DOCSLIB.ORG

The Importance of Research Design in Political Science Gary King, Robert 0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Importance of Research Design in Political Science Gary King, Robert 0 American Political Science Review Vo1. 89, No. 2 Tune 1995 THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH DESIGN IN POLITICAL SCIENCE GARY KING, ROBERT 0. KEOHANE, and SIDNEY VERBA Harvard University eceiving five serious reviews in this syrnpo- improving research design to produce better data in sium is gratifymg and confirms our belief that the first place, which almost always improves infer- R research design should be a priority for our ences more than the necessarily after-the-fact statis- discipline. We are pleased that our five distinguished tical solutions. reviewers appear to agree with our unified approach This lack of focus on research design in social to the logic of inference in the social sciences, and science statistics is as surprising as it is disappointing, with our fundamental point: that good quantitative since some of the most historically important works and good qualitative research designs are based fun- in the more general field of statistics are devoted to damentally on the same logic of inference. The re- problems of research design (see, e.g., Fisher (1935) viewers also raised virtually no objections to the main The Design of Experiments). Experiments in the social practical contribution of our book--our many specific sciences are relatively uncommon, but we can still procedures for avoiding bias, getting the most out of have an enormous effect on the value of our aualita- qualitative data, and making reliable inferences. tive or quantitative information, even withoui statis- However, the reviews make clear that although our tical corrections, by improving the design of our book may be the latest word on research design in research. We hope our book will help move these political science, it is surely not the last. We are taxed fields toward studying innovations in research de- for failing to include important issues in our analysis sim." and for dealing inadequately with some of what we We culled much useful information from the social included. Before responding to the reviewers' most science statistics literatures and qualitative methods direct criticisms, let us explain what we emphasize in fields. But for our goal of explicating and unifying the Designing Social Inquiry and how it relates to some of logic of inference, both literatures had problems. the points raised by the reviewers. Social science statistics focuses too little on research design, and its language seems arcane if not impen- etrable. The numerous languages used to describe WHAT WE TRIED TO DO methods in qualitative research are diverse, inconsis- tent in jargon and methodological advice, and not Designing Social Inquiry grew out of our discussions always helpful to researchers. We agree with David while coteaching a graduate seminar on research Collier that asvects of our advice can be revhrased design, reflecting on job talks in our department, and into some of the languages used in the q;alitative reading the professional literature in our respective methods literature or that used by quantitative re- subfields. Although many of the students, job candi- searchers. We hope our unified logic and, as David dates, and authors were highly sophisticated qualita- Laitin puts it, our "common vocabulary" will help tive and quantitative data collectors, interviewers, foster communication about these imvortant issues soakers and pokers, theorists, philosophers, formal among all social scientists. But we bekeve that any modelers, and advanced statistical analysts, many coherent language could be used to convey the same nevertheless had trouble defining a research question ideas.---- - and designing the empirical research to answer it. We demonstrated that "the differences between The students proposed impossible fieldwork to an- the quantitative and qualitative traditions are only swer unanswerable questions. Even many active stylistic and are methodologically and substantively scholars had difficulty with the basic questions: What unimportant" (p. 4). Indeed, much of the best social do you want to find out? How are you going to find science research can combine quantitative and quali- it out? and, above all, How would you know if you tative data, precisely because there is no contradic- were right or wrong? tion between the fundamental processes of inference We found conventional statistical training to be involved in each. Sidney Tarrow asks whether we only marginally relevant to those with qualitative agree that "it is the combination of quantitative and data. We even found it inadequate for students with qualitative" approaches that we desire (p. 473). We