|
With this note I would like to let you know that my new book MAKING SOCIAL SCIENCE MATTER: WHY SOCIAL INQUIRY FAILS AND HOW IT CAN SUCCEED AGAIN has just been published by Cambridge University Press. The book demonstrates that our understanding of how humans learn is fundamental to how we can and should conceive of the social, human, and behavioral sciences as science. Methodology, theory, and philosophy of science all come after, and require, a philosophy of learning and education. MAKING SOCIAL SCIENCE MATTER is published as a CUP textbook. I include the following for your information: - The Table of Contents I hope this is useful. Please feel free to forward this message to any relevant person or listserv. If this mail is of no interest to you, I am sorry and apologize for the inconvenience. Also apologies for any cross posting. Best wishes, Bent Flyvbjerg, Professor CONTENTS: MAKING SOCIAL SCIENCE MATTER FROM THE BACK COVER OF MAKING SOCIAL SCIENCE MATTER PIERRE BOURDIEU, COLLEGE DE FRANCE: "This is social science that matters." ROBERT N. BELLAH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY: "This is a book I have been waiting for for a long time. It opens up entirely new perspectives for social science by showing us that abandoning the aspiration to be like natural science is the beginning of wisdom about what we can and ought to be doing instead. It is a landmark book that deserves the widest possible reading and discussion." ED SOJA, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH, UCLA: "This brilliant contextualization of social inquiry, hinging on both Aristotle and Foucault, gives new meaning to the concept of praxis. It will be of interest to everyone concerned with making democracy work." STEVEN LUKES, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: "Flyvbjerg, author of RATIONALITY AND POWER: DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE, an innovative, fine-grained and civically-engaged study of local power in Denmark, here reflects, in accessible and pleasurable prose, on large, challenging questions: What, fundamentally, makes social science different from natural science? Why is it relatively so poor in producing cumulative and predictive theories? What kinds of knowledge should it seek and with what methods? His answers, drawing on Nietzsche, Foucault, Bourdieu and others, are worth the close attention of those predisposed to reject them out of hand." There's more information about the book at www.us.cambridge.org and www.uk.cambridge.org. |