Bates was one of the first exponents of rational choice theory in comparative politics, while Scott is a qualitative thinker who is skeptical of the whole deriving generalizations approach to political science.
If you are looking for a book that may change the way you look at the world, you might try Scott's last book, Against the Grain. I just finished reading it and found novel insights on just about every page. And this is despite being more like Bates in my approach to PS.
> Of course, the questioners did not push the interviewees to mention specific propositions or theories, though a few mentioned that political science had not established that sort of knowledge (Bates and Scott, who might be seen as polar opposites, shared this view).
What's the sense in which Bates and Scott might be seen as opposites?
Bates was one of the first exponents of rational choice theory in comparative politics, while Scott is a qualitative thinker who is skeptical of the whole deriving generalizations approach to political science.
If you are looking for a book that may change the way you look at the world, you might try Scott's last book, Against the Grain. I just finished reading it and found novel insights on just about every page. And this is despite being more like Bates in my approach to PS.
Thank you—I'll check out Against the Grain.
> Of course, the questioners did not push the interviewees to mention specific propositions or theories, though a few mentioned that political science had not established that sort of knowledge (Bates and Scott, who might be seen as polar opposites, shared this view).
What's the sense in which Bates and Scott might be seen as opposites?