Suchergebnisse

Many of the debates among competing paradigms in political science are concerned with peripheral elements rather than the basic assumptions of the paradigms. Since the major assumptions of any paradigm are rooted in metaphysical theories of the nature of reality, tests of one paradigm are likely to deal with phenomena that may not be considered in another. The article outlines the main metaphysical theories —materialism, idealism, and dualism —then proceeds to demonstrate that the primacy of matter versus ideas is central to paradigms of explanation in one area of political science, namely, theories of urban unrest. A survey of competing theories highlights the metaphysical assumptions and methodological preferences of each contending paradigm. The article argues that more attention should be paid to the metaphysical assumptions of paradigms in order to sharpen the focus of the research agenda.

Vrijeme kada nisu postojali odnosi između politike i sporta, bilo da se radi o svakodnevnoj praksi ili znanstvenoistraživačkim pristupima povezanosti tih dvaju pojmova, ako ga je ikada i bilo, svakako je odavno iza nas. Usprkos tome danas se čini da se, osobito u znanstvenoistraživačkom radu na području nekadašnjih sportskih socijalističkih velesila, tim odnosima ne posvećuje odgovarajuća pozornost i da se oni često a priori negiraju i smatraju nevažnima. Zbog toga je glavni cilj ovoga članka potaknuti raspravu o važnosti i smislu istraživanja odnosa između politike i sporta gledano iz dvije perspektive – s obzirom na iskustva znanstvenika iz cijeloga svijeta te s obzirom na dosad provedena istraživanja znanstvenika iz bivše Jugoslavije. Stoga smo u ovome članku najprije teoretski odredili kontekst odnosa politike i sporta, a zatim smo analizom postojeće svjetske literature i radova znanstvenika s prostora bivše Jugoslavije analizirali međusobnu povezanost sporta i politike. Na temelju dobivenih rezultata, koji potvrđuju stalnu i čvrstu povezanost, ali ujedno i suviše apstraktno i paušalno razumijevanje odnosa sporta i politike, nudimo politološki relevantnu tipologiju odnosa između politike i sporta. Smatramo da razlike između odnosa politike kao borbe za vlast, institucionalne strukture te koncepta javnointeresnog djelovanja i sporta presudno utječu na buduća obilježja odnosa sporta i politike. ; Times when relations between politics and sports did not exist – be it in everyday practices or within scientific research – is definitely long gone, if they ever even existed. Nevertheless, it seems today that, especially within scientific research, these relations do not receive appropriate attention in the territories of former socialist sports superpowers, being a priori denied and considered as unimportant. That is why the key motive of this article is to initiate a discussion about the relevance of knowledge and research of the relations between politics and sport from two perspectives – the existing world-wide political science research experiences gained so far and already conducted researches in the territory of former Yugoslavia. In doing so, we first theoretically define the context of sports and politics, and then with the use of the literature review method analyse their mutual connectivity in the world and, more narrowly, within the work of the scientific community in the region of former Yugoslavia. Based on the gained conclusions which confirm a tight and constant, but also often abstract and flat-rate understood interplay between both analysed phenomena, a special typology for their in-depth and political-science-focused study is delivered. It is believed that distinctions between political, polity and policy approaches to sport decisively influence the mode of their future interplay.

Prospect theory is the most influential behavioral theory of choice in the social sciences. Its creators won a Nobel Prize in economics, & it is largely responsible for the booming field of behavioral economics. Although international relations theorists who study security have used prospect theory extensively, Americanists, comparativists, & political economists have shown little interest in it. The dominant explanation for political scientists' tepid response focuses on the theoretical problems with extending a theory devised in the lab to explain political decisions in the field. This essay focuses on these problems & reviews suggested solutions. It suggests that prospect theory's failure to ignite the imagination of more political scientists probably results from their aversion to behavioral assumptions & not from problems unique to prospect theory. 92 References. Adapted from the source document.

A symposium comment reflecting on the debate between political scientists & political theorists. The debate is analogous to an older one between political scientists & economists. If economists now actively engage in government policy planning & formation, might political knowledge yet have a vital public role to play, eg, in countering popular indifference & fostering incentive not just to vote, but to vote judiciously? Yet prescriptions for political scientists would be counterproductive. Upholding pluralism in the field itself seems a reasonable goal. 10 References. K. Coddon

Revisits the long-standing intradisciplinary tension between political science (which ostensibly traffics in the empirical) & political theory (with its focus on the normative). Because political scientists often charge political theorists with engaging in humanistic rather than scientific research, the questions explored here revolve around clarifying the relation of political theory to the humanities & responding to "hard" scientists' specific criticisms of "soft" humanistic scholarship. That humanistic research is interested in interpretation & judgment rather than in explanation & quantifiability does not make it of lesser importance to the study of politics. K. Coddon

The existence of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in the US political science tradition is contemplated. It is contended that the proliferation of political scientific theories (eg, rational choice theory & institutionalism) does not constitute paradigm shifts; nevertheless, it is asserted that one paradigm shift has taken place within US political science. The transition between theories of the state & the emergence of the theory of democratic pluralism that arose during the 1920s & 1930s is interpreted as the only paradigm shift within US political scientific thought since the mid-19th century. After asserting that theories of the state had become stagnant in US political science by the early 1900s, scholarship that contributed to the rise of theories of democratic pluralism during the 1920s is identified. Even though theories of democratic pluralism were reworked prior to & immediately following WWII, it is argued that the behavioral revolution in political science during the 1950s does not represent a Kuhnian paradigm shift. Indeed, it is concluded that present-day political science scholarship continues to use the conceptions of political reality & democratic pluralism that were established during the interwar period. 20 References. J. W. Parker

The aim of James W. Ceaser's book, Reconstructing America (1997), is to save the US from the deconstructionist European thinking that has, since the eighteenth century, portrayed Americans as "inferior & degenerate." In the book, Ceaser attempts to reconstruct the US statesman. In doing so, he responds to the theories of Leo Strauss, Martin Heidegger, Alexis de Tocqueville, Richard Rorty, Mansfield, & Aristotle. Ceaser's thinking on the subject of US reconstruction reveals his belief that in post-Cold War America, the "real war for the soul of humanity has just begun." As he moves from a critique of US political life to a critique of US culture; however, it is no longer possible to blame US shortcomings on European thought. K. A. Larsen