Ku dialogicznemu pluralizmowi w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych – o roli, substancji i konsekwencjach podstaw metateoretycznych w praktyce badawczej
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.23.2026.101.03Keywords:
metatheory, theory, state, international relations, dialogical pluralismAbstract
TOWARDS DIALOGICAL PLURALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS – ON THE ROLE, SUBSTANCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF METATHEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS IN RESEARCH PRACTICE
The aims of the article are the following: (1) to point out the rung occupied by metatheory on the ladder of abstraction of the actual work of International Relations scholars; (2) to present a typology of possible metatheoretical approaches to the study of international reality; (3) to provide examples of classic IR works that are based on specific metatheoretical approaches; (4) to help particular scholars to identify their own metatheoretical bases using the aforementioned typology and examples; and (5) to propose an approach allowing ideas to flow between approaches based on different metatheories while maintaining the integrating role of the discipline.
References
Aron R., Pokój i wojna między narodami, [tłum. A. Mielczarek], Warszawa 1995 [1962].
Barbieri K., Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate Conflict?, „Journal of Peace Research” 1996, vol. 33, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343396033001003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343396033001003
Booth K., Security and Emancipation, „Review of International Studies” 1991, vol. 17, no. 4, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500112033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500112033
Chernoff F., Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending Accounts, New York 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230606883
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave, Cambridge 1970.
Debating the Democratic Peace, eds M. Brown, S. Lynn-Jones, S. Miller, Cambridge 1996.
Deutsch K., Political Community in the International Level: Problems of Definition and Measurement, Garden City 1954.
Deutsch K., Toward an Inventory of Basic Trends and Patterns in Comparative and International Politics, „The American Political Science Review” 1960, vol. 54, no. 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1952407
Evaluating Progress in International Relations: How do You Know, eds A. Fryberg-Inan, E. Harrison, P. James, New York 2017.
Filary M., Demystifying Deconstruction – Deconstruction as a Tool for Analysis of IR Theory, „Horyzonty Polityki” 2014, vol. 5, nr 13.
Filary-Szczepanik M., Anarchia i dyscyplina. Rzecz o realistycznych teoriach stosunków międzynarodowych Hansa Morgenthaua i Kennetha Waltza, Kraków 2019.
Filary-Szczepanik M., Discipline in the Times of Cholera, „Global Affairs” 2020, vol. 3, no. 2, https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2020.1842226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2020.1842226
Filary-Szczepanik M., Principle of Economy of Language and the Question of Anthropomorphism of State – a Case of Ockham’s Razor?, „Horyzonty Polityki” 2020, vol. 11, nr 34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35765/hp.1885
Filary-Szczepanik M., Wybrane idee regulatywne w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych, „Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations” 2019, vol. 55, nr 1.
Gałganek A., Filozofia nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Ontologia. Epistemologia. Metodologia, Kraków 2021.
Gratzke E., Li Q., Boehmer C., Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict, „International Organization” 2001, vol. 55, no. 2, dx.doi.org/10.1162/00208180151140612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/00208180151140612
Haliżak E., Obszar badawczy nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych, „Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations” 2015, vol. 51, nr 2, https://doi.org/10.7366/020909613201701.
Haliżak E., Przedmiot, teoria i metodologia nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych, „Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations” 2015, vol. 51, nr 1, https://doi.org/10.7366/020909611201501.
Hajduk Z., Geneza teorii naukowych. Uaktualniona forma kontrowersji o pluralizm metodologii, „Roczniki Filozoficzne” 2002, vol. 50, nr 3.
Herbut M., Polus A., Syntezy nie osiągniesz? Holizm konfirmacyjny wobec dyskursu teoretycznego w Stosunkach Międzynarodowych, „Politeja” 2022, vol. 19, nr 1, https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.19.2022.76.11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.19.2022.76.11
Jackson P., The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations, New York 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203843321
Jørgensen K., What is International Relations?, Bristol 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781529210965.001.0001
Kaplan M., Problems of Theory Building and Confirmation in International Relations, „World Politics” 1961, vol. 14, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.2307/2009553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2009553
Kaplan M., System and Process in International Relations, Colchester 2005 [1957].
