Difference between revisions of "Ferrie2004"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Jean-Noël Ferrié; Baudouin Dupret | |Author(s)=Jean-Noël Ferrié; Baudouin Dupret | ||
| − | |Title=Préférences et | + | |Title=Préférences et pertinences: analyse praxéologique des figures du compromis en contexte parlementaire. A propos d'un débat Égyptien |
|Tag(s)=compromise; ethnomethodology; hearings; parliament; Egypt | |Tag(s)=compromise; ethnomethodology; hearings; parliament; Egypt | ||
|Key=Ferrie2004 | |Key=Ferrie2004 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=263–290 | |Pages=263–290 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0539018404042582 |
|DOI=10.1177/0539018404042582 | |DOI=10.1177/0539018404042582 | ||
|Abstract=Taking as its departure point an Egyptian parliamentary debate, this article shows, first of all, that rational-choice theory cannot describe the making of a compromise; and, second, that the re-appraisal of preferences does not imply a change of opinion after the debate. It argues instead that the praxeological approach is more suitable for describing this dynamic. | |Abstract=Taking as its departure point an Egyptian parliamentary debate, this article shows, first of all, that rational-choice theory cannot describe the making of a compromise; and, second, that the re-appraisal of preferences does not imply a change of opinion after the debate. It argues instead that the praxeological approach is more suitable for describing this dynamic. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:56, 1 November 2019
| Ferrie2004 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Ferrie2004 |
| Author(s) | Jean-Noël Ferrié, Baudouin Dupret |
| Title | Préférences et pertinences: analyse praxéologique des figures du compromis en contexte parlementaire. A propos d'un débat Égyptien |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | compromise, ethnomethodology, hearings, parliament, Egypt |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2004 |
| Language | French |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Science Information |
| Volume | 43 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 263–290 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0539018404042582 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Taking as its departure point an Egyptian parliamentary debate, this article shows, first of all, that rational-choice theory cannot describe the making of a compromise; and, second, that the re-appraisal of preferences does not imply a change of opinion after the debate. It argues instead that the praxeological approach is more suitable for describing this dynamic.
Notes
