Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings...
-
Upload
scott-horton -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings...
![Page 1: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Great Debates in IR theory
• 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists-
basic assumptions, nature of human beings
• 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists-
methodology
![Page 2: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Laws
• Patterns
• Regulatiries of IR or other physical phenomena
• How to explain laws?
![Page 3: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Theory building
• Hypothesis generation
• If X then Y
• Independent –dependent variable
• Causal relationship
• Correlations
• Spurious relationship
![Page 4: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Science as method
• Explain
• Predict
• Induction vs deduction
• Inductive fallacy
![Page 5: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Theory
• Select facts/interpret facts
• To facilitate explanation
• Prediction
• Intellectual construct
• Composed of several sets of interrelated propositions to interpret and explain facts
![Page 6: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Scientific approach
• What is scientific?
• accumulation of knowledge
• Systematic strategy-essential
• Aim is to control unsupported speculation
• Science is a matter of methods
![Page 7: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Popperism-Karl Popper
• Testability
• Falsification
• Tentativeness
• Importance of methods over results
![Page 8: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Popper
• Believe there is not such thing as absolute certainty
• But we can still falsify wrong conjectures
• Theoretical and methodological diversity
• Key strengths in social sciences
![Page 9: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Traditional approach
• Participant observation
• Diplomatic history
• International law/treaties
• Memoirs
• Case studies
![Page 10: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Behavioral/positivist approach
• Aggregate data
• Quantitative analysis
• Application of natural science methods to social sciences
• Mathematical modeling
• Simulation
![Page 11: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Paradigms
• Sets of dominant theories at given periods
• Paradigmatic change- when a shift in dominant paradigm occurs, there is a scientific revolution (Kuhn)
• Newtonian physics vs Quantum physics
• Multiple Paradigms possible to explain same phenomena?
![Page 12: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
IR propositions
• When there is a balance of power, the likelihood of war increases
• When there is a preponderance of power, the likelihood of war increases
• The stronger a state’s military capabilities, the less the likelihood of an attack against that state
• Democracies are less likely to fight with each other
![Page 13: Great Debates in IR theory 1920s-Realists vs. Idealists- basic assumptions, nature of human beings 1950s-Traditionalists vs. behavioralists- methodology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022072015/56649ed45503460f94be5391/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Rosenau-Thinking Theory thoroughly
• Avoid treating the task of formulating an appropriate definition of theory
• Empirical vs normative theory• Assume underlying order for all human behaviour• Sacrifice detailed description for general patterns• Accept ambiguity• Be ready to be proven wrong