Suchergebnisse

A comment on Andrew Bennett, Ahron Barth, & Kenneth R. Rutherford's & Peregrine Schwartz-Shea's articles on methodological trends in political science instruction & scholarship (both, 2003) considers the implications of their findings for disciplinary practices. The former seem to suggest that political scientists who employ different methods are strangers occupying space in the field, & the latter implies that, as currently practiced, political science lacks a substantive discursive core, with a quantitative course being the only one offered across all 57 doctoral programs in her study. An interpretative research perspective is taken to consider Bennett, Barth, & Rutherford's call for more qualitative courses in terms of a "leap of faith" vis-a-vis extant methodological usage; ways of implementing this are offered. 8 References. J. Zendejas

Jurisdiction and objects -- Concept(s) of 'misconduct' -- Disciplinary orders -- Factors that impact on disciplinary order(s) -- Application for readmission -- Historical review of disciplinary processes -- Complaints -- Investigation -- Determination -- False or misleading statements or impressions -- Fiduciary-type breaches -- Misconduct involving fee charging -- Failure to supervise, and neglect and delay -- Other forms of misconduct -- Conviction for offence in personal capacity -- Personal (non-criminal) misconduct -- Lack of candour in disclosure.