Beyond paradigm: Resisting the assimilation of phronetic social science

Politics and Society

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 417-433

  Schram, Sanford F ^a  

^a BRYN MAWR COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Perestroika; Phronesis; Political science; Praxis

Indexed keywords

EID: 4344676757     PISSN: 00323292     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0032329204267292     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Bent Fly vbjerg, Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
2. On David Laitin's interest in "disciplining" Political Science so that all political scientists are obligated to work within what Laitin calls a "scientific frame," see David D. Laitin, "Disciplining Political Science," American Political Science Review 89 (June 1995); 454-56.
3. I review these issues in detail in Sanford F. Schram, "Return to Politics: Perestroika and Postparadigmatic Political Science," Political Theory 31 (December 2003): 835-51.
4. See Rogers M. Smith, "Should We Make Political Science More of a Science or More about Politics?" PS 35 (2002): 199-201.
5. Ian Shapiro, "Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or What's Wrong with Political Science and What To Do about It," Political Theory 30 (August 2002): 596-619.
6. Charles Lemert, Social Things (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001), 176-206.
7. James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), and Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998).
8. James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), and Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998).
9. Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), and The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley. University of California Press, 1993).
10. Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), and The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley. University of California Press, 1993).
11. Frances Fox Pivert and Richard A. Cloward, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), and Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail (New York: Vintage Books, 1977).
12. Frances Fox Pivert and Richard A. Cloward, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), and Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail (New York: Vintage Books, 1977).
13. I examine the special case of Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward in Sanford F. Schrarn, Praxis for the Poor: Piven and Cloward and the Future of Social Science in Social Welfare (New York: New York University Press, 2002).
14. I provide a detailed examination of the virtues of a bottom-up approach as applied to the study of social welfare policy in Sanford F. Schram, Words of Welfare: The Poverty of Social. Science and the Social Science of Poverty (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995). For a good recent example of bottom-up analysis, see Vijay Prashad, Keeping Up with the Dow Joneses: Debt, Prison, Workfare (Boston: South End, 2003).
15. I provide a detailed examination of the virtues of a bottom-up approach as applied to the study of social welfare policy in Sanford F. Schram, Words of Welfare: The Poverty of Social. Science and the Social Science of Poverty (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995). For a good recent example of bottom-up analysis, see Vijay Prashad, Keeping Up with the Dow Joneses: Debt, Prison, Workfare (Boston: South End, 2003).
16. For a primer on participatory action research, see William Foote Whyte, ed., Participatory Action Research (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990). For a review of participatory action research as practiced by feminist researchers in particular, see Shulamit Reinharz, Feminist Methods in Social Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Also, see Patti Lather, "Feminist Perspectives on Empowering Research Methodologies," Women Studies International Forum 11 (1988): 569-81.
17. For a primer on participatory action research, see William Foote Whyte, ed., Participatory Action Research (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990). For a review of participatory action research as practiced by feminist researchers in particular, see Shulamit Reinharz, Feminist Methods in Social Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Also, see Patti Lather, "Feminist Perspectives on Empowering Research Methodologies," Women Studies International Forum 11 (1988): 569-81.
18. For a primer on participatory action research, see William Foote Whyte, ed., Participatory Action Research (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990). For a review of participatory action research as practiced by feminist researchers in particular, see Shulamit Reinharz, Feminist Methods in Social Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Also, see Patti Lather, "Feminist Perspectives on Empowering Research Methodologies," Women Studies International Forum 11 (1988): 569-81.
19. Chester Hartman, Yerba Buena: Land Grab and Community Resistance in San Francisco (San Francisco: Glide Publications, 1974). William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte, Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988). For an analysis that highlights years ahead of time the relevance of Making Mondragon for the Perestroika movement in political science, see Kenneth Hoover's review of the book in the March 1990 issue of American Political Science Review. Hoover notes that as early as 1943 after writing his classic Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943), William Foote Whyte challenged the Political Science profession in the pages of the American Political Science Review to "take an interest in politics" and "establish themselves as participant observers." Hoover notes that Whyte implored political scientists to do this so that they could develop a practical knowledge of politics and its relationship to social structures. Kenneth R. Hoover, "Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex by William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte," American Political Science Review 84 (March 1990): 351-52.
20. Chester Hartman, Yerba Buena: Land Grab and Community Resistance in San Francisco (San Francisco: Glide Publications, 1974). William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte, Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988). For an analysis that highlights years ahead of time the relevance of Making Mondragon for the Perestroika movement in political science, see Kenneth Hoover's review of the book in the March 1990 issue of American Political Science Review. Hoover notes that as early as 1943 after writing his classic Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943), William Foote Whyte challenged the Political Science profession in the pages of the American Political Science Review to "take an interest in politics" and "establish themselves as participant observers." Hoover notes that Whyte implored political scientists to do this so that they could develop a practical knowledge of politics and its relationship to social structures. Kenneth R. Hoover, "Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex by William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte," American Political Science Review 84 (March 1990): 351-52.
21. Chester Hartman, Yerba Buena: Land Grab and Community Resistance in San Francisco (San Francisco: Glide Publications, 1974). William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte, Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988). For an analysis that highlights years ahead of time the relevance of Making Mondragon for the Perestroika movement in political science, see Kenneth Hoover's review of the book in the March 1990 issue of American Political Science Review. Hoover notes that as early as 1943 after writing his classic Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943), William Foote Whyte challenged the Political Science profession in the pages of the American Political Science Review to "take an interest in politics" and "establish themselves as participant observers." Hoover notes that Whyte implored political scientists to do this so that they could develop a practical knowledge of politics and its relationship to social structures. Kenneth R. Hoover, "Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex by William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte," American Political Science Review 84 (March 1990): 351-52.
22. Chester Hartman, Yerba Buena: Land Grab and Community Resistance in San Francisco (San Francisco: Glide Publications, 1974). William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte, Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988). For an analysis that highlights years ahead of time the relevance of Making Mondragon for the Perestroika movement in political science, see Kenneth Hoover's review of the book in the March 1990 issue of American Political Science Review. Hoover notes that as early as 1943 after writing his classic Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943), William Foote Whyte challenged the Political Science profession in the pages of the American Political Science Review to "take an interest in politics" and "establish themselves as participant observers." Hoover notes that Whyte implored political scientists to do this so that they could develop a practical knowledge of politics and its relationship to social structures. Kenneth R. Hoover, "Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex by William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte," American Political Science Review 84 (March 1990): 351-52.
23. Chester Hartman, Yerba Buena: Land Grab and Community Resistance in San Francisco (San Francisco: Glide Publications, 1974). William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte, Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988). For an analysis that highlights years ahead of time the relevance of Making Mondragon for the Perestroika movement in political science, see Kenneth Hoover's review of the book in the March 1990 issue of American Political Science Review. Hoover notes that as early as 1943 after writing his classic Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943), William Foote Whyte challenged the Political Science profession in the pages of the American Political Science Review to "take an interest in politics" and "establish themselves as participant observers." Hoover notes that Whyte implored political scientists to do this so that they could develop a practical knowledge of politics and its relationship to social structures. Kenneth R. Hoover, "Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex by William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte," American Political Science Review 84 (March 1990): 351-52.
24. Chester Hartman, Yerba Buena: Land Grab and Community Resistance in San Francisco (San Francisco: Glide Publications, 1974). William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte, Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988). For an analysis that highlights years ahead of time the relevance of Making Mondragon for the Perestroika movement in political science, see Kenneth Hoover's review of the book in the March 1990 issue of American Political Science Review. Hoover notes that as early as 1943 after writing his classic Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943), William Foote Whyte challenged the Political Science profession in the pages of the American Political Science Review to "take an interest in politics" and "establish themselves as participant observers." Hoover notes that Whyte implored political scientists to do this so that they could develop a practical knowledge of politics and its relationship to social structures. Kenneth R. Hoover, "Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex by William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte," American Political Science Review 84 (March 1990): 351-52.
25. Stephen Toulmin, Return to Reason (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).
26. For the argument that a phrenetic social science can contribute to what I have called "radical incrementalism" or the idea that praxis involves promoting change for the least advantaged by exploiting the possibilities in current political arrangements, see Schram, Praxis for the Poor, 109-35.
27. David D. Laitin, "The Perestroikan Challenge to Social Science," Politics & Society 31 (March 2003): 170.
28. See Laitin, "Perestroikan Challenge to Social Science," 171-75, where he discusses Stanley Tambiah, Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).
29. David Laitin treats Seeing Like a State as an example of "undisciplined" history because it fails to conform to the "scientific frame," it does not follow consistent criteria for appraising evidence, and it lacks a comparative analysis that would make its claims about state intervention persuasive. See David Laitin, "Review of Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, By James C. Scott (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1998)," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 30 (Summer 1999): 177-179.
30. David Laitin treats Seeing Like a State as an example of "undisciplined" history because it fails to conform to the "scientific frame," it does not follow consistent criteria for appraising evidence, and it lacks a comparative analysis that would make its claims about state intervention persuasive. See David Laitin, "Review of Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, By James C. Scott (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1998)," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 30 (Summer 1999): 177-179.
31. See Dvora Yanow, How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1996).
32. Randall Stone, Lending Credibility (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002).
33. Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).
34. Ann Chih Lin, "Bridging Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Qualitative Methods," Policy Studies Journal 26 (Spring 1998): 162-80.
35. Bent Flyvbjerg uses the term "non-paradigmatic" to describe phronetic social science. I use "post" as opposed to "non" but not as a chronological marker. The "post" need not be "after," or following in time. And post need not be "anti" as in against. Post can mean to carry on but differently. In addition, while I agree that ideally paradigm has no relevance to social science, the reality is that paradigm is what most social scientists mistakenly think they are involved in. So a post-paradigmatic social science would be one where we finally start to appreciate better how we were never really working in a paradigm in the sense that Thomas Kuhn used to describe the natural sciences when he first coined the term. Last, while social science ideally is nonparadigmatic, the power politics involved in creating the hegemony of the rational choice theorists in political science today has made it the equivalent of a paradigm, even if an inappropriately and coercively imposed one. Post-paradigmatic political science represents the aspiration to move beyond a situation where such a hegemonic approach is imposed on the discipline.