Abstract
A clash between the theory of symbolic politics, first put forward in The Symbolic Uses of Politics over 20 years ago, and the pluralist research program demonstrates that not all social science conduct can be adequately addressed within frameworks borrowed from philosophy of science methodologies. The theory argued that different organizational psychologies distinguish issue movements, or reform campaigns, from ordinary interest groups. It believed that the difference negated the pluralist fluidity assumption that fluid, nonmonopolized interactions characterize interest group relationships. The controversy yielded unanticipated facts and was resolved without either side losing conceptual integrity. Lakatosian research methodology instructs researchers to probe conflicts like these to determine whether knowledge grows or new facts emerge. The methodology also assumes that clashes are resolved when one side overturns the other. This clash demonstrates how knowledge also grows when a research program and an anomalous theory are synthesized.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
