Search results

Bevir and Rhodes have offered a useful addition to the tools of political scientists by developing an interpretivist approach to political science. Interpretation is a crucial mechanism for understanding the social world but one that has been underused in political analysis. This article welcomes Bevir and Rhodes' emphasis on interpretivism but suggests that there are a number of problems in the way they use the approach. In particular: they use a narrow definition of interpretivism; they caricature the nature of existing work in political science; the concept of tradition does too much work; and they pay insufficient attention to power and power relations.

Vols. 4-38, 40-41 include Record of political events, Oct. 1, 1888-Dec. 31, 1925 (issued as a separately paged supplement to no. 3 of v. 31-38 and to no. 1 of v. 40) ; Microfilm. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Issued by the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, 1909- ; by the Academy of Political Science, Edited by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University ; Vols. 1-15, 1886-1900. 1 v; Vols. 1-30, 1886-1915. 1 v.; Vols. 1-45, 1886-1930. 1 v.; Vols. 46-65, 1931-50. 1 v ; NEWS; MICROFILM 21252: See call no. H1 P8 for MAIN holdings on paper for this title. ; MAIN; AQ P66: Includes reprint editions when original not available ; SCP weekly serials 2007/2008. ; UPD

This book traces the development of political science from ancient influences such as Plato and Aristotle to modern political shapers such as Robert A. Dahl. It covers changes to the field in both thought and practice due to the rise and fall of political regimes, world wars, colonialism, and social media. The book also includes thorough examinations of international relations, systems of government, constitutions, domestic policy, public opinion, and administration. The book ends with brief biographies of important people in the field of political science that specifies their various contributions.

The understanding of science by members of the public has been of increasing concern to social scientists. This article argues that such understanding, or the ostensible lack of it, is structured by discourses that address science both as an abstract entity or principle (science-in-general) and as an activity directed at specific phenomena or problems (science-in particular). Drawing upon a wide range of interviews about various sources of ionizing radiation, it is suggested that understanding is tied to questions of social identity that encompass relations of differentiation from and identification with science and the institutions in which it is embedded

Cover Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Introduction: What Political Science is . . . and Isn't -- A Christian Framework for Approaching Political Science -- Faithful Learning Illustrated: The Logic of Power and Attitudes Toward Risk -- Conclusion: "Dr. Horne, I Think I'm Interested in Going into Politics . . . -- Discussion Questions -- Series Afterword -- More on Faithful Learning in Academic Studies -- More from P& -- R on Political Studies -- More from P& -- R on Politics.