projects amenable to quantitative analysis, since so- do. But to combine both types of data sources pro- cial science statistics texts do not frequently focus on ductively, researchers need to understand the funda- research design in observational settings. With a few mental logic of inference and the more specific rules important exceptions, the scholarly literatures in and procedures that follow from an explication of this quantitative political methodology and other social logic. science statistics fields treat existing data and their Social science, both quantitative and qualitative, problems as given. As a result, these literatures seeks to develop and evaluate theories. Our concern largely ignore research design and, instead, focus on is less with the development of theory than theory making valid inferences through statistical correc- evaluation-how to use the hard facts of empirical tions to data problems. This approach has led to some reality to form scientific opinions about the theories dramatic progress; but it slights the advantage of and generalizations that are the hoped for outcome of Review Symposium June 1995 our efforts. Our social scientist uses theory to gener- specify ways to increase the information in qualitative ate observable implications, then systematically applies studies that can be used to evaluate theories; we publicly known procedures to infer from evidence show how this can be accomplished without return- whether what the theory implied is correct. Some ing to the field for additional data collection. theories emerge from detailed observation, but they Throughout the book, we illustrate our propositions should be evaluated with new observations, prefera- not only with hypothetical examples but with refer- bly ones that had not been gathered when the theo- ence to some of the best contemporary research in ries were being formulated. Our logic of theory political science. evaluation stresses maximizing leverage-explaining This statement of our purposes and fundamental as much as possible with as little as possible. It also arguments should put some of the reviewers' com- stresses minimizing bias. Lastly, though it cannot plaints about omissions into context. Our book is eliminate uncertainty, it encourages researchers to about doing empirical research designed to evaluate report estimates of the uncertainty of their conclu- theories and learn about the world-to make infer- sions. ences-not about generating theories to evaluate. We Theory and empirical work, from this perspective, believe that researchers who understand how to cannot productively exist in isolation. We believe that evaluate a theory will generate better theories-the- it should become standard practice to demand clear ories that are not only more internally consistent but implications of theory and observations checking that also have more observable implications (are more those implications derived through a method that at risk of being wrong) and are more consistent with minimizes bias. We hope that Designing Social lnquiy prior evidence. If, as Laitin suggests, our singlemind- helps to "discipline political science" in this way, as edness in driving home this argument led us implic- David Laitin recommends; and we hope, along with itly to downgrade the importance of such matters as James Caporaso, that "improvements in measure- ment accuracy, theoretical specification, and research concept formation and theory creation in political should yield a smaller range of allowable outcomes science, this was not our intention. consistent with the predictions made" (p. 459). Designing Social Inquiry repeatedly emphasizes the Our book also contains much specific advice, some attributes of good theory. How else to avoid omitted of it new and some at least freshly stated. We explain variable bias, choose causal effects to estimate, or how to distinguish systematic from nonsystematic derive observable implications? We did not offer components of phenomena under study and focus much advice about what is often called the "irrational explicitly on trade-offs that may exist between the nature of discovery," and we leave it to individual goals of unbiasedness and efficiency (chap. 2). We researchers to decide what theories they feel are discuss causality in relation to counterfactual analysis worth evaluating. We do set forth some criteria for and what Paul Holland calls the "fundamental prob- choosing theories to evaluate-in terms of their im- lem of causal inference" and consider possible com- portance to social science and to the real world-but plications introduced by thinking about causal mech- our methodological advice about research design anisms and multiple causality (chap. 3). Our applies to any type of theory. We come neither to discussion of counterfactual reasoning is, we