, e.g., Dewey lined an alternative vision for political science, a model 1927; Neblo 2004). As a student at Columbia, Merriam that would become the Chicago School. Merriam’s pro- absorbed the teachings of John W.Burgess, who himself posal for a “new science of politics” was ordered by espoused a scientific vision for political science. Be- three precepts (Merriam 1921; see also his 1925 APSA yond Columbia, Harvard’s A. Lawrence Lowell used presidential address, Merriam 1926). First, he argued, his 1909 APSA presidential address to exhort politi- political science should draw on the practices of natu- cal scientists to borrow from the natural sciences and ral science—–especially biology—–in the development of seek “scientific knowledge of the physiology of poli- theory. Like the natural sciences, Merriam (1921, 175, tics” (Lowell 1910, 3). 179; 1926, 8) contended, the social sciences ought to be But it was Merriam, as chair, with a department at closely integrated. Political scientists, he urged, should his disposal, who organized the vision of a new science pay particular attention to developments in psycho- of politics into practice. He encapsulated this effort logy. Merriam offered a vision of political science as an concisely in the first of the 15 annual reports that he integral part of a social science. would write for the Department: The second precept of Merriam’s vision was that political science should look to natural science for [W]hat we are really attempting is to blaze a new trail in inspiration on method. For Merriam (1921, 175), the the field of the technical study of political relations. We are key ingredient in the scientific method was the ability endeavoring to integrate the study of government more to conduct systematic observation, which demanded closely with the other social studies and with the natural sciences, and we are struggling to develop a more precise the construction of laboratories and the creation of technique. This is not the task of a day, and we do not research teams. The use of statistics was certainly a expect to finish it offhand, but we are confident that we vital part of his project. “Statistics,” he argued, are making significant progress. We now have more than forty graduate students in residence.... We are developing ...increase the length and breadth of the observer’s range, significant research activities, and we believe that we are giving him myriad eyes and making it possible to explore making real contributions to the more intelligent ordering areas hitherto only vaguely described and charted.