The DOI matches its Crossref record.
New Philosophies of Social Science
Abstract
The demise of empiricist philosophies of science has contributed to the current disarray of philosophy in the social sciences. This book argues that a realist analysis of the structures and processes
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Complexity of Intersectionality
McCall, L. (2005) · Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society · doi:10.1086/426800 · Cited by 6,682
Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.55 · Cited by 1,316
The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations
Tsoukas, H. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258558 · Cited by 788
Critical Realism as emancipatory action: the case for realistic evaluation in practice development
Wilson, V., & McCormack, B. (2006) · Nursing Philosophy · doi:10.1111/j.1466-769x.2006.00248.x · Cited by 119
User, carer and professional experiences of care in motor neurone disease
Brown, J. B. (2003) · Primary Health Care Research and Development · doi:10.1191/1463423603pc151oa · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Outhwaite, W.
- Publisher
- Macmillan Education UK
- Published
- 1987
- OpenAlex
- W2478974210
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.00
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: New Philosophies of Social Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-1-349-18946-5
- The paper
- Outhwaite, W. (1987). New Philosophies of Social Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18946-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
