Suchergebnisse

Edited by George Gunton. ; Title from cover. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Annotation Advocates of rational choice theory in political science have been perceived by their critics as attempting to establish an intellectual hegemony in contemporary social science, to the detriment of alternative methods of research. The debate has gained a nonacademic audience, hitting the pages of the New York Times and the New Republic. In the academy, the antagonists have expressed their views in books, journal articles, and at professional conferences. Mark I. Lichbach addresses the question of the place of rational choice theory in the social sciences in general and in political science in particular. He presents a typology of the antagonists as either rationalist, culturalist, or structuralist and offers an insightful examination of the debate. He reveals that the rationalist bid for hegemony and synthesis is rooted in the weaknesses, not the strengths, of rationalist thought. He concludes that the various theoretical camps are unlikely to accept the claimed superiority of the rationalist approach but that this opposition is of value in itself to the social sciences, which requires multiple perspectives to remain healthy. With its penetrating examination of the assumptions and basic arguments of each of the sides to this debate, this book cuts through the partisan rhetoric and provides an essential roadmap for the future of the discipline. Mark I. Lichbach is Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland

AFSSAL was created in June 1978 for "the promotion of research in the social sciences on Latin America, the establishment of a link between public and private research organizations and social scientists who work on Latin America, and the representation of those organizations and researchers with regard to national and international institutions." The creation of AFSSAL responded to the need of many researchers and academics in France who work at centers whose primary focus is not Latin America. Before 1978 there was no permanent structure for discussion and debate; neither was there a medium that would allow for the circulation of interdisciplinary information on research on Latin America undertaken in France. There was an obvious need to be able to examine together the possibilities for promoting interest in Latin America and developing the means available to social science researchers dedicated to the study of that region.

Data sharing has become an increasing important issue facing scientists in recent years.nbsp; And, understanding what kinds of factors affect data sharing behavior remains an important goal in informing those setting data sharing policy. The present analysis examines survey data ICPSR collected from social scientists in the United States who collected primary research data under funding from the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health. Building on our prior work, here we examine whether certain social science disciplines embraced data sharing more than others early on. Results from multivariate regression models suggest political scientists and economists are most likely to share their data and psychologists and health scientists are the least likely. Implications for discipline-specific policies are discussed.