Klahr D., Simon H., Studies of Scientific Discovery: Complementary Approaches and Convergent Findings, „Psychological Bulletin” 1999, vol. 125, nr 5, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.524
Kozub-Karkut M., Realizm neoklasyczny w perspektywie teorii stosunków międzynarodowych i polityki zagranicznej, Kraków 2020.
Kozub-Karkut M., Stosunki międzynarodowe. Między pozytywizmem a postpozytywizmem, „Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations” 2016, vol. 52, nr 2, https://doi.org/10.7366/020909612201603.
Krauz-Mozer B., Teorie polityki, Warszawa 2005.
Lakatos I., Pisma z filozofii nauk empirycznych, przeł. W. Sady, Warszawa 1995.
Mearsheimer J., Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin, „Foreign Affairs” 2014, vol. 93, no. 5.
Mearsheimer J., Walt S., Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is Bad for International Relations, „European Journal of International Relations” 2013, vol. 19, no. 3, https://doi.org/10.1177/135406611349432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494320
Morgenthau H., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York 1948. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2086875
Motycka A., Ideał racjonalności. Szkice o filozoficznych rozdrożach nauki, Wrocław 1986.
Motycka A., Główny problem epistemologiczny filozofii nauki, Wrocław 1990.
Neorealism and Its Critics, ed. R. Keohane, New York 1986.
Popper K., Logika odkrycia naukowego, przeł. U. Niklas, Warszawa 1977.
Popper K., Wiedza obiektywna. Ewolucyjna teoria epistemologiczna, przeł. i przyp. opatrzył A. Chmielewski, Warszawa 1992.
Positivism and Beyond, eds K. Booth, S. Smith, M. Zaleski, Cambridge 1996.
Progress in International Relations Theory: Apprising the Field, eds C. Elman, M. Fendius-Elman, Cambridge, MA 2002.
Pugacewicz T., Teorie polityki zagranicznej. Perspektywa amerykańskiej analizy polityki zagranicznej, Kraków 2017.
Reichenbach H., Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge, Chicago 1938.
Romine T., McCleary K., Mossburg Ch., A Stanford University Instructor Has Been Removed from the Classroom Amid Reports They Called Jewish Students Colonizers and Downplayed the Holocaust, CNN News, 13 X 2013, [online] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/us/stanford-instructor-jewish-holocaust-comments-reaj/index.html.
Sady W., Racjonalna rekonstrukcja odkryć naukowych, Lublin 1990.
Scientific Realism and International Relations, eds J. Joseph, C. Wight, Basingstoke 2010.
Searle J., The Construction of Social Reality, New York 1995.
Sill R., Katzenstein P., Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics, Basingstoke 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01359-0_1
Simons A.H., Models of Discovery: And Other Topics in the Method of Science, Dordrecht 1977.
Studia bezpieczeństwa, red. P. Williams, Kraków 2012.
Tanious M., The Impact of Economic Interdependence on the Probability of Conflict Between States: The Case of American-Chinese Relationship on Taiwan Since 1995, „Review of Economics and Political Science” 2018, vol. 4, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-10-2018-010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-10-2018-010
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta, [online] https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/scientific-discovery/.
Ungerer J., Assessing the Progress of the Democratic Peace Research Program, „International Studies Review” 2012, vol. 14, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2012.01103.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2012.01103.x
Walker T., The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper, „Perspectives on Politics” 2010, vol. 8, no. 2, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001180
Waltz K., Theory of International Politics, New York 1979.
Wendt A., Perceptions of the European Union’s Identity in International Relations, ed. A. Skolimowska, London 2018.
Wendt A., Społeczna teoria stosunków międzynarodowych, przeł. W. Derczyński, Warszawa 2008 [1999].
Wendt A., The State as Person in International Theory, „Review of International Studies” 2004, vol. 30, no. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210504006084
Widening the World of International Relations, eds E. Aydınlı, G. Biltekin, New York 2018.
Zahar E., Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Invention?, „British Journal for the Philosophy of Science” 1983, vol. 34, no. 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/34.3.243
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mateusz Filary-Szczepanik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
