¹ See Somit, Albert and Tannenhaus, Joseph, The Development of Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism (Boston: Allyn Bacon, 1967)Google Scholar.

² See Gilb, Corinne L., Hidden Hierarchies: The Professions and Government (New York: Harper & Row, 1966)Google Scholar.

³ “Social Science and Public Policy: The Role of the Professional Associations,” address to the Annual Meeting of the National Research Council, March 22, 1971. A questionnaire to the executive secretaries of eight professional associations forms the basis for some of these remarks.

⁴ Political science shares the general characteristics of the growth of science, but in recent years has exceeded even these normal growth rates. See Price, Derek D., Science Since Babylon (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; for an intelligent critique of this, see Bell, Daniel, “The Measurement of Knowledge and Technology,” in Moore, Wilbert and Sheldon, Eleanor B., eds., indicators of Social Change: Concepts & Measurements (New York: Russell Sage, 1968) pp. 145–245 Google Scholar, since Price reports a doubling of scientists and publications about every fifteen years, it is evident that in the past 25 years, at least, political science has exceeded the “normal” rate. For a different view of “the growth of science” see my “The Decline of Politics and Ideology in a Knowledgeable Society,” American Sociological Review, 31 (1966), 649–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Gilpin, Robert and Wright, Christopher, eds., Scientists and National Policy Making (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Price, Don K., Government and Science (New York: New York University Press, 1954)Google Scholar; Lyons, Gene M., The Uneasy Partnership: Social Science and the Federal Government in the Twentieth Century (New York: Russell Sage, 1969)Google Scholar; Reviews of National Science Policy: United States (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1968)Google ScholarPubMed.

⁶ There is an ample literature in these two fields of human resources policy and information science. In the first of these the Journal of Human Resources is especially valuable. There are two excellent recent studies on education and manpower: Folger, John K., Astin, Helen S., and Bayer, Alan E., Human Resources and Higher Education: Staff Report of the Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Education (New York: Russell Sage, 1970)Google Scholar, and Wolfle, Dael, The Uses of Talent (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971)Google Scholar. The information field has its own professional organization, American Society for Information Science. For political scientists one place to start is with Paisley, W. J., The Flow of (Behavioral) Science Information: A Review of the Research Literature (Stanford, Calif.: Institute for Communication Research, 1965)Google Scholar; an excellent model for a disciplinary study is provided by Garvey, W. D. and Griffith, B. C., Reports of the American Psychological Association's Project on Scientific Information Exchange in Psychology (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1963–65)Google Scholar; see also the report of the Committee on Information in the Behavioral Sciences (Easton, David Chairman), Division of the Behavioral Sciences, NRC: Communication and Resources in the Behavioral Sciences (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1967)Google Scholar, and Janda, Kenneth, Information Retrieval: Applications to Political Science (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁷ For the data underlying the following statements, I have relied on many sources. The chief one is American Science Manpower 1968, a Report of the National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1969 Google Scholar; NSF 69–38) as supplemented by a special report on political science from the 1970 Register, not yet in print, and Reviews of Data on Science Resources (NSF 70–50; No. 19, Dec. 1970); also the National Center for Educational Statistics, Higher Education: Earned Degrees Conferred: (year) Part B—Institutional Data (Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, various years: OE 5.254:54013-yr.)Google Scholar; Students Enrolled for Advanced Degrees, Fall (year). Part B—Institutional Data (OE-54019-yr-B); National Research Council, Summary Report 1970: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities (Washington, D.C.: NRC, various years)Google Scholar; Federal Funds for Research, Development and Other Scientific Activities, 1970–71; Survey of Science Series (Washington, D.C., NSF, 1971)Google Scholar; and the BASS report by Neil Smelser and others, Sociology (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1969)Google ScholarPubMed. I wish to thank my research assistant, Hiroko Shiozaki, for many long hours spent in locating data and calculating statistics.

⁸ The criteria employed for inclusion in the Register were as follows: 1968—“A master's degree in political science or 2 years of graduate work with one year of professional experience; or a Ph.D. in political science; or substantial professional achievement in political science; or the equivalent in professional experience. In 1970 the last clause was omitted and the next to the last clause was modified to read “… professional achievement in political science as evidenced by contribution to the professional literature.” See PS, IV (1971), 33 Google Scholar.

⁹ Davis, James A., Great Aspirations; The Graduate Plans of America's College Seniors (Chicago: Aldine, 1964)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ladd, Everett Carll Jr., and Lipset, Seymour Martin, “The Politics of American Political Scientists,” PS, 4 (1971), 135–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The inference that graduate students are, next to sociologists, the most radical, rests on the finding that the junior faculty in political science is among the most “radical” group in the social sciences—a little tenuous, but probably valid.

¹¹ Roose, Kenneth D. and Andersen, Charles J., A Rating of Graduate Programs (Washington, D.C: American Council on Education, 1970), p. 34 Google Scholar.

¹² Roose and Andersen. Calculated from reported data for each of the disciplines.

¹³ Unpublished report sent to me (8/6/71) by John Orbell and Lawrence C. Pierce, Department of Political Science, University of Oregon.

¹⁴ Luttbeg, Norman and Kahn, Melvin, The Making of a Political Scientist: An Empirical Analysis of Ph.D. Programs (Carbondale, Ill.: Public Affairs Research Bureau of Southern Illinois University, 1969), p. 67 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See Dahl, Robert A., “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest,” American Political Science Review, 55 (1961), 763–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Orbell, John, Mushkatel, Alvin H., and Pierce, Lawrence C., “The Structure of Professional Education in Departments of Political Science,” paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, 04 1971, p. 17 Google Scholar; also unpublished data from the same source.

¹⁷ Ladd and Lipset, “The Politics of American Political Scientists.”

¹⁸ “Obstacles to Graduate Education in Political Science,” Report of the APSA Committee for an Exploratory Study of Graduate Education in Political Science, PS, 2 (1969), 622–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ “Obstacles to Graduate Education …,” and Oregon study cited above in Footnote 16.

²⁰ In the past, surveys have consistently revealed that college professors rank high in occupational prestige. For example, in Hatt, Paul K. and North, C. C., “Prestige Ratings of Occupations,” in Nosow, S. and Form, W. H., eds., Man, Work, and Society (New York: Basic Books, 1962), pp. 277–83Google Scholar, college professors rank 7th out of 90 occupations, well ahead of bankers and lawyers. Nevertheless, as reported in The Academic Mind by Lazarsfeld, Paul and Thielens, Wagner Jr., (Glencoe: Free Press, 1958)Google Scholar, social scientists believe they would be ranked lower than businessmen and lawyers. The low estimate of occupational prestige by graduate students is reported in the APSA “Obstacles to Graduate Education” study cited above: only 32% are even slightly “satisfied with “the prestige of political science today.”

²¹ For discussion of resistance to change in university faculties, see Caplow, Theodore and McGee, Reece J., The Academic Marketplace (New York: Basic Books, 1958)Google Scholar; Wilson, Logan, The Academic Man (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1942)Google Scholar; Berelson, Bernard, Graduate Education in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960)Google Scholar.

²² “Political Science as a Discipline: A Statement by the Committee on Standards of Instruction of the American Political Science Association,” American Political Science Review, 56 (1962), 417–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goals for Political Science: Report of the Committee for the Advancement of Teaching, APSA (New York: Sloane, 1961)Google Scholar; Fesler, James W. and others, “Goals for Political Science: A Discussion,” this Review, 45 (1951), pp. 996–1024 Google Scholar. Somit and Tannenhaus's study mentioned above, and an earlier volume by the same authors, American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline (New York: Atherton, 1964)Google Scholar. The cited graduate student inquiry is the “Obstacles” report mentioned above. See also Luttbeg and Kahn and John Orbell and others, also cited above.

²³ Roose, K. D. and Anderson, C. J., A Rating of Graduate Programs, pp. 64–5Google Scholar.

²⁴ Berelson, B., Graduate Education, p. 106 Google Scholar.

²⁵ This statistic, by no means easy to come by, is an inference from the fact that none of them was included in the ACE survey (which implies that none of them produced a Ph.D. in political science in the period from 1957–1966) and none of them awarded a degree in 1967, 1968, or 1969 (Earned Degrees series.) The data in the next paragraph come from the same source.

²⁶ Estimated from the above lists and a sampling of past reports on earned doctorates. This compares with a gross increase in the number of institutions offering the Ph.D. of 6.5 per year (1957–66) less those discontinuing such degrees, 2 per year; making a net increase of 4.5 per year. See National Science Board, Graduate Education: Parameters for Public Policy (Washington, D.C.; NSF, 1969), p. 30 Google Scholar.

²⁷ National Science Board, Graduate Education, p. 57 Google ScholarPubMed.

²⁸ See Berelson, Bernard, Graduate Education, pp. 70–80 Google Scholar.

²⁹ These data are from the Office of Education Enrollment series mentioned above. The figures for recent years are: 1966 10,438; 1967 11,880; 1968 12,326; 1969 12,862. These are combined political science and international relations enrollment figures. The percentage increases in doctorates for 1967, 1968, 1969 are: political science: 13%, 6%, 5%; international relations 16%, —7%, 0.3%.

³⁰ The 1968 Register is inadequate for two reasons: (1) political science was included at the last minute and the survey was limited to members of APSA, and (2) there are many more political scientists, judged either by degrees or positions than are members of the APSA. This inadequate data base gives a total of 5,176 political scientists, of which 3,921 were employed by educational institutions. Of this latter group, 2,567 or 65% had doctorates. The 1970 data are better but do not yet provide the detailed breakdown necessary for these calculations.

³¹ Estimated by taking the NSB estimate of the total cost of graduate education in 1969 (6.4 billion) and multiplying by the proportion of political science graduate enrollees to total graduate enrollees in 1969 (1.7%) = $108,800,000.

³² National Science Board, Graduate Education: Parameters for Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: NSB, 1969), pp. 35, 40 Google Scholar; and NSB, Toward a Public Policy for Graduate Education in the Sciences (1969), p. 26 Google Scholar.

³³ Berelson, B., Graduate Education, p. 118 Google Scholar.

³⁴ NSB, Graduate Education, pp. 41, 42 Google ScholarPubMed.

³⁵ Quoted in Berelson, , Graduate Education, p. 31 Google Scholar.

³⁶ Berelson, p. 217.

³⁷ Berelson, p. 109.

³⁸ NSB, Graduate Education, pp. 93–4Google ScholarPubMed.

³⁹ Orbell, J. and others, “The Structure of Professional Education,” p. 11 Google Scholar. These authors find the relationship to be a weak one and they also find that the “organizational climate” is better in the larger universities.

⁴⁰ Unpublished data from the Oregon study cited above.

⁴¹ NSB, Graduate Education, p. 96 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁴² After the seventh person the increment in combinatorial possibilities reaches its asymptote and levels off; at that point the addition of one more person doubles the number of combinations, but this doubling rate does not increase further ( NSB, Graduate Education, pp. 97–8)Google Scholar. A critique of this theory might point out that the doubling of a good thing, if it works that way and disutilities do not begin to appear (such as anomie), is a good rate of return on any investment.

⁴³ In sixteen natural and social science fields the institutions characterized by a high proportion of distinguished departments had a median percentage of faculty positions held by full professors of 42 per cent; in the institutions of lowest quality this was 28 per cent ( NSB, Graduate Education, p. 91)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Quoted in Berelson, , Graduate Education, pp. 18, 23 Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Special report from the Educational Testing Service on 1970 scores for students taking the advanced test in political science. Also, Harvey, Philip R. and Marco, Gary L., An Analysis of the Graduate Record Examinations Scores by the Undergraduate Major Field of Study, 1963–64 (Princeton, N.J.: ETS, 08. 1965)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Lannholm, Gerald, Review of Studies Employing GRE Scores in Predicting Success in Graduate Study, 1952–1967 Google Scholar; and Lannholm, G. V., Marco, G. L., and Schrader, W. B., Cooperative Studies Predicting Graduate School Success (both Princeton: ETS, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Special report from ETS; see footnote 45.

⁴⁸ See the works of Berelson, Folger et al., and Wolfle cited above; also Crane, Diana, “Scientists at Major and Minor Universities: A Study of Productivity and Recognition,” American Sociological Review, 30 (1965), 699–714 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Hiring of one's own doctorates is directly related to quality: in the “top twelve” 47 per cent of the faculty were trained by the university that employed them (1958); in the next ten 27 per cent were inbred; the next group 20 per cent. Berelson, p. 115.

⁴⁹ Special report from ETS; see footnote 45.

⁵⁰ Berelson, , Graduate Education, p. 86 Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Berelson, p. 181.

⁵² Like the study of the use of human resources, information exchange, and education, the study of productivity and creativity has developed a corps of professionals, a body of literature, and a growing corpus of knowledge. Chapter 8 “Determinants of Professional Achievement and Rewards Among Scientists” in the Folger et al. book cited above summarizes some of this material. See also: Taylor, Calvin W. and Barron, Frank, eds., Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development (New York: Wiley, 1963)Google Scholar; Stein, Morris J. and Heinze, Shirley J., Creativity and the Individual: Summaries of Selected Literature in Psychology and Psychiatry (New York: Free Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Gowan, John C. and others, eds., Creativity: Its Educational Implications (New York: Wiley, 1967)Google Scholar; Gruber, Howard E., ed., Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking (New York: Atherton, 1962.)Google Scholar Studies emerging from the work of the Institute for Scientific Information employing the Science Citation Index are interesting, especially Jonathan, and Cole, Stephen, “Measuring the Quality of Sociological Research: Problems in the Use of the Science Citation Index,” American Sociologist, 6 (1971), 23–29 Google Scholar; Myers, C. Roger, “Journal Citations in Scientific Eminence in Contemporary Psychology,” American Psychologist, 25 (1970), 1041–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am indebted to Melvin Weinstock of the Institute for Scientific Information for bringing these last two studies to my attention.

⁵³ Deutsch, Karl W., Platt, John, and Senghaas, Dieter, “Conditions Favoring Major Advances in Social Science,” Science, 171 (1971), 450–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. See also critical letters and rejoinder, Science, (1971), 1191–92Google ScholarPubMed.

⁵⁴ Wallas, Graham, The Art of Thought (London: Cape, 1926)Google Scholar. For a brief review of the literature and further discussion of creativity as process, see Ralph J. Hallman, “The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Creativity,” in J. C. Gowan and others, eds. cited above.

⁵⁵ See Freud, Sigmund, On Creativity and the Unconscious, Papers on the Psychology of Art, Literature, Love, Religion, edited by Nelson, Benjamin (New York: Harper, 1958)Google Scholar; also reports by creative scientists and mathematicians in Ghiselin, Brewster, ed., The Creative Process (New York: Mentor, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Simon, Herbert, “Understanding Creativity,” in Gowan, and others, Creativity: Its Educational Implications, pp. 43–52 Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ See Pames, Sidney J., “Education and Creativity,” in Gowan, , pp. 32–43 Google Scholar, and especially the seminal piece by Getzels, J. W. and Jackson, P. W., “The Highly Intelligent and the Highly Creative Adolescent,” in Taylor, C. W. and Barren, F., eds., Scientific Creativity, pp. 161–72Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ See Bell, Daniel, “The Measurement of Knowledge and Technology,” in Moore, Wilbert and Sheldon, Eleanor B., eds., Indicators of Social Change (see footnote 4)Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson.

⁶⁰ Barron, Frank, “Originality in Relation to Personality and Intellect,” Journal of Personality, 23 (1957), 730–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶¹ Wiebe, Gerhart D., “An Exploration into the Nature of Creativity,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 26 (1962), 391–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Getzels and Jackson.

⁶³ Wiebe, G., “An Exploration …,” p. 397 Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Maslow, A. H., Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper, 1954), pp. 80–98 Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Diana Crane, “Scientists at Major and Minor Universities.”

⁶⁶ The data on mathematicians are cited in Wilson, Logan, The Academic Man, p. 107 Google Scholar; the data on political scientists are from Key, V. O., “The State of the Discipline,” American Political Science Review, 52 (1958), 969 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. V. O. Key goes on to say “The meaning of the data … is that we allocate the most inadequate resources to the labor of inquiry essential to the development of the discipline. … From my examination of my sample, I would judge, by what seem to me to be latitudinarian standards, that not over 10 per cent had made … [significant] contributions.” Perhaps this comparison was hard on mathematicians but Folger et al. find that their mean citation count is lower than that in other sciences, but higher than psychology (p. 261).

⁶⁷ Berelson, , Graduate Education, pp. 54–55 Google Scholar. The figure for political scientists is derived by selecting a random sample of 150 from those with biographical entries (not all political scientists, but most of the doctorates, I think) in the 1968 APSA Biographical Directory and counting listed publications. These figures are more reliable for locating nonpublishers than for “average number of publications” due to the shortening of bibliographical entries for older scholars with many entries. The ten-year limit, however, makes this shortening less likely.

⁶⁸ Average articles published per person for the first eight years after the doctorate (when articles are still reported in the Directory) is .36. In the eight years 1963–70 we produced 3277 doctorates. Multiplying, the result is 1180 articles, reduced to 1,000 because of the lower productivity rate (.28) of those from one to three years from the degree.

⁶⁹ Folger, , Astin, , and Bayer, , Human Resources and Higher Education, pp. 259–60Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Roe, Anne, “Changes in Scientific Activity with Age,” Science, 150 (1965), 313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ Folger et al., p. 260; Meltzer, Bernard M., “The Productivity of Social Scientists,” American Journal of Sociology, 55 (1949–1950), p. 28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷² Davis, , Great Aspirations, p. 230 Google Scholar. Of those in the top fifth of their classes the proportions in each discipline indicating research interests are: psychology 84%, anthropology and related fields 69%, sociology 56%, economics 55%, and political science 49%.

⁷³ The percentages of the members of the various disciplines in the 1968 National Register who report “research” as their primary work activity are: psychology 26%, sociology 22%, anthropology 21%, economics 21%, and political science 12%. In 1970 this political science percentage dropped to 10.5%.

⁷⁴ Crane, Diana, “Scientists in Major and Minor Universities,” p. 704 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁷⁵ Folger et al., pp. 262–65; Meltzer, B., “The Productivity of Social Scientists,” p. 28 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁷⁶ Eulau, Heinz and March, James G., eds., Political Science (Englewood Cliffs: Prenctice-Hall, 1969.)Google Scholar The increased number of programs rated “distinguished” and “strong” should not affect these predictions since the proportions of programs with these ratings has remained constant.

⁷⁷ Crane, D., “Scientists at Major and Minor Universities,” p. 704 Google ScholarPubMed. I have limited this discussion to universities, but something should be said about colleges as work settings. In Folger et al., Human Resources and Higher Education, the ratio of distinguished work in the natural sciences (measured by citation counts) done in universities compared to colleges was 5.85 to 1.0; but in psychology, a hybrid natural-social science, it was only 3.25 to 1.0 (calculated from data on p. 261). In political science, because of its humanistic components, the ratio might be smaller. The matter needs further investigation, but certainly one thinks easily of distinguished political scientists at Swarthmore, Williams, Oberlin, Amherst, and so forth.

⁷⁸ Taylor, C. W. and Barron, F., Scientific Creativity, p. 373 Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Calculated from data in The Political Science Job Market: Arizona Survey of Hiring Practices and Employment Conditions (Tucson: Institute of Government Research, University of Arizona, 1970), pp. 57, 59 Google Scholar. The survey on which the data are based received useable answers from 163 graduate schools and 461 four year colleges.

⁸⁰ 1968 American Science Manpower, p. 42 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁸¹ National Research Council, Summary Report 1970, Table 2Google ScholarPubMed.

⁸² See Young, M. Crawford and Bock, Robert M., “Hard Times for the Graduate Schools,” Change Magazine, 3 (1971), pp. 20–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ For accounts of the nonprofessional and uninformed criteria employed by candidates for graduate school, see Caplow, T. and McGee, R. J., The Academic Marketplace, p. 225 Google Scholar; Berelson, B., Graduate Education, p. 143 Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Berelson, p. 115; Crane, D., “The Academic Marketplace Revisited: A Study of Faculty Mobility Using the Cartter Ratings,” American Journal of Sociology, 75 (1970), 953–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. If the rate of erosion were to continue at one per cent per year, the 1971 igure would be 72 per cent.

⁸⁵ Berelson, p. 115.

⁸⁶ Crane, Diana, “Social Structure in a Group of Scientists: A Test of the ‘Invisible College’ Hypothesis,” American Sociological Review, 34 (1969), 335–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁷ Crane, D., “Scientists at Major and Minor Universities,” p. 707 Google ScholarPubMed.