Crossref Citations
This Book has been
cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Thacher, David
2001.
Conflicting Values in Community Policing.
Law & Society Review,
Vol. 35,
Issue. 4,
p.
765.
Sharp, Liz
and
Richardson, Tim
2001.
Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research.
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,
Vol. 3,
Issue. 3,
p.
193.
Gordon, Raymond D
2001.
Is The Sense We Take Equal To The Sense We Make? A Discussion on Sensemaking and Power in Organisations.
Journal of Management & Organization,
Vol. 7,
Issue. 2,
p.
41.
Flyvbjerg, Bent
2001.
Beyond the Limits of Planning Theory: Response to My Critics.
International Planning Studies,
Vol. 6,
Issue. 3,
p.
285.
Hawkins, John N.
and
Rust, Val D.
2001.
Shifting Perspectives on Comparative Research: A view from the USA.
Comparative Education,
Vol. 37,
Issue. 4,
p.
501.
Ahmad, Bashir
2001.
Users and disusers of box solar cookers in urban India—.
Solar Energy,
Vol. 69,
Issue. ,
p.
209.
Eger, Martin
2001.
Social vs. Natural Science?.
Science,
Vol. 293,
Issue. 5530,
p.
605.
Gordon, Raymond D
2001.
Is The Sense We Take Equal To The Sense We Make? A Discussion on Sensemaking and Power in Organisations.
Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management,
Vol. 7,
Issue. 2,
p.
41.
2001.
Books Received.
Current Anthropology,
Vol. 42,
Issue. 5,
p.
774.
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine
and
Yanow, Dvora
2002.
“Reading” “ Methods” “Texts”: ” How Research Methods Texts Construct Political Science.
Political Research Quarterly,
Vol. 55,
Issue. 2,
p.
457.
Veit-Brause, Irmline
2002.
The making of modern scientific personae: the scientist as a moral person? Emil Du Bois-Reymond and his friends.
History of the Human Sciences,
Vol. 15,
Issue. 4,
p.
19.
Howe, Joe
and
Langdon, Colin
2002.
Towards a Reflexive Planning Theory.
Planning Theory,
Vol. 1,
Issue. 3,
p.
209.
Pugh, J.
2002.
Complex problems, negotiated solutions: tools to reduce conflict in community development, M. Warner. ITDG Publishing, London, 2001. ISBN 1853395323, £12.95 (paperback), x + 149 pp..
Land Degradation & Development,
Vol. 13,
Issue. 1,
p.
82.
Næss, Petter
and
Jensen, Ole B.
2002.
Urban land use, mobility and theory of science: exploring the potential for critical realism in empirical research.
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,
Vol. 4,
Issue. 4,
p.
295.
Baehr, Peter
2002.
Identifying the Unprecedented: Hannah Arendt, Totalitarianism, and the Critique of Sociology.
American Sociological Review,
Vol. 67,
Issue. 6,
p.
804.
Gunder, Michael
2002.
Bridging theory and practice in planning.
Australian Planner,
Vol. 39,
Issue. 4,
p.
202.
Kinsella, William J.
2002.
Problematizing the distinction between expert and lay knowledge.
New Jersey Journal of Communication,
Vol. 10,
Issue. 2,
p.
191.
Lieberson, Stanley
and
Lynn, Freda B.
2002.
Barking up the Wrong Branch: Scientific Alternatives to the Current Model of Sociological Science.
Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol. 28,
Issue. 1,
p.
1.
Gunder, Michael
and
Mouat, Clare
2002.
Symbolic Violence and Victimization in Planning Processes: A Reconnoitre of the New Zealand Resource Management Act.
Planning Theory,
Vol. 1,
Issue. 2,
p.
124.
Spector, Reynold
and
Vesell, Elliot S.
2002.
Which Studies of Therapy Merit Credence? Vitamin E and Estrogen Therapy as Cautionary Examples.
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology,
Vol. 42,
Issue. 9,
p.
955.