The History of the Social Sciences since 1945
Contents:
Handbook of Sociology and Human Rights. Russian Studies and Comparative Politics. The Methodology of Political Economy. Education for Civic and Political Participation. The Political Context of Collective Action.
Conceptualizing Culture in Social Movement Research. The Meaning of Care.
- What is Kobo Super Points??
- EconPapers: The History of the Social Sciences since .
- The Dark Mirror (Bridei Chronicles Book 1).
Class, Ideologies and Educational Futures. Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology. Changing Educational Contexts, Issues and Identities.
Equivalence in Comparative Politics. The Limits Of Globalization. Research Methods in Human Rights. The Future of the Nation-State. Explorations in Economic Methodology. New Directions in Economic Methodology. The Puzzle of Modern Economics. The Cambridge Companion to Keynes.
Founder of Modern Economics: Liberalism and the Welfare State. A Historiography of the Modern Social Sciences. The Experiment in the History of Economics. Historical Perspectives on Macroeconomics. How to write a great review. The review must be at least 50 characters long. The title should be at least 4 characters long.
Your display name should be at least 2 characters long. At Kobo, we try to ensure that published reviews do not contain rude or profane language, spoilers, or any of our reviewer's personal information. You submitted the following rating and review. We'll publish them on our site once we've reviewed them. Item s unavailable for purchase. Please review your cart.
Passar bra ihop
You can remove the unavailable item s now or we'll automatically remove it at Checkout. Continue shopping Checkout Continue shopping. Chi ama i libri sceglie Kobo e inMondadori. Backhouse , Philippe Fontaine.
The History of the Social Sciences since 1945
Available in Russia Shop from Russia to buy this item. Or, get it for Kobo Super Points!
Ratings and Reviews 0 0 star ratings 0 reviews. Overall rating No ratings yet. How to write a great review Do Say what you liked best and least Describe the author's style Explain the rating you gave Don't Use rude and profane language Include any personal information Mention spoilers or the book's price Recap the plot.
Citation Tools
You can lead a source to water, but you can? This brings us to consider a more disturbing possibility, namely, that bona fide social scientists might make for lousy historians, perhaps because they had been weaned off history in their very gestation. Adcock and Bevir prettify the trend in politics by dubbing it a? They neglect to point out that the scientism which the editors gloss as? In other words, professionalization went hand-in-hand with becoming?
He has been review editor of the Economic Journal, editor of the Journal of Economic Methodology and associate editor of the Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Net reviews are archived at http: He is Associate Editor of the Revue de Philosophie conomique. Please be advised that item s you selected are not available. These important fields have shaped contemporary discourse about the human self, in both individual and collective registers, and deeply influenced policy and practice in the modern world.
The awkward inability demonstrated herein to organize many chapters around some coherent narrative line may simply be symptomatic of a learned incapacity born of decades of professionalization. It is a shame this serial awkwardness did not itself become an occasion for theoretical reflection. In many ways, the most unusual and interesting contribution to this volume is the last chapter, co-authored by the editors, and bearing the imprint of Fontaine? Although it starts off promising a synthesis of the preceding hidebound disciplinary accounts, it rapidly turns into a survey of the numerous attempts to found dedicated interdisciplinary institutes in the postwar era: Yale Institute of Human Relations, Michigan?
This is an extremely fascinating approach, since these entities mostly escape the optic of disciplinary history; yet their efflorescence within a limited postwar timeframe and their relative failure speaks volumes about the quest to produce a unified? First, there is the observation of Mitchell Ash in this volume that? But third, and most importantly, the history of these units reveals much about the inhospitable postwar climate for the prewar commonplace that presumed unity of the social sciences was their natural telos.
The historical generalization overlooked by the editors is that? This is true even for the odd case of Carnegie GSIA, which became the model for other business schools across the nation, but only upon dispensing with the original interdisciplinary structures initially promoted by Herbert Simon himself then exiled to a Department of Psychology.
The lesson may be that the postwar American research university could not sustain true interdisciplinarity in social science inquiry, but that military and corporate sponsors of the think tanks could manage it, but only by yoking it to a format that enforced unquestioned responsiveness to the whims of the funders. This brings us to a final thought: While this may have been an opinion widely shared during the first half of the twentieth century, it is one that quickly lost its rationale as we approached the twenty-first century. Here I believe the contributors all underestimate the importance of the rise of neoliberalism as a major conditioning factor in the history.
If indeed, people come to really believe that,? They no longer qualify as the subject of a sustained narrative any more than does the history of things colored brown, or the history of rectangular objects that rattle when the wind blows. The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective