Search results

A major player in Japanese society is its government bureaucracy. Neither Japan's phenomenal track record in the world marketplace nor its remarkable success in managing its domestic affairs can be understood without insight into how its government bureaucracy works--how its elite administrators are recruited, socialized, and promoted; how they interact among themselves and with other principal players in Japan, notably politicians; how they are rewarded; and

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction: Objectivity, Science and Social Science -- 1. A Skewed Comparison -- 2. What Model of Science for Social Science? -- 3. What Model of Knowledge for Social Science? -- 4. What Model of Object for Social Science? -- Chapter One: Anthropological Objects -- 1. From Positivism to Interpretivism -- 2. Anthropological Objects I: Cockfighting in Bali -- 3. Anthropological Objects II: Witchcraft in the Bocage -- 4. Anthropological Objects III: Nuer 'Sacrifice' and Txikao 'Couvade' -- 5. Complex Anthropological Objects -- Chapter Two: Sociological Objects -- 1. Received Paradigms -- 2. Against Prescriptive Assumptions: Indexical Social Objects -- 3. Sociological Objects: Stages of Research and Levels of Construction -- 4. A Classic Example: Suicide -- Chapter Three: Historical Objects -- 1. The Normative View: Explaining History by Hempelian Laws -- 2. 'What' do Historians Explain? -- 3. Quantitative and Qualitative History: Samples of Research -- 4. Making History in Museums -- Chapter Four: Economic Objects -- 1. Economic Theory and Methodological Concern -- 2. Rhetorical Objects of Economic Practice -- 3. Realist Objects of Economic Practice -- 4. The 'Partial' Object of Economics -- Chapter Five: Geographical Objects -- 1. A Natural or a Social Science? -- 2. 'Space and Place': Quantitative Reconstructions -- 3. 'Space and Place': Qualitative Reconstructions -- 4. 'Space and Place': Realist Reconstructions -- 5. The Possible Worlds of Human Geography -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W.

In this paper I set out the problem of feminist social science as the need to explain and justify its method of theory choice in relation to both its own theories and those of androcentric social science. In doing this, it needs to avoid both a positivism which denies the impact of values on scientific theory-choice and a radical relativism which undercuts the emancipatory potential of feminist research. From the relevant literature I offer two possible solutions: the Holistic and the Constructivist models of theory-choice. I then rate these models according to what extent they solve the problem of feminist social science. I argue that the principal distinction between these models is in their contrasting conceptions of truth. Solving the problem of feminist social science will require understanding that what is at stake in the debate is our conception of truth. This understanding will serve to clarify, though not resolve, the various approaches to and disagreements over methodologies and explanations in feminist social science.

Social science writings have one thing in common with products of the artistic spirit—they readily lend themselves to dating by their "stylistic" traits. This is not a preferred manner for dating scientific products. Science, like technology, is generally regarded as cumulative in its development. To the extent that this is so, it is possible to place a scientific work in its historical position by examining the stage of knowledge that it reveals. However, the store of social science knowledge grows very slowly indeed. The result is that much of social science impresses one as being modern more by virtue of various stylistic traits than by demonstrable additions to, or modifications of, our stock of substantive (or methodological) knowledge.

Why would authoritarian leaders expand social welfare provision in the absence of democratization? How do authoritarian leaders design and enforce social welfare expansion in a decentralized multilevel governance setting? This book identifies the trade-off authoritarian leaders face in social welfare provision: effectively balancing coverage and benefits between elites and masses in order to maximize the regime's survival prospects. Using government documents, field interviews, survey data, and government statistics about Chinese social health insurance, this book reveals that Chinese authoritarian leaders attempt to manage the distributive trade-off by a "stratified expansion" strategy, establishing an expansive yet stratified social health insurance system to perpetuate a particularly privileged program for the elites while building an essentially modest health provision for the masses.