Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T12:50:59.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking Ontology Seriously in Political Science and Political Theory: A Reply to Mayhew

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Stephen K. White
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Letter
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 743 - 744
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2000

References

Ball, Terence. 1987. “Is There Progress in Political Science?” In Idioms of Inquiry: Critique and Renewal in Political Science, ed. Ball, Terence. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, David. Forthcoming. “International Engagements: The Politics of North American International Relations Theory.” Political Theory.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics. Policy and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, Brian, and Moon, J. Donald. 1977. “What Would an Adequate Philosophy of Social Science Look Like?” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 7(3): 209–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, J. Donald. 1975. “The Logic of Political Inquiry: A Synthesis of Opposed Perspectives.” In Handbook of Political Science, vol. 1, ed. Greenstein, Fred and Polsby, Nelson. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1995. Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, Stephen K. 2000. Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of Weak Ontology in Contemporary Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar