Elucidating Social Science Concepts
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12870541 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lasse Thomassen (0000-0002-4706-6627, Queen Mary University of London, corresponding author), Joe So (0000-0002-1348-8573, University of Minnesota), Douglas C Dow (Earlham College), Ahmed Khanani (University of Massachusetts Amherst), Frederic Charles Schaffer |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 318-334 |
| Publication date | 2017-04-25 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | European Political Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1680-4333 • E-ISSN: 1682-0983 |
| Publisher | Palgrave Macmillan (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1057/s41304-017-0111-1 |
| OpenAlex | W2607524228 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
In Elucidating Social Science Concepts: An Interpretivist Guide , Frederic Charles Schaffer makes the case for an interpretivist approach to social science and the concepts used by social scientists. Schaffer adopts an approach to concepts that he calls ‘elucidation’, and the approach involves relating social science concepts to their everyday use by laypersons. The reviewers in this Book Review Symposium – Joe Soss, Douglas C. Dow and Ahmed Khanani – are all sympathetic to the interpretivist approach to social science concepts, but challenge Schaffer on important points. Above all, they focus on three broad questions: how does the researcher gain a critical distance from what she studies, and what does this mean for the concepts she is using? What is the nature of concepts, that is, what is the concept of ‘concept’ we use? And, what is the relationship between concepts and visual signs such as paintings
Comparative politics · Epistemology · International political economy · International relations · Political philosophy · Political science · Politics · Social science · Sociology · Law · Philosophy · Political Science Research and Education
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,5 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2022 (7) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |