Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:04:33.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Robert H. Bates*
Affiliation:
Harvard University

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1997

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.)

Footnotes

*

This article draws heavily on Robert H. Bates, “Area Studies and Political Science: Rupture and Possible Synthesis,” Africa Today, Volume 44, No. 2 (1997), special issue on “The Future of Regional Studies.” I wish also to thank Timothy Cotton and Peter Hall, and the junior fellows of Harvard Academy, especially Daniel Posner, for their tough criticisms. I have failed to incorporate many of their suggestions, and therefore must assume complete responsibility of the defects that remain.

References

Bates, Robert H., O'Barr, Jean, and Mudimbe, V. S., 1993. Africa and the Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert H., Greif, Avner, Levi, Margaret, Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent, and Weingast, Barry. Forthcoming. Analytic Narratives.Google Scholar
Colson, Elizabeth. 1974. Tradition and Contract. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 1991. “Rationality and Interpretation,” in The Economic Approach to Politics, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert, and Verba, Sydney, 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar