The Meanings of Scientific Progress in the History of International Relations – Selected Cases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.18.2021.75.02Keywords:
International Relations, philosophy of social sciences, historiography – IR, progress in IR, theory of IRAbstract
This article aims at reconstructing and interpreting the meanings of scientific progress present in selected important works within the discipline of International Relations (IR). This research objective stems from the gap in the literature concerning scientific progress in IR, as it is mostly concerned with the evaluation of the progressiveness of particular approaches, paradigms within the discipline. The reconstruction of meanings given by particular IR scholars to scientific progress is conducted only as far as its instrumental for the critique of their approaches and making room for the approaches of the critics. My objective is different – using a method inspired by the history of ideas and the research technique of qualitative content analysis, I will attempt to answer the following research questions: Q1 – How is the category of scientific progress of IR understood by particular scholars? Q2 – What are the contexts of its usage? Q3 – How can we interpret the rationale behind the employment of particular meanings in particular contexts? Q4 – How, on the basis of all cases, can we depict the flow of ideas of scientific progress through the history of IR? The cases selected span the development of IR from World War II to the early 2000s: Edward Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis; Morton Kaplan’s texts from the early phase of the second great debate; John Vasquez’s The Power of Power Politics; and Miriam and Colin Elman’s Progress in International Relations Theory. On the basis of these cases I will argue that the notion of scientific progress in IR is an essentially contested concept within the discipline. Despite certain similarities in the meaning of the term among the cases – a cumulative notion of scientific progress – all of them are used in a way that is intended to legitimize the approach of a particular author as ‘properly scientific’. Another conclusion drawn is that although differing in kind, all of the cases consider important historical events that do not shape the meanings of progress themselves, but instead create a window of opportunity for particular meanings, as their context.
Downloads
PlumX Metrics of this article
References
Ashworth L.M., “Did the Realist-Idealist Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations”, International Relations, vol. 16, no. 1 (2002), pp. 33-51, https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117802016001004.
Google Scholar
Baldwin D. (ed.), Neoliberalism and Neorealism: The Contemporary Debate, New York 1993.
Google Scholar
Banks M., “The Evolution of International Relations Theory”, in M. Banks, H. Hempstead (eds.), Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations, 1984.
Google Scholar
Bennett A., “The Mother of All Isms: Causal Mechanisms and Structured Pluralism in International Relations theory”, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 19, no. 3 (2013), pp. 459-481, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495484.
Google Scholar
Carr E., The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939, London–Basingstoke 1981 [1939].
Google Scholar
Chernoff F., “Bounded Pluralism and Explanatory Progress in International Relations: What We Can Learn from the Democratic Peace Debate”, in A. Freyberg-Inan, E. Harrison, P. James (eds.), Evaluating Progress in International Relations: How do You Know?, New York 2007, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230606883.
Google Scholar
Chernoff F., Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending, New York 2007.
Google Scholar
Cohen B., International Political Economy: An Intellectual History, Princeton 2008, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828326.
Google Scholar
Doyle M., Ikenberry G.J. (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations Theory, Boulder 1997.
Google Scholar
Elman C., Elman M.F., “Introduction: Appraising Progress in International Relations Theory”, in eidem (eds.), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, Cambridge 2003, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5627.003.0003.
Google Scholar
Elman C., Elman M.F., “Lessons from Lakatos”, in eidem (eds.), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, London 2003, pp. 21-68, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5627.003.0004.
Google Scholar
Feaver P. et al., “Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm? (Or Was Anybody Ever a Realist?)”, International Security, vol. 25, no. 1 (2000), pp. 165-193, https://doi.org/10.1162/016228800560426.
Google Scholar
Filary M., “Wybrane problemy metodologiczne II debaty w stosunkach międzynarodowych”
Google Scholar
[Selected Methodological Problems of the II Great debate in International Relations], Politeja, no. 13 (2010), pp. 345-374.
