Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:16:57.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jim Schubert Sui generis in life and as a scholar of biopolitics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Anton E. Wohlers
Anton E. Wohlers*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Government, South Shepler Center 630, Cameron University, Lawton, OK 74505. [email protected]
Get access

Extract

To his colleagues and the generations of students who had the privilege of knowing him, Jim Schubert was an inventive scholar, dedicated teacher, and tireless mentor. An innovative political scientist, Jim was skilled at incorporating the latest technologies and methods into his research. Engaging and creative as a teacher and mentor, Jim, according to a student and collaborator, “was maybe the kindest, smartest man you could ever meet.” Jim's pioneering work in the field of biopolitics reflect these qualities—he was truly “one of a kind.” As a scholar of biopolitics, Jim left behind a legacy that reflects what Gary Johnson, former editor of Politics and the Life Sciences, describes as the mission of both the journal and the association: “to advance knowledge of politics and promote better policymaking through multidisciplinary analysis that draws on the life sciences.”

Type
Founders' Forum
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , Spring 2011 , pp. 103 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sherlock, Barbara, “Dr. Jim Schubert 1946–2005. NIU professor was pioneer in field,” Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2005, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-09-15/news/0509150107_1_political-science-elections-professor, accessed August 14, 2011.Google Scholar
2. Johnson, Gary R., “Politics and the life sciences: A journal, a mission, a vision,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 1992, 11(1): 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Blank, Robert H. and Hines, Samuel M., Biology and Political Science (New York: Routledge, 2001).Google Scholar
4. Meyer-Emerick, Nancy, “Public administration and the life sciences: Revisiting biopolitics,” Administration & Society, 2007, 38 (6): 689–693.Google Scholar
5. Schubert, Glendon, “Politics as a life science: How and why the impact of modern biology will revolutionize the study of political behavior,” in Biology and Politics, Recent Explorations, Somit, Albert, ed. (Mouton: Maison des Sciences de l'Homme and Mouton, 1976), pp. 155–195.Google Scholar
6. Schubert, Glendon, Evolutionary Politics (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
7. Schubert, James N., “Ethological methods for observing small group political decision making,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 1983, 2(1): 3–19.Google Scholar
8. Schubert, James N., “Human vocalizations in agonistic political encounters,” in Primate Politics, Schubert, Glendon and Masters, Roger D., eds. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
9. Schubert, James N., Peterson, Steven A., Schubert, Glendon, and Wasby, Stephen, “Observing Supreme Court oral argument: A biosocial approach,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 1992, 11(1): 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Schubert, James N., “Verbal, vocal, and visual aspects of political speech: Case study of Clinton's inaugural address,” in Research in Biopolitics. Vol. 4, Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., eds. (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1996), pp. 113–137.Google Scholar
11. Schubert, James N. and Curran, Margaret Ann, “Stereotyping effects in candidate evaluation: The interaction of gender and attractiveness bias,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 2001, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
12. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., “Introduction,” in Research in Biopolitics, Vol. 4, Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., eds. (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1996), pp. ix–xii.Google Scholar