Suchergebnisse

Matthew Moore's survey of political theorists in U.S. American colleges and universities is an impressive contribution to political science (Moore 2010). It is the first such survey of political theory as a subfield, the response rate is very high, and the answers to the survey questions provide new information about how political theorists look when compared to political scientists overall. We are roughly the same age, for example, and are slightly more likely to be female. The survey also gives us a picture of political theorists' conditions of employment: about half of us get jobs in the first year upon receiving our Ph.D.s; most of us teach at schools that range from 1,000 to 10,000 students; most of us are not at Ph.D.-granting institutions.

'This paper outlines the concerns of the author with Qualitative Data Analysis' (QDA) numerous remodelings of Grounded Theory (GT) and the subsequent eroding impact. He cites several examples of the erosion and summarize essential elements of classic GT methodology. It is hoped that the article will clarify his concerns with the continuing enthusiasm but misunderstood embrace of GT by QDA methodologists and serve as a preliminary guide to novice researchers who wish to explore the fundamental principles of GT.' (author's abstract)|

"The Unified Growth Theory is receiving increasing attention from growth theorists since the seminal work of Galor and Weil (1999, 2000). These authors emphasize the need for a unified theory of growth that could account for the transition from Malthusian Stagnation to the Modern Growth Regime (1999). This interest is motivated by the lack of explanation and knowledge regarding the historical evolution of the relationship among population growth, technological change and the standard of living. This paper gives an overview of the Unified Growth Theory, its determinants and its implications." (author's abstract)

If two men of similar talents, identical training, shared values, and common interests were to study the same phenomena it would not be at all remarkable if they approached the phenomena in the same way, described them in the same terms, employed the same logic in analyzing them, drew the same conclusions from them, and formulated the same theories about their causes.If, however, two men of similar talents but of rather divergent training, professing differing objectives, and displaying varied (perhaps even conflicting) concerns were to pursue studies of phenomena each believed to be quite distinct from the other's field of inquiry, it would be most astounding if their findings and inferences should turn out to be closely parallel in many important respects, particularly if there were little evidence of communication between them.