We Need More Epiphanies
Audie Klotz
Log in to download the full text for free
> Citation
> Similar
> References
> Add Comment
Abstract
Open peer commentary on the article “Materialism and Selection Bias: Political Psychology from a Radical Constructivist Perspective” by Björn Goldstein. Abstract: Too many political scientists cling to notions of objectivity and universality, despite decades of compelling research on intersubjectivity and intersectionality. Now that the pandemic has disrupted normal fieldwork - an exogenous shock - we have opportunities to reassess every aspect of research, from theorization and design to analysis and implications. I stress one overarching issue: the need to integrate gender analysis.
Citation
Klotz A. (2021) We need more epiphanies. Constructivist Foundations 16(3): 348–351. https://constructivist.info/16/3/348
Export article citation data:
Plain Text ·
BibTex ·
EndNote ·
Reference Manager (RIS)
References
Ansoms A., Bisoka A. N. & Thomson S. (eds.) (2021) Fieldwork in Africa: The ethics of researcher vulnerabilities. James Currey, Melton.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Appiah K. A. (1992) In my father’s house: Africa in the philosophy of culture. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Behl N. (2019) Gendered citizenship: Understanding gendered violence in democratic India. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Goldgeier J. & Tetlock P. (2001) Psychology and international relations theory. Annual Review of Political Science 4: 67–92.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Harding S. (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Harding S. (ed.) (1987) Feminism & methodology: Social science issues. Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hawkesworth M. (2005) Engendering political science: An immodest proposal. Politics & Gender 1(1): 141–156.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Herbst S. (1993) Numbered voices: How opinion polling has shaped American politics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hermann M. (2003) Assessing leadership style: Trait analysis. In: Post J. (ed.) The psychological assessment of political leaders. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor MI: 178–212.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hiley D., Bohman J. & Shusterman R. (eds.) (1991) The interpretive turn: Philosophy, science, culture. Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hutchings K. & Owens P. (2021) Women thinkers and the canon of international thought: Recovery, rejection, and reconstitution. American Political Science Review 115(2): 347–359.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Klotz A. & Lynch C. (2007) Strategies for research in constructivist international relations. M. E. Sharpe/Routledge, Armonk NY.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Klotz A. (2018) The power of prejudice: The race gap in constructivist international relations scholarship. In: Bertucci M., Hayes J. & James P. (eds.) Constructivism reconsidered: Past, present, and future. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor MI: 87–102.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kratochwil F. (1989) Rules, norms, and decisions: On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nandy A. (1983) The intimate enemy: Loss and recovery of self under colonialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rubenstein D. (2008) This is not a president: Sense, nonsense, and the American political imaginary. New York University Press, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Weedon C. (1987) Feminist practice & poststructuralist theory. Blackwell, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Comments: 0
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.
