The State of the Discipline

Author(s): V. O. Key, Jr.

Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1958), pp. 961-971
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1951978
Accessed: 19/07/2010 09:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The American Political Science Review.

http://www.jstor.org

The American
Political Science Review
VOL. LII

DECEMBER,

1958

NO. 4

THE STATE OF THE DISCIPLINE*

V. 0. KEY, JR.
Harvard University

When the turnof fate bringsto a man the honor of speaking on this
occasion, he is likely to review the remarksof his predecessors.Their
practice,I find,has been, in the main, to address themselvesto one or
the otherof two kinds of themes.They discourseeitherupon a substantive problem withintheir own specialty or upon a matter of common
concernto us as membersof the same profession.As our interestshave
becomemorediverse,the second alternativeseemsto have been followed
withgreaterfrequency.My decisionto considerin my remarksthe state
of our disciplinehas, therefore,
the supportofprecedentifnot the merit
of prudence.
The burden of my argumentmay be stated brieflyand bluntly.It is
that the demandsupon our professionhave grownmorerapidlythan has
the contentof our discipline.We are, in a sense, the victimsof our own
success. The achievementsofour professionarouse expectationsthat our
disciplineenables us to meet only imperfectly.If we are to narrowthe
gap between our knowledge and our responsibilities,we must devote
greaterresourcesin manpowerand ingenuityto the systematicanalysis
ofthe phenomenaofpolitics.
I
The weight of the demands on our disciplinemay be sensed froma
quick reviewofthe growthofthe activitiesof our profession.As each of
us concentrateshis energiesupon his own narrowinterests,we do not,
I believe,commonlyappreciatethe rangeand extentofour concernsas a
profession.An incidentalbut incontestableinferencefroma broad view
of our professionmust also be that its accomplishments,whateverour
misgivingsabout themmay be, have been impressive.
* Presidential
address, delivered at the annual meetingof the American Political
Science Association,St. Louis, Missouri,September4, 1958.

961

962

THE AMERICAN

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

REVIEW

The developmentthat has affectedthe majorityof us most directly

has been the growthin our teachingtasks. In but a shortperiodas time
goes we have assumed a principalrole in undergraduateinstructionin
our colleges and universities. Each year the senior classes include
around 6,000 youngmen and womenwhose major studies have been in
political science.' How many tens of thousands of non-majorsare enrolledin our courses only the registrars,and perhaps the textbookpublishers,know.
The peculiar place of civic studies in Americansociety assigns to us
responsibilitiesthat are not easily fulfilled.We are looked to for the
trainingof communityleaders, for the instillmentof a sense of civic
duty, and for the transmissionof an understandingof the world of
politics.Perhaps we can take some creditforthe sprinklingofthe leadership echelons of American society with persons of high civic literacy.
And perhaps we may also be held accountable forsome of the less imposingaspects ofAmericancommunityleadership.I can onlyremarkin
passing that we know far too little about just what are the effectsof
our effortsin this area and that a criticalexaminationof our program
in undergraduateteachingis in order.
and performance
The varietyof demands imposed upon us in our teachingrole makes
plain enoughthe magnitudeofour task in keepingour disciplineabreast
of the necessities.Our teachingobligationsplace upon us requirements
far more tryingthan those that confronta relativelysimple discipline,
such as, forexample,economicsor nuclearphysics.We mustbe prepared
to expound the inner realities of governmentalsystemsfromIndia to
Russia, to Latin America,to Australia.We musthave sage observations
to make on the relationsamong all the nations ofthe earth.We mustbe
able to cope with the nicetiesof municipaladministrationand the profunditiesof the political philosophers.Our coverage must extend from
the grandproblemsofthe organizationofauthorityin the national state
the vote ofunion membersin Keokuk in 1958.
to the factorsaffecting
Althoughwe tend to regardours as primarilya teachingprofession,in
recentdecades moreand moreofus have become public servants.Probably not morethan two-thirdsofthe Ph. D.'s in politicalscienceare employed by collegesand universities.2Over one-halfof the M.A.'s in our
fieldare employedby governmentalagencies. A substantial proportion
of our number is thus now engaged in public administration.Others
1 The Officeof Education reported for 1955-56 that 5,670 bachelors' degrees were conDegrees Conferredby
ferred in political science; 554, in international Relations.-Earned
Higher Educational Institutions, 1955-56 (Circular No. 499), p. 19.
2 One recent survey fixes this percentage at 76.7, with the warning that the respondents
included a disproportionately high number of teachers.-Personnel Resources in the Social
Sciences and Humanities (Department of Labor Bulletin No. 1169), pp. 95, 129.

THE STATE

OF THE DISCIPLINE

963

apply the materialsof our disciplinein staffrolesforcongressionalcommitteesand state legislatures.All this is in marked contrastwith the
rarityofpublic employmentofpoliticalscientistsonlya fewdecades ago
and is a measureofthe enlargedrole of our profession.
We contributea steady flowof recruitsto the public service.In other
ways,too, the applicationsofpoliticalsciencein public policyand public
administrationhave multiplied.Members of our professionhave moved
in considerablenumber into the staffsof research organizationsconcernedwithnational and internationalaffairs,bureaus of municipalreresearch,taxpayersassociations,and otherlike private agencies.
The demands upon those of our numberin these applied phases of
political science are quite as diverse as are those that vex the teaching
branchof the profession.Yet the applied politicalscientistmust be possessed ofan outlook,ofskills,and perhaps ofsubstantiveknowledgenot
relevant,or at least not essential,in teaching.There can be no doubt
that we have opportunitiesto develop our discipline better to meet
these needs. Nevertheless,over the long run our impact upon public affairshas been far more powerfulthan we commonlyrealize. Many well
settledgovernmentalpracticeswere but a few decades ago regardedas
impracticalschemesemanatingfromthe ivorytower.
II
These commentstouch only the broadest aspects of the responsibilities in teachingand in application that have been assumed by our professionas it has grownin stature.They involve problemsof the gravest
import; and they involve matters of endless variety and puzzling intricacy.
The natureof our fulfillment
ofall theseresponsibilities
restsupon the
nature of our discipline. Ultimately the quality of our teaching, our
efficacyas public servants,and the wisdom of our work as consultants
and advisors in the applications of political science depend upon the
quality of the contentof our discipline.A bit of artistryand devotionis
helpfulin teaching; courage and a sturdystomachfortify
a public servant; and a modicumofcunningcontributesto the makingofan effective
applied political scientist.Yet all these characteristics,useful as they
may be, do not enable us to rise far above the body of knowledgewith
whichwe are equipped.
Our most urgentproblemconsistsin the enlargement,improvement,
and refinement
of that body of knowledge.In that respect ours may be
only the common lot of all branches of learning.Yet the primacy of
politicsin the determinationof the conditionsof lifegives warrantfora
criticalrating of our needs. Advances in our disciplinecan be quickly

964

THE AMERICAN

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

REVIEW

convertedinto advances in all aspects of our work-teaching, administration,application.

Those who would blueprinta strategyforthe accelerationof the developmentof any fieldof knowledgeshould proceed most tentatively.
Perhaps we can have to some degreeprogramsofplanned invention,but
in the main the enlargementof human understandingis a mysterious
process that probably includes a large componentof chance. The insightsof an originalmindmay color an entiredisciplinefordecades and
scores of lesser men may preoccupythemselvesin verification,refinement, and imitation. Or bits of inquiry by painstakingand plodding
workersmay gradually piece themselves togetherand at some stage
cumulate into a broad advance on a wide front.Or a chain of inquiry
started by a Frenchman,continuedby a Briton, and picked up by an
Americanmay eventuate in a strikingfindingentirelyuncontemplated
at the beginningof the sequence. Or a new concept,perhaps borrowed
fromanotherdiscipline,will permeatea fieldof learningand throwinto
new and illuminatingperspectiveold ideas and old bodies of data. Or a
new techniqueof observationmay open up entirelynew lines ofinquiry
and permitnew approaches to old questions.
Given the erratic and various processes of growthof human knowledge, we are justifiedin viewingwith reservethose who contend that
withtheirapproach theycommandthe onlyroad to the advancementof
human understanding.Nevertheless,it is perhaps feasible to indicate
some broad directionsin which the application of effortwould most
probably strengthenour discipline.
At timesthe specialtiesthat make up our disciplineseem to be flying
apart, yet over the past fewdecades a major tendencyhas been an intellectual unificationofall its elements.This unificationhas been no grand
codificationofour lore. Rather,commonconceptsand commonoutlooks
have to a degreebeen adopted by all parts of the discipline.One of our
colleagues has called this the "politicization" of the discipline.3In outlook the unificationhas been behavioral.4Although many of our colleagues would deny that they have been touched by the behavioral approach, I can only invite you to compare theirwork with that of their
predecessorsof 25 years ago. These tendenciestowardunificationfacilitate communicationamong workersin all branches of the discipline,
3Dwight Waldo, Political Science in the UnitedStatesof America (Paris: UNESCO,

1956).

4The following characterization of our discipline could not have been made a few
decades ago: "Allowing for local variants, political science in the United States today may
be said to focus on political behavior in the widest sense of the term. And this is true in
varying degree of all contemporary political scientists, whatever their own specialized
H. Odegard, "A New Look at Leviathan," in Frontiers of
field may be. . .."-Peter
Knowledge in theStudy of Man, edited by Lynn White, Jr. (New York: Harper, 1956).

THE STATE OF THE DISCIPLINE

965

stimulatenew interpretationsof old data, and increase the chances of

gettingahead by bringing,in effect,moremanpowerto bear on the same
problem.On occasion even now an expertin municipaladministration
can learn somethingfroma specialistin internationalrelationsand vice
versa. The furtheridentification
and analysis ofthe commonelementsof
all aspects of our disciplinehold, I believe, opportunityforbuilding a
base forbroad and perhaps rapid advance.
As most of the branchesof our disciplinecome to be characterizedby
a focuson politicalbehavior,instead of the unique qualities of constitutions, charters,or practices,it becomes embarrassinglyapparent that
we need to exertourselvesto move fromthe descriptionofthe particular
toward the formulationof modest general propositions.A modest general propositionneed not deal with a modest or insignificantproblem.
Our workstill bears the marksof its originsin historyand in law, disciplines dedicated in peculiar degreeto the analysis of the particular.Our
journals are still in large measure filledwith treatmentsof particular
events, institutions,practices. Often these are well done, even ingeniouslydone, yet they add absolutelynothingnew by way of general
idea. They stand alone as isolated accounts of peculiar events or situations. They remain unconnected with what has been learned before;
fromtheir nature they will remain unconnectedwith what is learned
later.
Lest I be misunderstood,I should say that to recognizeour need for
moreworkleadingto modestgeneralpropositionsis not to urgethe constructionof grand hypothesesto encompass all political action. Those
who yearn forthe psychicsatisfactionsof such systemsunderestimate
of the data withwhichwe deal. In addition,I should
the incorrigibility
explicitlyobserve that we shall always have to be concernedin great
degreewiththe particular.The demands upon us, both in teachingand
in application,tend to be fordiagnosisand analysis ofthe unique rather
than for dicovery and exposition of the general rule. Nevertheless,
withouta body of generalknowledge,one must grapplewiththe unique
situationwithno weapon betterthan his bare hands.
We probably have a largerbody of generalpropositionsin our literature than we assume. But much of this knowledgeis inchoate,poorly
articulated,rarelytested adequately. An incidentalconsequence of this
state of affairsis that in its trainingeach generationof our profession
must almost recapitulatethe historyof the discipline.And anotherconsequence forthe advance of the disciplineis that the formof our knowledge requires that we dedicate not inconsiderableeffortto the rediscoveryof what was in realityalready knownbefore.
I am well aware that in theseremarksI have made some tacit assumptionsabout the natureofthe politicalprocesswhichare at variance with

966

THE AMERICAN

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

REVIEW

the thesis that we are doomed to ignorance of the ways of man. Our
analytical schemesmust, to be sure, make provisionforthe accidental,
the erratic,the unique. And we must be foreveralert to the possibility
that the verifiedgeneralpropositionof one era may not hold at a later
time. Political systemshave a plasticity;they also have an inertia.We
have demonstratedwell enough that political knowledgethat retains a
validity even for a generationor so has great utilityas mankind endeavors to elevate itselfby its bootstraps.
These commentsshouldnot be' regardedas a reiterationofthe ancient
complaintthat we have too much "mere description."Perhaps the advance ofknowledgein all fieldsis associated withthe contrivanceofways
and means to achieve moreperfectdescription.We have, in fact,ample
reason for dissatisfactionwith our techniques of observationand descriptionas well as with the tenuous relationshipof descriptivework
to theoreticalendeavors.
It seems to be requiringan inordinateamount of time forus to develop techniquesof observationsupplementaryto the skillsin legal and
documentaryanalysis which for so long sufficedto meet our needs.
When we began to ventureout of the librariesand to studypoliticalaction at firsthand we went equipped with nothingmore than whatever
commonsense and native ingenuitywe possessed. Those qualities are
admirable,and always in shortsupply,but theyare not enough.
Our colleagues in other social sciences, notably in sociology,social
psychology,and culturalanthropologyhave farsurpassedus in the contrivanceof techniquesof observation.Many of those techniquesreadily
adapt themselves to problems traditionallythe concern of political
scientists. That adaptability has been turned to advantage by our
colleaguesin otherfieldsas theirinterestshave led theminto the study
of politicalbehavior and institutions.The consequence has been that a
goodly proportionof the significantadvances of recentyears in several
of our specialties have been the contributionof men not professionally
political scientists.
The surveyresearchtechniqueprovidesan example ofa handy means
forcopingwithquestionsabout whichwe have been limitedto excogitationforlack ofa workablemethodofobservation.Yet fewindeed are the
politicalscientistswho have a commandofsurveytechnique.The problems of its adaptation to the study of political questions have by no
means been completelysolved, but politicalscientistsare slow to exploit
its possibilities.-Consider,for example, what mightbe done with this
r I have touched upon some of the problems of adaptation of such techniques to the
traditional problems of politics in "Strategy in Research on Public Affairs," Items, Vol.
10 (1956), pp. 29-32.

THE STATE

OF THE DISCIPLINE

967

instrumentin that fieldto whichwe have most ready access but about
whichwe probablyknowleast, namely,local governmentand politics.
On the whole we close our minds to problemsof method and technique. This permitsus to take a smugattitudetowardtheabsurditiesoccasionally committedin the name of method. It also assures that we
rarelycome to gripswiththe fundamentalquestion of how we go about
pushingback the limits of our knowledge.Method withoutsubstance
may be sterile,but substance withoutmethodis only fortuitouslysubstantial.Technique and methodin themselvesperhapsmay not generate
many new ideas, but they are most handy forverificationor, as occurs
withmelancholyfrequency,disproof.And new techniquesand methods
oftenmake it possibleto raise new kindsofsubstantivequestions.
Perhaps most of these worriesabout the state of our disciplinerelate
in one way or anotherto the place ofpoliticaltheoryin our studies.In an
earlierday the place of political theorycould be readilycomprehended.
It amountedto the historyofpoliticalthought,an eminentlyrespectable
branchof intellectualhistory.It foundan autonomousplace in political
scienceand could be pursuedwithoutinfluenceupon, and withoutbeing
influencedby, other branches of political science. The developmentof
our disciplinehad merelybroughtit into loose academic alliance with
various otherspecialties.
As the segmentsof political science have come to be, if not cemented
together,at least infusedby common terminologyand common concepts,the questioncomesto be asked what relevancehas politicaltheory
for other branches of political science. Most currentwork in political
theoryis, I suppose,in the traditionof historicalanalysis. Our theorists,
or so it seems to me, nowadays manifesta sharpenedsophisticationin
theiranalysisand exegesisofthe classics ofpoliticalthought.Yet among
our theoriststhereseems also to be developinga view that a radical reorientationoftheirfocusofattentionmay be in orderiftheyare to contributeto the growthof the discipline.They are bestirringthemselves,
but I must confessto some bewildermentas I attemptto discernwhere
theyare leadingus. In mymellowermoods I lean to the forecastthat the
confusingcross currentsin contemporarytheorywill turn out to have
servedusefullyas probes in the process of trial and errorby whichwe
feel our way along the path ahead. The topic could be dismissedwith
that hopefulobservation,but I shall commenton the odd relationthat
prevailsbetweentheoreticaland empiricalwork,a matterthat bears in
a major way upon the advance ofour discipline.
That relationtends to be one of antagonism,if not hostility,but its
characteristicmost significantforthe presentdiscussionis the supposition that theoreticaland empiricalwork are separable. Extremelyrare

968

THE AMERICAN

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

REVIEW

is the piece of workby a theoreticianwhichseeks to indicate lines ofpotentialconvergencebetweentheoreticaland empiricalinquiry.'And it is

almost solely among the older, and perhaps wiser, theoriststhat one
findsoccasional reflectiveconsiderationof the problemsof knittingtogethertheoreticaland empiricalwork.7More commonlya separateness
prevails.The extremedoctrineseems to hold that theoristsshould work
in isolationboth fromempiricalinquiryand fromthe empiricalworldof
politics.
The only reason formentioningsuch disputationis that it points to
some real problems-and opportunities-forthe advance of our discipline. I doubt whetherin its presentstage of developmentour discipline
contains adequate foundationfor a genuinelyfruitfuldivision of labor
between theoreticaland empiricalworkers.(I am, of course,not using
the term theoryin the sense of historyof political thought.) For the
specialistin theoryto be creativehe mustbe able to workfroma foundation of more or less establishedpropositionsfromwhichextrapolations
may be made by logical procedures.Such hypotheticalextensionsof old
knowledgemay then be subjected to empiricaltest. And the sequence
may thenrecuras the cumulationofknowledgeproceeds.
The presentchaotic state of our knowledgehardlysufficesto permit
an operativeseparationinto specialized hands of these two kinds of intellectual processes. Both kinds of work need to be carried on, if not
simultaneouslyin the same mind,then in the closest collaboration.And
that collaborationrarelyoccurs. Most exceptionalis the piece of theoretical writingthat has the slightestuse forthe empiricalworker,and
the occurrenceof reportsof empiricalworkusable by the theoristmay
be equally infrequent.
I must take note of signs that forcesare at work to close the gap between theoreticaland empiricalwork,a tendencywhich,if carriedfor
enough,would make the two indistinguishableand greatlyexpeditethe
developmentof our discipline. Our empirical work would become less
irrelevanttheoreticallyand our theoreticalworkless naive empirically.
Such changes require time, but the opportunitiesfor young men and
womenwho wishto help bringthemabout are extraordinary.
While an impatience with the rate of developmentof our discipline
is justified,I should say that I do not share the attitude of self-flagellation adopted by those of our colleagues who are overwhelmedby the
s For one of the exceptions,see Oliver Garceau, "Research in the Political Process,"
thisREVIEW, Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 69-85.
7 For two such considerations,see Frederick M. Watkins, "Political Theory as a
Datum of Political Science," and Carl J. Friedrich,"Political Philosophyand the Science

of Politics," in Approaches to the Study of Politics, edited by Roland Young (Evanston:

UniversityPress, 1958).
Northwestern

THE STATE

OF THE DISCIPLINE

969

massiveness of our collective ignorance. Our professionhas built up a

body of knowledge that is substantial indeed. That accomplishment
we tend to forgetas we are awed by the unsolved questions that conassertthat the quality of our research
frontus. One can also confidently
has mightilyimproved.To those who doubt this judgment I can only
recommenda carefulperusal of a fewvolumes of the AmericanPolitical
Science Review as it appeared around 1920. That is a tryingbut encouragingexercise.
III
The quality of our work may have improved,but there can be no
doubt that the developmentof our disciplinelags behind our requirements.A basic limitingfactoris the amount of manpowerthat we allocate to the businessof researchand inquiry.Preciselywhat that quantity is one cannot say, but it is plain enough that we devote the most
meagerresourcesto the tasks of politicalinquiry.
One clue to the productivityof the professionis providedby a check
on the publicationsof those receivingPh.D.'s in political science and
internationalrelationsin the years 1935, 1936, and 1937. Of thissample:
have not been heardfromsince theyreceivedtheir
At least one-fourth
Ph.D.'s; theirtheseswerenot published;nor have theyhelped to fatten
the periodicals.
One-sixthappeared in the periodicals at least once or twice over a
twenty-year
period.
About a thirdhave publisheda book (in some cases the thesis) and in
some instancesin addition an article or more duringthe firstcouple of
decades of their career.
About a fifthhave produced at least two books, althoughthis count
includes theses,textbooks,collectionsof readings,and otheritems that
would scarcelybe regardedas books by a knowledgeabledean as he considereda proposalforpromotion.8
I hasten to say that the moral of all this is not that every Ph. D.
should be a prolificcontributorto the literatureof our discipline.The
specializationof labor among us dictates that some of us do one kind of
workand othersanother.The meaningofthe data ratheris that we allocate the most inadequate resourcesto the labor of inquiryessential to
the development of our discipline. Inspection of the detailed bibliographiesunderlyingmy proportionscan only yield the impressionthat
contributionsto theconextremelyfewofus manage to make significant
8 The bibliographical check was of those persons (except Orientals) listed in Doctoral
Dissertations Accepted by American Universitiesfor 1934-35, 1935-36, and 1936-37, under
the categories political science and international law and relations.

970

THE AMERICAN

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

REVIEW

tent of our discipline. From my examination of my sample, I would

judge, by what seem to me to be latitudinarianstandards,that not over
10 per cent had made such contributions.I should say that I have far
more confidencein the 10 per cent estimatethan I would in an identification of the individualsmakingup the 10 per cent. Over the long pull
a single article may turn out to be a more enduringaddition to our
knowledgethan a shelfof books.
If my ratio based on a sample fromthe mid-thirtiescontinuesto prevail, we may forecastthat of the 250 or so Ph.D.'s added to the supply
this year, not more than 25 will duringtheir careers make significant
contributionsto the substance of our discipline.I have the impression
that the workofthe new cropis distinctlysuperiorto that ofmy sample
fromthe mid-thirties;I am far less certainthat any largerproportion
will make durable additionsto our knowledge.In fact,a sharp increase
is occurringin the proportionofPh. D.'s turnedout by thoseinstitutions
whose graduateshad in my sample an especiallylow recordof scholarly
production.
IV
The conventionsthat governdiscoursesof this sort dictate that diagnosis should be followedby recommendationsforaction. Such prescriptions should be rooted in extended deliberation,and I have meditated
upon the problemat some length.About the onlypropositionon whichI
have formedan obstinate convictionis that there is not much to be
gained by appointinga committeeto look into the state of the discipline. Yet, ifyou concurin the view ofthe pivotal importanceofelevating
the quality of the contentof our discipline,two areas offerobvious opportunityforexertionsby each ofus individually.
The firstof these is in the area of graduate instruction.The cxtality,
nature,and objectives of graduate instructiondifferwidely among the
40 or so institutionsofferingPh.D. degrees in political science. Yet it
does not requirean extensivesurveyof theirvaryingpracticesto know
that probablyno singledepartmentofferstrulyadequate trainingin the
problemsofresearchin our field.Some departmentshave, to be sure,attempted to bring their instructionabreast of the new possibilities.
Nevertheless,we have some distanceto go ifwe are to have graduateinstructionsuitable to produce a largernumberof political scientistsadequately equipped to advance the discipline.This appraisal conflicts,of
course,with the occasional plea that is heard fortrainingleading to a
teachingdegree.What we now have is in factby and largea teachingdegree.A criticalneed of our disciplineis formore,and farmorerigorous,
researchtraining.The graduate departmentthat firstmanages to orient

THE STATE

OF THE DISCIPLINE

971

itselfin this directionand to staffitselfforthat purposewillexerta pervasive influenceon Americanpolitical science.

A second area in whichthe exerciseofindividualinitiativecan contribute to the long-runadvance of our disciplineis that of recruitmentof
youngmen and womeninto our profession.Such vocational guidanceas well as diligent.We
or proselyting must,however,be discriminating
need in some way or anotherto draw morerecruitswho will turnout to
be genuinelycreativescholars.The enlistmentofeven a scoremoresuch
personsper year would mightilyreenforcethe propulsivepowerbehind
the growingedge ofour discipline.
eitherin the earlyidentification
I do not underestimatethe difficulties
ofsuch talentor in its attractionto our trade. The competitionfortalent
among academic disciplinesand among all professionsis sharp and will
become sharper.All branches of the academic professionare handicapped in this competitionin ways too well known to require exposition
here.Yet I am confidentthat we can in good faithmore stronglyadvise
many ofthe best of our studentsto followa careerofscholarship.
To many young men and women the academic professionoffersopportunities,both economicand intellectual,that cannot be matched by
alternative careers. No other professionhas so nearly removed the
economicbars to entranceforpersonsof exceptionaltalent. Moreover,
I doubt that otherlines ofendeavorare so well organizedto expeditethe
advancement of exceptionaltalent as is the world of highereducation.
qualLet an instructorin the mostremotecollegedemonstratesufficient
ity to make himselfeven slightlyvisible,and dossierson him will begin
to build up in the files of recruitingofficersfromthe Atlantic to the
Pacific.Our own branch of the academic professionseems to me to hold
special promise for young men with high potentials in research. Such
persons can quickly make their mark, given the opportunitiesfor the
developmentof our discipline.
In short,our professionhas a special attractivenessforthe talent we
need most,namely,those personswho can ultimatelybecome contributorsto the developmentof our discipline.We need to bringthat attractivenesspersuasivelyto the attentionof young personswith curiosities
about the nature of politics,with fortunatemixturesof methodicalness
and imagination,withan impetuousdrivedisciplinedby the persistence
to pursue a problemto its end, and withthe hope of youthtincturedby
a precocious maturityof judgment. As we succeed in attractinga bit
morethan our share of such talent,the intellectualdevelopmentof our
disciplinewilltake care ofitself.