believe, praise nor to bury rational-choice theory, nor to make consistent with Donald Campbell's "quasi-experi- an argument in favor of deductive over inductive mental" emphasis; and we thank James Caporaso for theory. All we ask is that whatever theory is chosen clarifying this. ' be evaluated by the same standards of inference. We pay special attention in chapter 4 to issues of Ronald Rogowski's favorite physicist, Richard Feyn- what to observe: how to avoid confusion about what man, explains clearly how to evaluate a theory (which constitutes a "case" and, especially, how to avoid or he refers to as a "guess"): "If it disagrees with [the limit selection bias. We show that selection on values empirical evidence], it is wrong. In that simple state- of explanatory variables does not introduce bias but ment is the key to science.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rights and Votes
    1065.DOC 3/29/2012 5:23:12 PM Daryl J. Levinson Rights and Votes abstractT .T T This Article explores the functional similarities, residual differences, and interrelationships between rights and votes, both conceived as tools for protecting minorities (or other vulnerable groups) from the tyranny of majorities (or other dominant social and political actors). The Article starts from the simple idea that the interests of vulnerable groups in collective decisionmaking processes can be protected either by disallowing certain outcomes that would threaten those interests (using rights) or by enhancing the power of these groups within the decisionmaking process to enable them to protect their own interests (using votes). Recognizing that rights and votes can be functional substitutes for one another in this way, the Article proceeds to ask why, or under what circumstances, political and constitutional actors might prefer one to the other—or some combination of both. While the primary focus is on constitutional law and design, the Article shows that similar choices between rights and votes arise in many different areas of law, politics, and economic organization, including international law and governance, corporations, criminal justice, and labor and employment law. author.T T David Boies Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. Thanks to Gabriella Blum, Ryan Bubb, John Ferejohn, Barry Friedman, Heather Gerken, Ryan Goodman, Bernard Grofman, Don Herzog, Roderick Hills, Daniel Hulsebosch, Michael Klarman, Robert Keohane, Janos Kis, Douglas Laycock, Michael Levine, Dotan Oliar, Benjamin Sachs, Adam Samaha, Peter Schuck, Matthew Stephenson, and Adrian Vermeule, and to participants in workshops at Harvard Law School, New York University School of Law, and University of Virginia School of Law, for useful comments on drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Group Representation Quotas for Women and Minorities Worldwide Mona Lena Krook and Diana Z
    The Politics of Group Representation Quotas for Women and Minorities Worldwide Mona Lena Krook and Diana Z. O’Brien In recent years a growing number of countries have established quotas to increase the representation of women and minorities in electoral politics. Policies for women exist in more than one hundred countries. Individual political parties have adopted many of these provisions, but more than half involve legal or constitutional reforms requiring that all parties select a certain proportion of female candidates.1 Policies for minorities are present in more than thirty countries.2 These measures typically set aside seats that other groups are ineligible to contest. Despite parallels in their forms and goals, empirical studies on quotas for each group have developed largely in iso- lation from one another. The absence of comparative analysis is striking, given that many normative arguments address women and minorities together. Further, scholars often generalize from the experiences of one group to make claims about the other. The intuition behind these analogies is that women and minorities have been similarly excluded based on ascriptive characteristics like sex and ethnicity. Concerned that these dynamics undermine basic democratic values of inclusion, many argue that the participation of these groups should be actively promoted as a means to reverse these historical trends. This article examines these assumptions to explore their leverage in explaining the quota policies implemented in national parliaments around the world. It begins by out- lining three normative arguments to justify such measures, which are transformed into three hypotheses for empirical investigation: (1) both women and minorities will re- ceive representational guarantees, (2) women or minorities will receive guarantees, and (3) women will receive guarantees in some countries, while minorities will receive them in others.
