Paradigms and Practice.

Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigm has long been a part of ordinary parlance in political science. Aside from its role in metatheoretical debate, scholars have enlisted the paradigm concept to explain policy change, particularly in the international political economy (IPE) literature. In this context...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:International Studies Quarterly Vol. 65; no. 3; pp. 565 - 573
Autores principales: Jabko, Nicolas, Schmidt, Sebastian
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Sep2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=152353013&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 152353013
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00208833
        ISQ
      jtl: International Studies Quarterly
      issn: 00208833
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2021
      vid: 65
      iid: 3
      pid: 622
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        152353013
        10.1093/isq/sqab028
      ppf: 565
      ppct: 8
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            db: hlh
            ui: 152353013
      tig:
        atl: Paradigms and Practice.
      aug:
        au:
          Jabko, Nicolas
          Schmidt, Sebastian
        affil: Johns Hopkins University , USA
      su:
        Kuhn, Thomas S., 1922-1996
        Political science
        Economics
        Economic policy
        Paradigm (Theory of knowledge)
      sug:
        subj:
          Political science
          Economics
          Economic policy
          Paradigm (Theory of knowledge)
          Kuhn, Thomas S., 1922-1996
      ab: Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigm has long been a part of ordinary parlance in political science. Aside from its role in metatheoretical debate, scholars have enlisted the paradigm concept to explain policy change, particularly in the international political economy (IPE) literature. In this context, policy paradigms are defined primarily in ideational terms and with respect to a specific domain of policymaking. We argue that this stance overstates the ideational coherence of policymaking and runs a risk of reification. We re-evaluate the paradigm concept by drawing a link to the recent literature on norm change that emphasizes the importance of practice and process. This analysis highlights theoretical difficulties in using the paradigm concept, as the relation of ideas to practical logics elides the distinctness of paradigmatic frameworks. Without clear boundaries, paradigms lose much of their analytical purchase. While the paradigm concept initially proved useful in highlighting the role of ideas, it is time to recognize its limits in explaining stability and change in policymaking.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N