Suchergebnisse

Fundamental tasks confronting the development of a critical, postpositivistic social science are addressed. Following Jurgen Habermas, the goal of a critical social science is an emancipatory political discourse. In contrast to the dominant neopositivistic methodologies, such a science must be able to transcend its empirical data by interpreting their meaning in both the specific context of action & a fundamental critique of society. Borrowing from Habermas, Stephen Toulmin, & Paul Taylor, a critical methodological framework that incorporates elements of evaluation research, phenomenological action theory, the systems perspective, & political philosophy, & that presents a logic of empirical & normative questions is offered. Its logic is briefly illustrated by applications to specific political issues. 2 Figures. Modified AA.

1st ed., 1896, reprinted with additions 1896 . 1914. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Political theory has expanded, diversified, and, some would argue, fragmented. This 1997 book presents work from leading scholars in various fields and reflects key debates in political theory. Its summary discussions will ensure it becomes a key text in political theory courses. Skillfully edited by Andrew Vincent, the book includes such topics as the relationship between history and theory; utilitarianism and rational choice; republicanism; multiculturalism and postcolonial theory; hermeneutics; feminism; communitarianism, and poststructuralism. While these chapters reflect the state of political theory, they also contemplate the state of the discipline more broadly. This will be an extremely important book for anyone studying political theory

Recent scholarship on the history of science in the People's Republic of China (PRC) has provided new horizons for exploring questions about the nature and epistemology of socialist science, its epistemic virtues, its knowledge-producing practices, its geographical imagination and networks of communication and exchange, and its relations to the Chinese state and state building. In this essay the author uses a focus on practice to extrapolate implications and tendencies that he sees as unifying recent studies, and he clarifies their contributions to the current understanding of the history of science in the PRC. Particularly with respect to Chinese state-science relations and the nature of Maoist mass science, a focus on practice illuminates how recent scholarship has queried and interrogated unitary conceptions of the Chinese state and science, highlighted transnational connections and movements, and deepened our understanding of Maoist mass science.