    [Show full text]
  • Arend Lijphart and the 'New Institutionalism'
    CSD Center for the Study of Democracy An Organized Research Unit University of California, Irvine www.democ.uci.edu March and Olsen (1984: 734) characterize a new institutionalist approach to politics that "emphasizes relative autonomy of political institutions, possibilities for inefficiency in history, and the importance of symbolic action to an understanding of politics." Among the other points they assert to be characteristic of this "new institutionalism" are the recognition that processes may be as important as outcomes (or even more important), and the recognition that preferences are not fixed and exogenous but may change as a function of political learning in a given institutional and historical context. However, in my view, there are three key problems with the March and Olsen synthesis. First, in looking for a common ground of belief among those who use the label "new institutionalism" for their work, March and Olsen are seeking to impose a unity of perspective on a set of figures who actually have little in common. March and Olsen (1984) lump together apples, oranges, and artichokes: neo-Marxists, symbolic interactionists, and learning theorists, all under their new institutionalist umbrella. They recognize that the ideas they ascribe to the new institutionalists are "not all mutually consistent. Indeed some of them seem mutually inconsistent" (March and Olsen, 1984: 738), but they slough over this paradox for the sake of typological neatness. Second, March and Olsen (1984) completely neglect another set of figures, those
    [Show full text]
  • PSC13 Introduction to Comparative Politics Course Description
    PSC13 Introduction to Comparative Politics Instructor: Richard S. Conley, PhD Office hours: TBA Email: [email protected] Teaching Assistant: Li Shao Course Description This course introduces students to the discipline of comparative politics, a subfield in political science. Students of comparative politics study politics in countries around the world. Our course will focus on several important themes in the subfield including the science and the art of comparative politics, ideology and culture, political development, democracy and democratization, and the political economy of development. The approach in the class will be global in three senses of the term: 1) it provides broad coverage with select cases in Europe, Asia, North and South America, the Middle East, and Africa, 2) it offers conceptual comprehensiveness, and 3) it promotes critical thinking. Learning Objectives: The general objective of this course is to increase the students knowledge of political realities all aver the world. Students will learn the many ways governments operate and the various ways people behave in political life. By the end of the term students should be able to: accurately describe political life in select countries in all of the world’s geographic regions; show a familiarity with a wide range of substantive issues in comparative politics and be able to discuss them critically; demonstrate mastery of the main theoretical and analytical approaches to the study of comparative politics. Required Text Mark Kesselmen, Joel Krieger, William Joseph (eds.). Introduction to Comparative Politics (6th Edition, 2012). Available as an Electronic Book. ISBN-10: 1111831823; ISBN-13: 978- 1111831820. Other texts will be available as electronic files Course Hours The course has 26 class sessions in total.
    [Show full text]
  • Semester at Sea Course Syllabus
    Democratization and Modernization: Concepts, Issues, and Approaches SEMESTER AT SEA COURSE SYLLABUS Voyage: Spring 2013 Discipline: Political Science PLCP 3500: Democratization and Modernization: Concepts, Issues, and Approaches Division: Upper division Faculty Name: Tao XIE Pre-requisites: This course has no pre-requisites. However, intellectual curiosity in and prior exposure (academic or otherwise) to politics and history of non-U.S. countries, as well as knowledge about U.S. foreign policy, would be quite useful. COURSE DESCRIPTION This is an upper-level political science course that examines the major concepts, issues, and approaches in scholarly research on democratization and modernization. Given the nature of the Semester at Sea program, this course pay special attention to processes of democratization and modernization in countries located along the route, as well as topics that are highly relevant for these countries. As the ship departs the U.S., the oldest democracy in the world, the course starts with discussions about democracy, including how to conceptualize democracy, the relationship between economic development and democracy, and the pros and cons of different forms of democratic governance. When the ship approaches Japan, we will shift attention to Japanese politics and U.S.-Japan relations. We will take a brief look at the cultural underpinnings of the Japanese democracy, as well as the major issues in U.S.-Japan relations. As the ship departs Kobe, we will spend three classes on China, the largest (in terms of population, territory, and economy) country on the route. We first address the rise of China, particularly its implications for regional and international security.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research
