Affiliation:
1. Department of Political Science, 2115 G St NW, Suite
440B, Washington DC 20052,
Abstract
This article pursues two line of inquiry in response to Bent Flyvbjerg's advocacy of a phronetic social science in Making Social Science Matter (2001). First, I explore how Flyvbjerg's manifesto relates to the approach employed in his earlier empirical work, Rationality & Power (1998). There are, I argue, notable disjunctions between the practice of Rationality & Power and the preaching of Making Social Science Matter. Second, I explicate and rework Flyvbjerg's contrast between epistemic and phronetic social science with an eye to its reception by a specific disciplinary audience: American political scientists. In doing so, I build on several contributions to Sanford Schram and Brian Caterino's edited volume Making Political Science Matter (2006). My aspiration is, however, rather different from that of the volume: I strive to make epistemic and phronetic into accessible categories of reformist reflection, not provocative banners under which to marshal revolutionary opposition to our disciplinary mainstream(s).
Subject
Sociology and Political Science
Reference16 articles.
1. Caterino, Brian (2006) `Power and Interpertation', in Schram and Caterino, Making Political Science Matter, pp. 134-51.
2. Making Social Science Matter
3. Flyvbejerg, Bent (2006) `A Perestroikan Straw Man Answers Back: David Laitin and Phronetic Social Science', in Schram and Caterino, Making Political Science Matter, pp. 56-85.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献