Analityczny eklektyzm i problemy związane z jego wykorzystaniem w praktyce badawczej stosunków międzynarodowych
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.22.2025.97.14Keywords:
international relations, analytical eclecticism, theoretical pluralism, theoretical amalgamation, theoretical synthesisAbstract
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the problems associated with Analytical Eclecticism, a method which was designed to be applicable in the field of international relations. As a philosophy of science, the method of Analytical Eclecticism created by Peter Katzenstein and Rudra Sil, which refers to pragmatism and the concept of Larry Laudan’s research programs, is a scientific stance according to which selected elements of different theories can be combined in order to acquire a deeper understanding of studied phenomena in international relations. The main premise of the article is that Analytical Eclecticism is a method that is rarely used, the reason for which is the insufficient attention its authors pay to its methodological aspects. The article also aims to introduce the methods used by pragmatists (including the principles of abductive inference), and by Laudan (the process of theoretical amalgamation), for a more thorough understanding which may make the AE method more accessible and perhaps more often used when conducting empirical research.
Downloads
References
Adams J.C., Prof. Adams on Leverrier’s Planetary Theories, „Nature” 1877, vol. 16, nr 413, s. 478-480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/016478a0
Adler E., Pouliot V., International Practices, „International Theory” 2011, vol. 3, nr 1, [online] //www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-theory/article/abs/international-https:// DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297191000031X
practices/5B4330A95B17B8B4F1EC9BFB45087B78.
Bhaskar R., A Realist Theory of Science, London 2008, Classical Texts in Critical Realism.
Biersteker T., Critical Reflections on Post-Positivism in International Relations, „International Studies Quarterly” 1989, vol. 33, nr 3, s. 263-267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2600459
Brycz B., Dudycz T., Paradygmat jako podstawa metody naukowej w naukach o zarządzaniu, „Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu” 2010, nr 144, s. 52-62.
Carnap R., The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts, „The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis” 1956, nr 1, 38-76.
Checkel J.T., Theoretical Synthesis in IR: Possibilities and Limits, “Simons Working Paper Series in Security and Development”, 2010, nr 6, [online] https://summit.sfu.ca/item/14840?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
Chernoff F., Cornut J., James P., Analytic Eclecticism and International Relations: Promises and Pitfalls, „International Journal” 2020, vol. 75, nr 3, s. 383-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702020959250
Cornut J., The Practice Turn in International Relations Theory, [w:] The International Studies Encyclopedia, red. R.A. Denemark, R. Marlin-Bennett, [online] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191842665.001.0001/acref-9780191842665-e-0456?rskey=vy5HEv&result=1.
Denermark B., Ekström M., Jakobsen L., Explaining Society Critical Realism in the Social Sciences, London–New York 2002.
Dewey J., The Theory of Inquiry, New York 1938.
Dudek A., Użyteczność analitycznego eklektyzmu w badaniu stosunków Polski z Rosją, „Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations” 2016, vol. 52, nr 2, s. 39-61.
Fearon J., Wendt A., Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View, [w:] Handbook of International Relations, red. W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, B.A. Simmons, London–Thousand Oaks–New Delhi 2002, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608290.n3
Ferguson Y.H., Diversity in IR Theory: Pluralism as an Opportunity for Understanding Global Politics, „International Studies Perspectives” 2015, nr 16, s. 3-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12092
Frankowski P., Pragmatycznie i eklektycznie o stosunkach międzynarodowych, „Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio K – Politologia” 2013, vol. 20, nr 2, s. 7-27.
Gałganek A., Filozofia nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Ontologia. Epistemologia. Metodologia, Kraków 2021.
Glaser Ch.L., Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help, „International Security” 1994, vol. 19, nr 3, s. 50-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2539079
Gunasekara S.N., Bandwagoning, Balancing, and Small States: A Case of Sri Lanka, „Asian Social Science” 2015, vol. 11, nr 28, s. 212-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n28p212
Hellman G., Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations?, „International Studies Review” 2003, vol. 5, nr 1, s. 123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.501019_1
Heisenberg W.C., Fizyka a filozofia, przeł. S. Amsterdamski, Stuttgart 1959, [online] https://docer.pl/doc/nn0nv58.
Herbut M., Polus A., Syntezy nie osiągniesz? Holizm konfirmacyjny wobec dyskursu teoretycznego w Stosunkach Międzynarodowych, „Politeja” 2022, nr 1(76), s. 207-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.19.2022.76.11
Hofius M., Towards a „Theory of the Gap”: Addressing the Relationship between Practice and Theory, „Global Constitutionalism” 2020, vol. 9, nr 1, [online] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-constitutionalism/article/towards-a-theory-of-thegap-addressing-the-relationship-between-practice-and-theory/5FCF0122F9D72E000E5CB7256FE930EB. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381719000431
James W., William James Writings 1902-1910, New York 1987.
Jervis R., System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, New Jersey 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400822409
Jørgensen K.E., International Relations Theory: A New Introduction, London 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60447-7
Keohane R.O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton 1984.
Keohane R.O., Nye J., Power and Interdependence, Boston 2012.
Kozub-Karkut M., Theoretical Pluralism in International Relations – Implications for the Development of the Discipline, „Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations” 2019, vol. 55, nr 1, s. 25-40.
Kuhn T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago–London, 1996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001
Lapid Y., The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Relations Theory in a Post-positivist Era, „International Studies Quarterly” 1989, vol. 33, nr 3, s. 235-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457
Lapid Y., Through Dialogue to Engaged Pluralism: The Unfinished Business of the Third Debate, „International Studies Review” 2003, vol. 5, nr 1, s. 128-131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.501019_3
Laudan L., Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth, California 1977.
Levick L., Schulz C.A., Soft Balancing, Binding or Bandwagoning? Understanding Institutional Responses to Power Disparities in the Americas, „Canadian Journal of Political Science” 2020, vol. 53, nr 3, s. 521-539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423920000220
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
