SMITH, Steve. The discipline of international relations - still an American social science (original) (raw)
Related papers
A 'New'International Relations: More Social than Science
globalpolitics.de
The question concerning the social scientific identity of International Relations has been vigorously discussed. Yet, despite reasonable and compelling arguments lamenting the stranglehold of positivism with regard to ontology, epistemology and methodology of International Relations as an academic practice, not much has changed. New labels such as 'constructivsim' have been employed to signal a fundamental change in direction. Nevertheless, the overall tendency among main stream internationalists is to continue their business as usual. Alerted by this problem and the intellectual defects associated with it, this paper calls for a 'new' science of International Relations. Problematizing fundamental flaws of International Relations as a social science, it does not rest content with assertion but tries to remedy and pave the way for a 'science' that is less formalistic and more responsible and sophisticated.
Politikon: IAPSS Journal of Political Science, 2016
In the late 1980s, Robert Keohane argued that "the greatest weakness of the reflective school of international relations lies not in deficiencies in their critical arguments but in the lack of a clear reflective program that could be employed by students of world politics." This argument has been one of the initiators of the debate between rationalism and reflectivism in International Relations (IR) theory. This paper aims to question the relevancy of such argument for the reflectivist scholarship. To this aim, it first provides an overview on the major focal points of the so-called rationalismreflectivism debate. Second, it focuses on Keohane's argument to understand his accounts on what counts as a 'research program' and what he means by 'reflective scholarship.' Third, the study revisits the foundational claims, as well as promises of reflective scholarship. Accordingly, the paper concludes that the call for a 'clear research program' contradicts with the very foundational claims of reflective scholarship, which has its roots in the criticism of positivist understanding of social science.
In the late 1980s, Robert Keohane argued that " the greatest weakness of the reflective school of international relations lies not in deficiencies in their critical arguments but in the lack of a clear reflective program that could be employed by students of world politics. " This argument has been one of the initiators of the debate between rationalism and reflectivism in International Relations (IR) theory. This paper aims to question the relevancy of such argument for the reflectivist scholarship. To this aim, it first provides an overview on the major focal points of the so-called rationalism-reflectivism debate. Second, it focuses on Keohane's argument to understand his accounts on what counts as a 'research program' and what he means by 'reflective scholarship.' Third, the study revisits the foundational claims, as well as promises of reflective scholarship. Accordingly, the paper concludes that the call for a 'clear research program' contradicts with the very foundational claims of reflective scholarship, which has its roots in the criticism of positivist understanding of social science.
Theories of International Relations: from an American Science Towards a Pluralism of Thought
Transition Studies Review, 2010
The change was not only promised during Obama’s electoral campaign but urgently invoked by all the major international actors in view of the financial and economic crises: the world foreign policy has suddenly entered a new age not being yet prepared to govern globalization and its wide interdependence conditionality. Even Russia has changed tune now and President Medvedev announced vigorously a new strategy, a new policy, and a new drive for Russia. Until a few years ago, the theories of International Relations were simply an American intellectual and governance exit of the growing role of the US in the world, a kind of field of competence for the greatest power in the global economic, political, strategic and innovative sectors. The British School was an island of the core American thinking and the rest of the world mostly absent. FSU has not expressed a relevant contribution to the various schools of thinking related to the IR theories and even the Marxist political scientists did not dedicate specifically to this main research area because convinced that first it was not a real “science” but a derivative outcome from Philosophy or Political Science; secondly, for the reason of the monopoly of the power in the hands of an autocratic regime where these issues were not left to the researchers and experts but only to the institutional and military leadership. Today Russia—after having caressed and found opportunistically convenient to resume the realism doctrines of the past US almost decennial Presidency, with modest attempts to assume the great changes in international affairs intervened— has the chance to take the last train for a competitive power role, “de facto” under the unavoidable strict rules of engagement of the global governance. In the 2020–2030 the world would be completely reshape by the present metamorphosis.
The aim of this paper would be to argue that the success of social constructivism in establishing the idea that the international realm is about "ideas all the way down" has been at best partial. And this is due not to the invalidation of constructivism's premise that agents and systems are constrained by social normative structures, but to the missed opportunity to deliver two of its main promises: creating a via media between paradigms and inevitably a common view for the understanding of the international realm, and restoring the focus on process and practice in international politics.
Constructivist Approaches in International Relations Theory: Puzzles and Promises
ConWEP No. 5/2006 , 2006
By raising the question of what made constructivism possible the paper discusses the puzzle and promises of constructivist scholarschip in IR. It is argued that the communicative style which coined constructivism as a movement provides the key. Two puzzles are the focus, first, a lack of epistemological overlap, secondly, a disciplinary culture of consecutive debates which reached their high point of non-communication with the so-called Third Debate. However, while the constructivist movement gathered influence as a reference frame in the late 1990s, it is neither genuine to international relations theory nor does it originate in the 1990s. Why and how did constructivism manage to bring such a diverse group of scholars to one table? Section 2 of the paper develops the argument and introduces the concept of framing to understand the puzzle of conversation in IR. Section 3 recalls the emergence of constructivism, identifies the theoretical discussions and the significant conceptual moves. Section 4 summarizes the value- added and flags ‘norms’ research as the core of constructivist political science.