Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:24:00.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response 2: Social Science as Phronesis? The Potential Contradictions of a Phronetic Social Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2010

TONY FITZPATRICK
TONY FITZPATRICK*
Affiliation:
School of Sociology & Social Policy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Paul Spicker's article has provided a thought-provoking contribution to which I am broadly sympathetic. I have two principal concerns, however. Firstly, it fails to contextualise itself vis-à-vis some key debates. Secondly, therefore, it neglects to ask some crucial philosophical and methodological questions. As such, researchers should pause before embracing a phronetic social policy. Below, I specify the nature of my concerns, paying particular attention to the implications of phronesis for universalism. My aim is not to critique Spicker's entire article, but to draw attention to key issues to which those interested in phronetic approaches should attend.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 31 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adcock, R. (2009), ‘Making making social science matter matter to us’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 21: 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle (c. 350 BCE), Nicomachean Ethics, Middlesex: Penguin, reprinted (1955).Google Scholar
Dunne, J. (1993), Back to the Rough Ground, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Finer, S. E. (1970), The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001), Making Social Science Matter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gereluk, D. (2002), ‘The ongoing battle of the methods’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 12: 215–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. (1997), William Beveridge, Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkesworth, M. (2006), ‘Contesting the terrain’, in Schram, S. and Caterino, B. (eds.), Making Political Science Matter, New York & London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Laitin, D. (2006), ‘The Perestroikan challenge to social science’, in Schram, S. and Caterino, B. (eds.), Making Political Science Matter, New York & London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. (1981), After Virtue, London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. (2006a), The Tasks of Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, A. (2006b), Ethics and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. (2006), ‘Social science in society’, in Schram, S. and Caterino, B. (eds.), Making Political Science Matter, New York & London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schram, S. (2000), After Welfare, New York & London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schram, S. (2002), Praxis for the Poor, New York & London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schram, S. (2004), ‘Beyond paradigm: resisting the assimilation of phronetic social science’, Politics and Society, 32: 417–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schram, S. (2006), Welfare Discipline, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Spicker, P. Forthcoming, ‘Generalisation and phronesis: rethinking the methodology of social policy’, Journal of Social Policy. doi: 10.1017/S0047279410000334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titmuss, R. (2001), Welfare and Wellbeing, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar