16 books
—
1 voter
Methodology Books
Showing 1-50 of 2,472

by (shelved 21 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.29 — 79,343 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 21 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.47 — 1,972 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 13 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.16 — 120,452 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 11 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.98 — 27,428 ratings — published 1940

by (shelved 11 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.02 — 1,310 ratings — published 1997

by (shelved 11 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.50 — 414 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 9 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.84 — 937 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 8 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.92 — 4,326 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 8 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.10 — 500 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 8 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.81 — 2,788 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.45 — 105 ratings — published

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.00 — 166,543 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.93 — 4,532 ratings — published 1977

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.07 — 4,955 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.02 — 3,477 ratings — published 1975

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.90 — 235 ratings — published 1967

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.07 — 398 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.40 — 151 ratings — published

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.08 — 13,394 ratings — published 2017

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.19 — 23,227 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.06 — 917 ratings — published

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.98 — 1,841 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.72 — 24,847 ratings — published 1637

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.79 — 173 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.96 — 745 ratings — published 1984

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.86 — 269 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.58 — 624 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.48 — 655 ratings — published 2009

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.82 — 306 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.16 — 810,434 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.21 — 747 ratings — published 2009

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.19 — 21,440 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.01 — 121 ratings — published 2004

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.98 — 36,818 ratings — published 2017

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.94 — 6,488 ratings — published 2018

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.84 — 93,719 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.11 — 87,314 ratings — published 1990

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.09 — 2,934 ratings — published 1949

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.09 — 270 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.98 — 1,138 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.14 — 408 ratings — published 2000

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.18 — 86,639 ratings — published 1918

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.91 — 287 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.03 — 29,519 ratings — published 1962

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.54 — 124 ratings — published 1983

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.92 — 337 ratings — published 1991

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.07 — 175 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.69 — 48 ratings — published 1987

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.00 — 358 ratings — published 1980

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.11 — 351 ratings — published 1984

“Counterfactuals can be considered an analog to the apple, and the invitation to engage with them a provocation to those who believe that social science or history can only be corrupted by their use. I sense that
the number of scholars who feel this way, while substantial, is on the decline.
They believe we live in a metaphorical Garden of Eden, where the social and physical worlds are ordered, predictable, and related in a holistic way. For those of us who recognize that humankind left Eden long
ago—if it ever existed—counterfactuals must be considered one more tool to help us make sense of our chaotic and unordered world, where knowledge sometimes has the effect of accelerating disorder.”
― Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations
the number of scholars who feel this way, while substantial, is on the decline.
They believe we live in a metaphorical Garden of Eden, where the social and physical worlds are ordered, predictable, and related in a holistic way. For those of us who recognize that humankind left Eden long
ago—if it ever existed—counterfactuals must be considered one more tool to help us make sense of our chaotic and unordered world, where knowledge sometimes has the effect of accelerating disorder.”
― Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations
“…never settle for trying to be less than the best.”
― Coach, Run, Win
― Coach, Run, Win