Pre-facing power. The study of power in American political science, 1920–1950

References

• Allen, A., 1998. Rethinking power. Hypatia, 13 (1), 21–40.10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01350.x
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, H., 1998. The human condition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226924571.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S., 1962. Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 56 (4), 947–952.10.2307/1952796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentley, A.F., 1908. The process of government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boje, D.M. and Rosile, G.A., 2001. Where’s the power in empowerment? Answers from Follett and Glegg. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37 (1), 90–117.10.1177/0021886301371006
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, B.A., 1990. The politics of “originality”: women and the class system of the intellect. Journal of Women’s History, 2 (2), 136–163.10.1353/jowh.2010.0060
   Google Scholar
• Catlin, G.E.G., 1925. The doctrine of power and party conflict. The American Political Science Review, 19 (4), 718–734.10.2307/2939162
   Google Scholar
• Clegg, S.R., 1989. Frameworks of power. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446279267
   Google Scholar
• Coker, F., 1921. The technique of the pluralistic state. The American Political Science Review, 15 (2), 186–213.10.2307/1944082
   Google Scholar
• Crick, B., 1959. The American science of politics. Its origins and conditions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R.A., 1957. The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2 (3), 201–215.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R.A., 1958. A critique of the ruling elite model. The American Political Science Review, 52 (2), 463–469.10.2307/1952327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R.A., 1961a. The behavioral approach in political science: epitaph for a monument to a successful protest. The American Political Science Review, 55 (4), 763–772.10.2307/1952525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R.A., 1961b. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R.A., 1991. Robert A. Dahl. In: M.A. Baer, M.E. Jewell and L. Sigelman, eds. Political science in America. Oral histories of a discipline. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 166–178.
   Google Scholar
• Dickinson, J., 1929. Social order and political authority. The American Political Science Review, 23 (2), 293–328.10.2307/1945217
   Google Scholar
• Easton, D., 1991. David Easton. In: M.A. Baer, M.E. Jewell and L. Sigelman, eds. Political science in America. Oral histories of a discipline. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 195–214.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, A.I., 1995. Reconstructing political pluralism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, E.D., 1920. The pluralistic state. The American Political Science Review, 14 (3), 393–407.10.2307/1946259
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, E.D., 1923. Guild socialism and pluralism. The American Political Science Review, 17 (4), 584–596.10.2307/1943758
   Google Scholar
• Follett, M.P., 1896. The Speaker of the House of Representatives. New York: Longmans, Green.
   Google Scholar
• Follett, M.P., 1918. The new state, group organization. The solution of popular government. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Follett, M.P., 1924. Creative experience. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Follett, M.P., 1941. Dynamic Administration. In: H.C. Metcalf and L. Urwick, eds. Dynamic administration. The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper & Brothers.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M., 1982. The subject of power. Critical Inquiry, 8, 777–795.10.1086/ci.1982.8.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French Jr., John R.P., 1956. A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63 (3), 181–194.10.1037/h0046123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goehler, G., 2000. Constitution and use of power. In: H. Goverde, P.G. Cerny, M. Haugaard and H. Lentner, eds. Power in contemporary politics: theories, practices, globalizations. London: Sage, 41–58.10.4135/9781446219935
   Google Scholar
• Gunnell, J.G., 1996. The genealogy of American pluralism: from Madison to behavioralism. International Political Science Review, 17 (3), 253–265.10.1177/019251296017003003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunnell, J.G., 2004. The real revolution in political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37 (1), 47–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haugaard, M., 2012. Rethinking the four dimensions of power: domination and empowerment. Journal of Political Power, 5 (1), 33–54.10.1080/2158379X.2012.660810
   Google Scholar
• Heaney, M.T. and Hansen, J.M., 2006. Building the Chicago school. The American Political Science Review, 100 (4), 589–596.10.1017/S0003055406062460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herring, P., 1929. Group representation before congress. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirst, P.Q., ed., 1989. The pluralist theory of the state. Selected writings of G.D.H. Cole, J.N. Figgis, and H.J. Laski. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, F., 1953. Community power structure: a study of decision makers. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaag, J., 2008. Women and forgotten movements in American philosophy: the work of Ella Lyman Cabot and Mary Parker Follett. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 44 (1), 134–157.
   Google Scholar
• Karl, B.D., 1974. Charles E. Merriam and the study of politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karl, B.D., 1979. Executive reorganization and reform in the new deal. The genesis of administrative management, 1900–1939. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H.D., 1936. Politics: who gets what, when, how. New York: The World Publishing Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H.D. and Kaplan, A., 1952. Power and society. A framework for political inquiry. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Luce, R.D. and Rogow, A.A., 1956. A game theoretic analysis of congressional power distributions for a stable two-party system. Behavioral Science, 1 (2), 83–95.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S., 2005. Power. A radical view. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Mattson, K., 1998. Creating a democratic public: the struggle for urban participatory democracy during the progressive era. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1900. History of the theory of sovereignty since Rousseau. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1921. The present state of the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 15 (2), 173–185.10.2307/1944081
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1922a. The American party system: an introduction to the study of political parties in the United States. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1922b. A letter to Harry Barnes, 13 Oct. The Charles E. Merriam Papers, Box XXV, folder 15. The Joseph Regenstein Library, Department of Special Collections. The University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1925. New aspects of politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1931. The making of citizens: a comparative study of the methods of civic training. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1934. Political power. Its composition and incidence. New York: Collier Books.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1936. The role of politics in social change. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1939. A review of Bertrand Russell: power; a new social analysis. The American Political Science Review, 33 (1), 101–103.10.2307/1949773
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1940. A letter to Carl J. Friedrich, 7 July. Carl Friedrich Papers, Correspondence and other papers, ca 1931–1940, HUG (FB) 17.10, folder 7. Harvard University Archives.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1941. On the agenda of democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1942. The education of Charles E. Merriam. In: L.D. White, ed. The future of government in the United States. Essays in honor of Charles E. Merriam. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1944. Public & private government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., 1945. Systematic politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, C.E., et al., 1923. Progress report of the committee on political research. Recommendations. The American Political Science Review, 17 (2), 311–312.10.2307/1944117
   Google Scholar
• Metcalf, H.-C. and Urwick, L., 1941. Introduction. In: H.C. Metcalf and L. Urwick, eds. Dynamic administration. The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper & Brothers, 9–29.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, C.W., 1956. The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nakatani, Y., n.d. Contextualization of political studies in Charles E. Merriam: an interpretation. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor, E.S., 2000. Integrating Follett: history, philosophy and management. Journal of Management History (Archive), 6 (4), 167–190.10.1108/13552520010348344
   Google Scholar
• Odegard, P.H., 1928. Pressure politics: the story of the Anti-saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pansardi, P., 2012. Power to and power over : two distinct concepts of power? Journal of Political Power, 5 (1), 73–89.10.1080/2158379X.2012.658278
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, J.R., 2010. The life and work of Mary Parker Follett. Public Voices, 11 (2), 47–69.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt, S.L., 2011. American power: Mary Parker Follett and Michel Foucault. Foucault Studies, 11, 76–91.
   Google Scholar
• Rubinoff, A.G., 1967. Introduction. In: The Charles E. Merriam papers. The Joseph Regenstein Library, Department of Special Collections, The University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, B., 1938. Power: a new social analysis. London: Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, L.V. and Rutherford, M.A., 2000. Mary Parker Follett: individualist or collectivist? Or both? Journal of Management History, 6 (5), 207–223.10.1108/13552520010348362
   Google Scholar
• Sabine, G.H., 1920. The concept of the state as power. The Philosophical Review, 29 (4), 301–318.10.2307/2179076
   Google Scholar
• Sabine, G.H., 1923. Pluralism: a point of view. The American Political Science Review, 17 (1), 34–50.10.2307/1943791
   Google Scholar
• Seidelman, R. ( with the assistance of E. J. Harpham), 1985. Disenchanted realists. Political science and the American crisis, 1884–1984. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, M., 2011. About Mary Parker Follett. The Mary Parker Follett network website [online]. Available from: http://mpfollett.ning.com/ [ Accessed 4 July 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Shapley, L.S. and Shubik, M., 1954. A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. The American Political Science Review, 48 (3), 787–792.10.2307/1951053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H.A., 1953. Notes on the observation and measurement of political power. The Journal of Politics, 15 (4), 500–516.10.2307/2126538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H.A., 1987. Charles E. Merriam and the “Chicago school” of political science. The Department of Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (the Edmund James Kames Lecture, delivered on October 10, 1985).
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., 1886. The domain of political science. Political Science Quarterly, 1 (1), 1–8.10.2307/2139299
   Google Scholar
• Somit, A. and Tanenhaus, J., 1964. American political science: a profile of a discipline. New York: Atherton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Truman, D.B., 1951. The governmental process: political interests and public opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Waldo, D., 1952. Development of theory of democratic administration. The American Political Science Review, 46 (1), 81–103.10.2307/1950764
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar