History Journals for Political Scientists
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1992.tb00708.x |
| Date | 01 September 1992 |
| Author | John Ramsden |
| Published date | 01 September 1992 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Politico1
Studies
(
1992),
XL,
554-560
History Journals for Political Scientists
JOHN
RAMSDEN
Queen
Mary
and Westfield
College,
University
of
London
History was once conventionally (if even then inaccurately) described as ‘past
politics’, and a close practical relationship between the two disciplines has always
existed. Such founding fathers of political science in Britain as Graham Wallas,
A.
L. Lowell and
M.
I.
Ostrogorski are now key sources for conventional
historians seeking evidence of informed attitudes in the late-Victorian and
Edwardian periods; the generation of post-war academic leaders who established
political studies as a separate discipline in British higher education included
many like David Butler and Philip Williams who derived much of their own
initial enthusiasm from their training as historians; the Nuffield election books
derived
in
part from the wish to provide raw material for historians of the future.
Others like Robert McKenzie drew heavily on the published work of historians
and
on
the documentary evidence of the past as raw material for both
institutional and sociological studies. There was from the
1960s
a greater
differentiation and an occasionally contentious borderland between history and
politics
-
as anyone knows who has tried to define for a research student the
respective spheres
of
influence of the British Academy and the ESRC. Most
recently there has been a convergence, with respectable advances towards
contemporary history from the historians’ side and with time perhaps lending
political scientists a greater sense of security in their separate identity. Twenty
years ago,
it
was almost impossible for an applicant to British universities
to
find
five combined history and politics degree courses to enter on an UCCA form; his
problem now is to decide which five to choose from a list notable for its range and
diversity as well as its length. It may be that the two disciplines have come of age
in the era of mass higher education and are therefore able to coexist at last
without mistrust
on
either side.
The last quarter century has seen an explosion
in
the number
of
journals;
London’s Institute of Historical Research displays about
150
of the most wide
ranging in its Periodicals Room. It is therefore striking that there has been little
attempt to capitalize on this closer working relationship between historians and
political scientists. There is of course a wide range of interdisciplinary journals
-
the
Journal
of
History and Theory,
for
example
-
but few that seek explicitly to
bridge this specific borderline. The
Australian Journal
of
Politics and History
is a
prime exception to this rule, and a recent issue demonstrated the opportunity that
might be there to beexploited: articles by Imanuel Geiss and Martin Travers were
both dealing not just with
material
that could be read with interest by historians
as well as political scientists, but both were also looking at the way in which the
methodologies of the two disciplines could teach each other lessons
in
the use of
0032-32 17/92/03/0554-7
0
1992
Political Studies
To continue reading
Request your trial