Engineering or Science: What Is the Study of Politics?

P. Ordeshook
{"title":"Engineering or Science: What Is the Study of Politics?","authors":"P. Ordeshook","doi":"10.1080/08913819508443378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Green and Shapiro's argument that rational choice theory is too inattentive to substantive matters is well taken. However, their suggestions for future research are unlikely to generate what they seek: an empirically relevant, coherent theory of political processes and a rational choice paradigm that accommodates other perspectives. To achieve this end, we require a clearer understanding of the practical objectives of our discipline and of the difference between modelling and theorizing about politics, and between science and engineering. Until the “engineering” component of the discipline assumes a more central role, research—whether theoretical, empirical, or any combination of the two—will continue to generate an incoherent accumulation of theorems, lemmas, correlations, and “facts.”","PeriodicalId":270344,"journal":{"name":"The Rational Choice Controversy","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Rational Choice Controversy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819508443378","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Green and Shapiro's argument that rational choice theory is too inattentive to substantive matters is well taken. However, their suggestions for future research are unlikely to generate what they seek: an empirically relevant, coherent theory of political processes and a rational choice paradigm that accommodates other perspectives. To achieve this end, we require a clearer understanding of the practical objectives of our discipline and of the difference between modelling and theorizing about politics, and between science and engineering. Until the “engineering” component of the discipline assumes a more central role, research—whether theoretical, empirical, or any combination of the two—will continue to generate an incoherent accumulation of theorems, lemmas, correlations, and “facts.”
工程还是科学:什么是政治研究?
格林和夏皮罗认为理性选择理论过于忽视实质性问题的观点很有道理。然而,他们对未来研究的建议不太可能产生他们所寻求的:一种与经验相关的、连贯的政治过程理论和一种容纳其他观点的理性选择范式。为了实现这一目标,我们需要更清楚地了解我们学科的实际目标,以及政治建模和理论化之间的区别,以及科学和工程之间的区别。除非该学科的“工程”部分承担起更核心的角色,否则研究——无论是理论的、经验的,还是两者的任何组合——将继续产生定理、引理、相关性和“事实”的不连贯积累。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信