    Advance Access publication June 13, 2006 Political Analysis (2006) 14:227–249 doi:10.1093/pan/mpj017 A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research James Mahoney Departments of Political Science and Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-1006 e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author) Gary Goertz Department of Political Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 e-mail: [email protected] The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to expla- nation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive ‘‘cross-cultural’’ communica- tion in political science. Introduction Comparisons of the quantitative and qualitative research traditions sometimes call to mind religious metaphors. In his commentary for this issue, for example, Beck (2006) likens the traditions to the worship of alternative gods. Schrodt (2006), inspired by Brady’s (2004b, 53) prior casting of the controversy in terms of theology versus homiletics, is more explicit: ‘‘while this debate is not in any sense about religion, its dynamics are best understood as though it were about religion. We have always known that, it just needed to be said.’’ We prefer to think of the two traditions as alternative cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • PS 103 Intro to Comparative Politics
    Principles of Comparative Politics Political Science 250 Instructor: Wade Jacoby Office: 742 SWKT Office Phone: 801-422-1711 E-mail address: [email protected] Office hours: Mondays 3:30-5pm in 742 SWKT TA: Adam Stevenson, office hours, Wednesdays, 9-10 am and by appointment in 109 HRCB Introduction: This course shows you how and why to compare political systems to one another. By ‘political,’ I mean pretty obvious things like electoral rules, legislatures, and courts, but I also mean things like economics and non-government organizations and civil wars. During the course, we will discuss: What is comparative politics? What makes for good comparisons? What are the characteristics of a state? How have states emerged across human history, ancient and modern? How do class, ideology, and nationalism influence politics? What do the variety of political institutions and regimes look like? What is the role of economics in the populist backlash? Why do some regimes transition to democracy? Why are some countries rich and others poor? How do political institutions shape patterns of economic development? What are the varieties of ways people participate in politics? How do social movements and civil society affect politics? Why does politics sometimes become violent? How does identity shape political participation? How does globalization affect the state? We will address these questions by looking both at theoretical approaches and by studying larger trends and actual cases in a variety of countries around the globe. Right away, you will notice that our readings provide different—and often conflicting— answers to the big questions above. We won’t always have time to resolve the debates— and many of them have not been resolved by scholars either.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Democracy This Page Intentionally Left Blank PATTERNS of DEMOCRACY
    Patterns of Democracy This page intentionally left blank PATTERNS OF DEMOCRACY Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries SECOND EDITION AREND LIJPHART First edition 1999. Second edition 2012. Copyright © 1999, 2012 by Arend Lijphart. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Yale University Press books may be purchased in quantity for educational, business, or promotional use. For information, please e-mail [email protected] (US offi ce) or [email protected] (UK offi ce). Set in Melior type by Integrated Publishing Solutions, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of democracy : government forms and performance in thirty-six countries / Arend Lijphart. — 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-300-17202-7 (paperbound : alk. paper) 1. Democracy. 2. Comparative government. I. Title. JC421.L542 2012 320.3—dc23 2012000704 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (Permanence of Paper). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for Gisela and for our grandchildren, Connor, Aidan, Arel, Caio, Senta, and Dorian, in the hope that the twenty-fi rst century—their century—will yet become more
    [Show full text]
  • Research Design Skopje 6-7 November 2008
    Research Design Skopje 6-7 November 2008 Daniel Bochsler and Lucas Leemann Center for Comparative and International Studies, University of Zurich [email protected]; [email protected] Introduction The goal of this workshop session is to review the current literature on issues of research design in social sciences and to allow the participants to improve on their skills in designing research. The workshop starts off with a short review of some basic principles of scientific research, before turning to two of the main goals of scientific work, namely descriptive and causal inferences. In a second part different research designs are discussed, relying on the basic distinction between experimental and quasi-experimental work. Given that despite the important forays in experimental studies in the social sciences (see Druckman, Green, Kuklinski and Lupia, 2006) quasi- experimental designs will be discussed in more detail. Special emphasis will be put on the dangers to our inferences in such quasi-experimental designs. The third part will consist of a discussion of a few chosen research designs to highlight their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, based on the participants own experience, in a short training session they will have to sketch possible research designs for chosen research questions. Plan, readings and literature Most of the literature on which this workshop will rely comes from King, Keohane and Verba (1994), a book that, from a very specific perspective, highlights the similarities between quantitative and qualitative approaches. Needless to say, this book has attracted a series of critiques (e.g., Caporaso, 1995; Collier, 1995; Rogowski, 1995; Tarrow, 1995; Brady and Collier, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution-Making Gone Wrong
    1 LANDAU 923-980 (DO NOT DELETE) 6/2/2013 5:08 PM CONSTITUTION-MAKING GONE WRONG David Landau* ABSTRACT With the recent wave of regime change in the Middle East, the process of constitution-making must again become a central concern for those interested in comparative law and politics. The conception of constitutional politics associated with Jon Elster and Bruce Ackerman views constitution- making as a potentially higher form of lawmaking with different dynamics than ordinary politics and states that, ideally, constitution-making should be designed so as to be a relatively deliberative process where the role of group and institutional interests is deemphasized. I argue that a focus on achieving deliberation and transformation through constitution-making is unrealistic in certain situations and that theorists should instead often focus on avoiding worst-case scenarios of authoritarian regimes or breakdowns of order. Constitution-making moments must not be idealized; they are often traumatic events. In these situations, the central challenge of constitution-making is not to achieve a higher form of lawmaking but rather to constrain unilateral exercises of power. I use two recent Latin American examples where the constitution-making process was problematic to illustrate the difficulty. If political forces in assemblies are left unconstrained or poorly constrained, they can reshape politics to create a quasi-authoritarian regime (as occurred in Venezuela), or their attempt to impose a constitution on a reticent minority may create a constitutional breakdown (as nearly occurred in Bolivia). Some of the normative recommendations of followers of the dominant model—for example, that constitution-making should be highly participatory and should be undertaken in a specialized constituent assembly—emerge as problematic under this reconceptualization because they may increase the likelihood of a worst-case outcome.
    [Show full text]
  • "A Sea Change in Political Methodology." in Rethinking Social
    Introduction to Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2 edn., Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, ed. (Rowman and Littlefield, 2010). A Sea Change in Political Methodology David Collier, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright We begin with rival claims about the ''science'' in social science. In our view, juxtaposing these claims brings into focus a sea change in political science methodology. King, Keohane, and Verba's (KKV) 1994 book, Designing Social Inquiry, proposes a bold methodological agenda for researchers who work in the qualitative tradition. The book's subtitle directly summarizes the agenda: ''scientific inference in qualitative research'' (italics added). To its credit, the book is explicit in its definition of science. It draws on what we and many others have viewed as a ''quantitative template,'' which serves as the foun- dation for the desired scientific form of qualitative methods. In KKV's view, standard research procedures of qualitative analysis are routinely problem- atic, and ideas drawn from conventional quantitative methods are offered as guideposts to help qualitative researchers be scientific. 1. For our own work, we share Freedman's view of plurality in scientific methods, and we recognize social versus natural science as partially different enterprises. Yet the two can and should strive for careful formulation of hypotheses, intersubjec- tive agreement on the facts being analyzed, precise use of data, and good research design. With this big-tent understanding of science, we are happy to be included in the tent. 2. As explained above in the preface, in the second edition we use the abbreviation KKV to refer to the book, rather than DSI, as in the first edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Second Edition
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title A Sea of Change in Political Methodology? Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8gq6g191 Journal Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, 9(1) Authors Collier, David Brady, Henry E Seawright, Jason Publication Date 2011-04-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Qualitative and Multi-Method Research. Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section. 9, No. 1 (Spring 2011, forthcoming). A Sea Change in Political Methodology1 David Collier University of California, Berkeley [email protected] Henry E. Brady University of California, Berkeley [email protected] Jason Seawright Northwestern University [email protected] Shifting debates on what constitutes “science” reveal competing claims about methodology.2 Of course, in its origin the term “science” means “knowledge,” and researchers obviously hold a wide spectrum of positions on how to produce viable knowledge. Within this spectrum, we compare two alternative meanings of science, advanced by scholars who seek to legitimate sharply contrasting views of qualitative methods. This comparison points to a sea change in political science methodology.3 1 This article draws on the Introductions to Parts I and II of Brady and Collier, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn. (Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010). 2 Morgan (1996) provides a broad overview of rival views of science, encompassing the natural,
    [Show full text]