Flyvbjerg Debate: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Undid revision 357936383 by Tide rolls (talk) |
#REDIRECT Making Social Science Matter |
||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | |||
{{Expand|date=May 2009}} |
|||
'''The Flyvbjerg Debate!˕''' refers to the debate in [[social science]] over professor [[Bent Flyvbjerg]]'s double call for, first, social sciences that reject the natural science model as an ideal that may be achieved in social science and, second, social sciences that are more relevant to people outside social science. Flyvbjerg argues that to gain relevance, social science must inform practical reason, and that this is best done by a focus on values and power. In terms of the philosophy and history of science, Flyvbjerg thus takes his cue from [[Aristotle]] rather than from [[Socrates]] and [[Plato]]. |
|||
The Flyvbjerg Debate started in the March 2003 issue of [[Journal of Politics & Society]] with an attack by Stanford political science professor David Laitin on Bent Flyvbjerg's book [[Making Social Science Matter]] (Cambridge University Press 2001). Flyvbjerg countered the attack, and was joined by Sanford Schram (Politics & Society, September 2004). |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
In 2006, [[New York University Press]] published a book about the Flyvbjerg Debate, [[Making Political Science Matter]] (ISBN 0814740332), with papers by Flyvbjerg, Laitin, Schram, Brian Caterino, Theodore Schatzski, Mary Hawkesworth, Stewart Clegg, Timothy W. Luke, and others. In framing the Flyvbjerg Debate, Caterino and Schram (2006, 1) wrote in the book's introduction that "The special thing about Flyvbjerg's challenge to social science is the way it bridges theory and practice in a way that unites philosophical and empirical subdivisions in the social sciences." Caterino and Schram argue that Flyvbjerg thereby simultaneously provides a strong theoretical foundation for his vision of socially and politically relevant social sciences and illuminates his position with concrete examples from his own empirical research. Flyvbjerg in this manner transgresses disciplinary boundaries to make a more compelling call for a social science that people could use to make a difference in their lives, according to Caterino and Schram. |
|||
==References== |
|||
*Brian Caterino and Sanford F. Schram, "Introduction: Reframing the Debate," in Sanford F. Schram and Brian Caterino, eds., Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method (New York: New York University Press, 2006). |
|||
*[[Bent Flyvbjerg]], [[Making Social Science Matter]]: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again, translator Steven Sampson (Cambridge: [[Cambridge University Press]], 2001). ISBN 052177568X |
|||
*[http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/MSLaitin9-2PRINT.pdf Bent Flyvbjerg, "A Perestroikan Straw Man Answers Back: David Laitin and Phronetic Political Science." Politics and Society, vol. 32, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 389-416.] |
|||
*Sanford F. Schram, "Beyond Paradigm: Resisting the Assimilation of Phronetic Social Science." Politics and Society, vol. 32, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 417-433. |
|||
*David Laitin, "The Perestroikan Challenge to Social Science," Politics and Society, vol. 31, no. 1, March 2003, pp. 163-184. |
|||
==See also== |
|||
*[http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/33968153/Making-Political-Science-Matter-Debating-Knowledge-Research-and-Method Encyclopedia Britannica about the Flyvbjerg Debate and Making Political Science Matter] |
|||
*[http://www.politicalreviewnet.com/polrev/reviews/CONS/R_1351_0487_046_1006154.asp Book review Making Political Science Matter (PoliticalReview.net] |
|||
[[Category:Social sciences]] |
|||
[[Category:Political science]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 19:44, 4 February 2013
Redirect to: