The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science.
Abstract
In arguably the finest text ever written in the philosophy of social science, Abraham emphasizes what unites the behavioral sciences more than what distinguishes them from one another. avoids the bitter disputes among people doing methodology, claiming instead that what is important are those qualities intrinsic to the overall aspirations of the social He deals with special problems of various disciplines only so far as may be helpful in clarifying the general method of inquiry. The Conduct of Inquiry is a systematic, rounded, and wide-ranging inquiry into behavioral science. is guided by the experience of sciences with longer histories, but he is bound neither to their problems nor to their solutions. Instead, he addresses the methodology of behavioral science in the broad sense of both method and science. The work is not a formal exercise in the philosophy of science but rather a critical and constructive assessment of the developing standards and strategies of contemporary social inquiry. He emphasizes the tasks, achievements, limitations, and dilemmas of the newer disciplines. Philosophers of science usually choose to write about the most fully developed sciences because problems are clearer there. The result is ordinarily of little benefit to the behavioral scientist, whose task is clarification of method; here the precedents and analogies of physical science are obscure or inappropriate. The Conduct of Inquiry goes a long way in drawing upon the strengths of social research insights without simplifying the common concerns of the scientific enterprise as a whole. As Leonard Broom noted when the book initially appeared: Kaplan fills a gap and does so with admirable clarity and often engaging wit. It lacks pomposity, pedantry, and pretension, and it is bound to make an impact on the teaching of and, with luck, research in the behavioral sciences.
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
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285
Explaining Development and Change in Organizations
van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329 · Cited by 3,762
Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598 · Cited by 1,631
The efficacy of motivational interviewing: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials
Burke, B. L., Arkowitz, H., & Menchola, M. (2003) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.71.5.843 · Cited by 1,575
Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice
Banks, J. A. (1993) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.2307/1167339 · Cited by 1,532
Metadata
- Authors
- Nagel, E., & Kaplan, A.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1965-08
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 600
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2038012388
- Cited by
- 1,150
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 70.52
- Type
- journal article
- 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: The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2091353
- The paper
- Nagel, E., & Kaplan, A. (1965). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/2091353
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.