From political science to politicizing science? A study of the discipline’s presence in the debates of the United States Congress, 1981–2021

ABSTRACT

This article examines how politicians consider political science and political scientists in the United States and more specifically in the United States Congress. The main idea is to examine Congressional debates in the specific timeline starting from the 1980s with an explicit focus on the argumentation of members of Congress. The interest lies in examining how members include references to political science or political theory in the debates and to what extent scholars and their works are cited in the debates. The article contributes to the discussions of political science as a discipline in the United States. Furthermore, it examines how the relationship between political science and politics is not only understood but also defined in the political debates of the United States. The article aims to shed light on how politicians are invoking political science and scholars in plenary session debates in contrast to employing expert statements in committee hearings or in the process of drafting bills and other governmental policies.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 One of the benchmarks for political science as a discipline in the United States was when the American Political Science Association was established in 1903.

2 S. Binder, ‘Legislative Productivity and Gridlock’, in F.E. Lee and E. Schickler (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the American Congress (Oxford, 2013), pp. 641–2.

3 See, for example, J. Farr, J. Hacker & N. Kazee. ‘The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell’, American Political Science Review 100, (2006), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062459, pp. 579–87. Accessed via Proquest.

4 M. Solovey, ‘The Impossible Dream: Scientism as Strategy against Distrust of Social Science at the U.S. National Science Foundation, 1945–1980’, International Journal for History, Culture, and Modernity 7, (2019), DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/hcm.554, pp. 209–38.

5 See, for example, S. Jasanoff, States of Knowledge. The Co-production of Science and the Social Order (London, 2004).

6 See, for example, A. Moore, Critical Elitism. Deliberation, Democracy, and the Problem of Expertise (Cambridge, 2017).

7 It should be noted that ‘political scientist’ here is understood broadly including, for example, international relations scholars.

8 See, A. Kronlund, ‘The Colonialism of Partisanship. Politics of National Interest and the National Science Foundation in the US Congressional Debate’, in N. Kauppi and K. Palonen (eds), Rhetoric and Bricolage in European Politics and Beyond: The Political Mind in Action (Cham, 2022), pp. 117–43.

9 For more about the discipline of political science in the United States and its history, see D. Easton, ‘Political Science in the United States: Past and Present’, International Political Science Review 6, (1985), pp. 133–52; D. Easton, ‘Political Science in the United States: Past and Present’, in J. Farr and R. Seidelman (eds), Discipline and History. Political Science in the United States (Ann Arbor, 1993), pp. 291–309; J.S. Dryzek, ‘Revolutions Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science’, American Political Science Review 100, (2006), pp. 487–92. Accessed via Proquest.

10 L. Friedman, ‘E.P.A. to Review Attacks on Science’, The New York Times, 24 March 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/climate/trump-science-epa.html.

11 S. Locke, ‘Stem cells were one of the biggest controversies of 2001. Where are they now?’ Vox, 15 December, 2014. https://www.vox.com/2014/12/15/7384457/stem-cell.

12 See the General Social Survey, uchicago news, 28 January 2022, https://news.uchicago.edu/story/trust-science-becoming-more-polarized-survey-finds.

13 Affiliations are announced as they were at the time of writing this article. See more details about the search terms at the end of this article. The timeframe for the analysis was from the beginning of 1981 until 7 August 2021.

14 The timeframe was kept limited to examine more closely the argumentation rather than only tracking down the number of references to each of the scholars or fields in the debates. While the timeline is ‘superficial’, it includes four decades and brings a more historical view and is also useful with this type of analysis when the idea is not to go systematically through all the references but to find examples of different types of uses.

15 Representative Benjamin Franklin Butler (R-MA): ‘Mr. Speaker, I recognize fully, the importance of the bill now before the House, as well as to the legislation of the country as to the great interests of political science, and the spread of just ideas of the equality of men in all nations of the earth.’ (US House of Representatives, 7 January 1874, 455)

16 A search for ‘political science’ and Congressional Record, altogether 7, 737 results since the 43rd Congress (1873–74) as of July 3, 2023.

17 A.H. Miller, C. Tien & A.A. Peebler, ‘The American Political Science Review Hall of Fame: Assessments and Implications for an Evolving Discipline’. PS: Political Science and Politics 1, (2019), pp. 73–83.

18 G.H. Utter & C. Lockhart, American Political Scientists. A Dictionary (2nd edition) (New York, 2002).

19 US Senate, 3 August 2006, S8673.

20 US Senate, 10 September 1996, S10108.

21 US House of Representatives, 20 March 1993, 6780.

22 The quote was not in the quotation marks in the Congressional Record but is here to indicate that it is a direct quote from Representative Swift. The original quote from Wilson is ‘Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work.’ (As in Wilson 1885, 79 accessed via Archive.org)

23 US House of Representatives, 23 October 1991, 28279.

24 US Senate, 9 March 2016, S1383.

25 A group of historians and scholars sent a letter to President Obama about the Supreme Court vacancy occasioned by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

26 It is common to have subfields including American government and politics, comparative politics, electoral behavior and public opinion, federalism, and intergovernmental relations, formal or positive theory, international relations and international organization, legislative politics, methodology, political economy, political parties, and interest groups, political psychology and socialization, political thought and philosophy, presidential or executive politics, public administration, public law and judicial politics, public policy, urban and ethnic politics, women and politics, feminist theory. (The list is included in Utter & Lockhart, American Political Scientists) However, this article uses a general conception of political theory and political science.

27 See, for example, Binder, ‘Legislative Productivity and Gridlock’; Farr et al., ‘The Policy Scientist of Democracy’.

28 US Senate, 22 June 2005, S7021.

29 US House of Representatives, 10 January 2020, H156.

30 US House of Representatives, 28 September 2005, H8932.

31 US Senate, 9 May 2001, S4568.

32 US House of Representatives, 28 July 1983, 21522.

33 That is, Ron Wyden (D-OR), 22 July 2003, S9706. References to ‘political science’ in the Congressional debates indeed included giving floor privilege to the political scientists working at the offices of the Senators to follow the debate on the floor.

34 Quoted in Farr et al., ‘The Policy Scientist of Democracy’, p. 580.

35 Dryzek, ‘Revolutions without enemies’, p. 487. See also J. R. Bond ‘The Scientification of the Study of Politics: Some Observations on the Behavioral Evolution in Political Science’, The Journal of Politics 69, (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-250, S65398.2007.00597.x, pp. 897–907.

36 US Senate, 29 November 2016, S6539.

37 Solovey, ‘The impossible dream,’ p. 222–3.

38 Solovey, ‘The impossible dream,’, p. 224.

39 US Senate, 20 March 2013, S1978.

40 US Senate, 20 March 2013, S1978.

41 US Senate, 20 March 2013, S1978.

42 H.Amdt. 734 amending H.R.4660 FY 2015 aimed to reduce funding for social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBE) by 15, 4 million and redirect the ‘saved’ funds to physical science and engineering.

43 US Senate, 13 June 2000, S4979.

44 US House of Representatives, 12 May 1998, H3025.

45 US House of Representatives, 15 July 1997, H5259.

46 US Senate, 1 October 1997, S10284.

47 US House of Representatives, 17 October 1990, 30170.

48 US Senate, 16 May 2000, S3970.

49 US Senate, 20 September 1983, 24843.

50 See A. Kronlund, US Congress’ Powers Under Debate: Separation of Powers and Parliamentary Politics in Times of War and Crisis (Nomos, 2022).

51 US Senate, 12 January 2007, S494.

52 US Senate, 8 October 2013, S7306.

53 US Senate, 8 July 1998, S7649-50.

54 US Senate, 13 October 2009, S10342.

55 US Senate, 20 March 2013, S1978.

56 See Kronlund, ‘The Colonialism of Partisanship’.

57 According to the data gathered by the Congressional Research Service in the 117th Congress (2021–22), altogether 22 Representatives and four Senators had a doctoral (PhD, DPhil, EdD, or D. Min) degree. See J. E. Manning, Membership of the 117th Congress: A Profile’, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705.

58 US House of Representatives, 25 March 2013, E374.

59 US House of Representatives, 4 June 1985, 10289.

60 US House of Representatives, 27 January 1988, 310.

61 US Senate, 14 March 2017, S1787.

62 US Senate, 14 May 2001, S4882.

63 US Senate, 22 July 2011, S4744.

64 US Senate, 21 November 2013, S8419.

65 US House of Representatives, 12 September 2012, H5867-68.

66 US Senate, 18 July 2012, S5096.

67 US Senate, 11 February 2010, S571–74.

68 US Senate, 18 July 1996, S8074.

69 US House of Representatives, 24 May 2007, H5904; 19 June 2007, H5671.

70 US Senate, 28 March 1984, 6848; 18 June 1984, 16937; 8 August 1984, 22733.

71 US House of Representatives, 10 July 2003, H6595-60.

72 Statement of Conscience, US House of Representatives, 4 October 2011, H6509.

73 Statement of Conscience, US House of Representatives, 4 October 2011, H6509.

74 ‘Samuel Huntington, the Harvard professor, once wrote – he was President of the American Political Science Association – that most of our politics is about conflicts between principles or among principles with which almost all of us agree.’ US Senate, 25 January 2008, S315.

75 German origin: “Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen; ist keine Wissenschaft, wohl aber eine kunft.” (H.R. von Poschinger, Fürst Bismarck: neue Tischgespräche und Interviews, Band 1 (Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1895)

76 US House of Representatives, 27 July 2011, H5589.

77 US House of Representatives, 23 June 1998, H4965; 10 October 1998, H10446.

78 US House of Representatives, 24 October 2003, E2127.

79 US House of Representatives, 23 December 2012, H7371.

80 US Senate, 26 April 2000, S2913–14.

81 US Senate, 6 February 1986, 1824.

82 There were some variances in results depending on whether the search string was ‘Robert Dahl’ or ‘Robert A. Dahl’. For the consistency of searches, the full names of the scholars were used.

83 US House of Representatives, 12 March 2007, E522.

84 US House of Representatives, 7 March 2019, H2544.

85 US Senate, 24 October 1997, S11178.

86 US Senate, 29 November 2016, S6532.

87 US Senate, 21 January 2010, S62.

88 US Senate, 23 February 1995, S3009.

89 US House of Representatives, 3 May 1994, H9133.

90 US Senate, 31 January 1995, S1843.

91 The author would like to thank the reviewer for pointing out this specific example of Senator Robbins.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Anna Kronlund

Anna Kronlund, Dr., Docent in Political Science (University of Jyväskylä), is an university lecturer in political science at the University of Turku, Finland. Dr Kronlund’s research interests include US politics, especially US Congress, political debates, and concepts. More recently, she has been leading a research project that studies United Nations’ legitimacy and transnational challenges. Her monograph US Congress’ Powers Under Debate: Separation of Powers and Parliamentary Politics in Times of War and Crisis was published by Nomos in 2022.