Google Scholar
Freyberg-Inan A., Harrison E., James P. (eds.), Evaluating Progress in International Relations: How do You Know?, New York 2007.
Google Scholar
Gallie W.N., Philosophy and the Historical Understanding, London 1964.
Google Scholar
Guilhot N., “The Realist Gambit”, in N. Guilhot (ed.), The Invention of International Relations Theory, New York 2011.
Google Scholar
Harrison E., “The Democratic Peace Research Program and System Level Analysis”, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 47, no. 2 (2010), pp. 155-165, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309356490.
Google Scholar
Hauptmann E., “Defining ‘Theory’ in Postwar Political Science”, in G. Steinmetz (ed.), The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and Its Epistemological Others, Durham 2005.
Google Scholar
Kahler M., “Inventing International Relations”, in M. Doyle, G. Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations, Boulder 1997.
Google Scholar
Kaplan M.A., “Is International Relations a Discipline?”, The Journal of Politics, no. 23/3 (1960), pp. 462-476, https://doi.org/10.2307/2127101.
Google Scholar
Kaplan M.A., “Problems of Theory Building and Confirmation in International Relations”, World Politics, no. 14/1 (1961), pp. 6-24, https://doi.org/10.2307/2009553.
Google Scholar
Kaplan M.A., System and Process in International Relations, New York 1957.
Google Scholar
Kegler Jr. Ch. (ed.), Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, New York 1995.
Google Scholar
Keohane R.O., “On Popperian Historiography”, in J. Worrall, G. Currie (eds.), Mathematics, Science and Epistemology, vol. 2, Cambridge 1978.
Google Scholar
Keohane R.O., Neorealism and Its Critics, New York 1986.
Google Scholar
Keohane R.O., Nye J., Power and Interdependence, Boston 1977.
Google Scholar
King G., Keohane R.O., Verba S., Designing Social Inquiry, Princeton 1994, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821211.
Google Scholar
Lakatos I., “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1970 (1970), pp. 91-136, https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1970.495757.
Google Scholar
Lake D.A., “Why ‘isms’ Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress”, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 2 (2011), pp. 465-480, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00661.x.
Google Scholar
Lamy S., “Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism”, in J. Baylis, S. Smith (eds.), Globalization of World Politics, Oxford 2008.
Google Scholar
Lebow R.N., Risse-Kapen Th. (eds.), International Relations Theory and the End of Cold War, New York 1995, https://doi.org/10.2307/2539233.
Google Scholar
Legro J.W., Moravcsik A., “Is Anybody Still a Realist?”, International Security, vol. 24, no. 2 (1999), pp. 5-55, https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560130.
Google Scholar
Morgnethau H., Political Man versus Power Politics, Chicago 1946.
Google Scholar
Schmidt B., “Lessons from the Past: Reassessing the Interwar Disciplinary History of International Relations”, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 5 (1998), pp. 433-459, https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00091.
Google Scholar
Schmidt B., The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations, New York 1998.
Google Scholar
Smith S., Booth K., Zalewski M. (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge 1996, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.
Google Scholar
Vasquez J.A., “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition”, American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 4 (1997), pp. 899-912, https://doi.org/10.2307/2952172.
Google Scholar
Vasquez J.A., The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism, Cambridge 1999, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491733.
Google Scholar
Wæver O., “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate”, in S. Smith, K. Booth, M. Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge 1996, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.009.
Google Scholar
Walker Th.C., “The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper”, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 8, no. 2 (2020), pp. 433-451, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001180.
Google Scholar
Waltz K., Theory of International Politics, Reading 1979.
Google Scholar
Wight C., “Bringing the Outside in: The Limits of Theoretical Fragmentation and Pluralism in IR Theory”, Politics, vol. 39, no. 1 (2019), pp. 64-81, https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395718815784.
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2022-03-11 (2)
- 2021-12-16 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.