International Relations Grand Debates

International Relations Grand Debates
University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science, Fall 2003 Christer Pursiainen For downloading the Power Point presentation, go to:  teaching back home 1. What makes an article/essay/ study scientific? - A scientific debate is a social construction, that is, the scientific community or its part defines what science is all about at a given time, and what is regarded as a scientific genre and subject of study, form, style etc. in the first place. Those subjects, methods, forms, practices etc. present in scientific activity at a given time can be considered as non-science at another time. - A (social) scientific article or study, in turn, is always a part of an existing scientific debate. Even in the case it brings (as it should) something new to it, it either explicitly or implicitly refers to earlier debates. Changes in scientific beliefs, theories, methods etc. do not arise in vacuum, instead something new is created by challenging the older beliefs. - In formal arenas of science, such as scientific journals, the article should summarize or at least refer to the debate of which it is part, and should specify what previous literature it confirms or revises. 2. Is there a research problem? - What is it? Is it motivated: why should we be interested in it? Many texts fail to clear the "so what?" hurdle. Even if everything in the writing is true, one should ask whether it tells us something important. An article should frame, discuss, solve etc. at least part of an important puzzle. - "What" and "How" questions are always a part of a study, but they easily lead to mere descriptions. One should therefore also consider "Why" questions. 3. Is there an argument or a conclusion? - A research problem leads to more specific research questions, which are supposed to be answered. Therefore, one should always include a clear argument, thesis, or conclusion in the study. - The arguments and their conditions should be stated clearly, so that there is no confusion about what is and what is not argued. - Then arises the question, whether the argument/conclusion is well-founded? - Legitimate counter-arguments should be acknowledged and addressed, that is, one should discuss also the alternative views on the same research problem as well, and show why the argument or solution arrived at should be regarded better than the alternatives. - Is the argument original? It does not make much sense to present an argument that is too self-evident or does not challenge or revise the existing views or beliefs, or at least bring something new to the discussion in question. This could be a totally new theoretical innovation, or a new empirical finding leading to a new interpretation, or an application of a more general theoretical viewpoint to an empirical problem bringing about a new interpretation of the events and at the same time confirming the value of the theory in question etc. 4. Is there an explicit theory or framework? - Within contemporary philosophy of science, there is a widely accepted belief that facts are always theory-dependent. - Or as Martin Hollis and Steve Smith put it: "Observation is an intelligent activity of bringing concepts to bear." - Thomas Kuhn has pointed out the difficulties that are present without any kind of a paradigm or theory: "In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant." - Or as Paul Feyerabend puts it: "The attempt to create knowledge needs guidance, it cannot start from nothing. More specifically, it needs a theory, a point of view that allows the researcher to separate the relevant from the irrelevant, and that tells him in what areas research will be most profitable." - From the perspective of, for instance, Soviet studies, Alexander Motyl has this point even clearer: "If, then, we want to understand Soviet politics, where do we start? By carefully reading the New York City telephone directory? The Moscow directory? Of course not. Why? Because our theoretical inclinations tell us that these are nonfacts and that we should be looking for real facts in, say, Pravda or Izvestia. How do we know that a speech by Gorbachev is a fact we should consider? Because we are already working on the assumption that general secretaries are important personalities in the Soviet political process." - It must be noted that Motyl's example points out only the mechanism how we are directed by our theoretical assumptions, not what those assumptions should be. - Theories seem therefore to be inevitable already in the first stage of inquiry, where we have not even started to interpret the "facts", but are only thinking about which kind of fact-gathering is relevant, and which fact and data, or what units and levels of analysis, are worth of studying. - This seems to require an awareness of our own theoretical assumptions, as well as those of our rivals, which is best realised if theories are explicated and openly scrutinised. If you are definitive in your approach of not using any explicit theory (as historians often do), you should at least think what are the (implicit) assumptions that direct the research/fact gathering? 5. What are the criteria for theory choice and how to use theories? - Having always several alternative and rival, usually incommensurable theories, explanations and interpretations, one should also discuss one's own standards for theory choice: why should one prefer one solution over another? Alternative answers can be found in philosophy of science (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan Bhaskar etc.) - Theories and theoretical assumptions can be used in different ways in empirically oriented studies: they can work as a organizing frameworks; two or several theories can be compared in the light of the interpretations they produce, and at the same time empirical evidence can be marshalled to support one or several theories; theories can be appreciated and utililized in terms of their instrumental value, using them as tools and generators of concepts that lead one forward in the jungle of facts; theories may have a great heuristic value, that is, a theory may pour light on factors or causal links that otherwise remain unidentified etc. etc. 6. What are the sources of evidence? - Have the proper sources/literature been used? Is the study sound and reliable? One should be aware of the scientific theoretical and empirical debate one's study is supposed to be a part of. One should be able to distinguish between the rival approaches or interpretations in the previous studies in the same field. - Statements of fact should be properly documented. - Whether some piece of evidence is a first- or second-hand source depends on what you are studying. Therefore, be careful to say what you are studying. If your study is, say, about "what Zyuganov thinks", you should refer to his texts and speeches (first-hand sources) , not to someone else who has analyzed what "Zyuganov thinks" (second-hand sources). However, you can use someone else's (X) analysis to support your own arguments and conclusions, or to say that you have come to a different conclusion than X has. If you are only using the latter kind of evidence, your are not really studying "what Zyuganov thinks", rather "what X says Zyuganov thinks". If this is the case, your object of study makes X's writings as a piece of first-hand evidence. 7. Is the structure and organization of the study logical? - In case you are trying to publish your study in a refereed journal, many journals prefer that each article should begin with a summary introduction, of a few paragraphs or pages, that gives the reader an outline of the argument. This summary introduction might include the following questions: * What question or questions does the article address? * Why do these questions arise? What scholarly debate or current events set the context for the article? * What answer or answers does the article offer? * Why do these answers matter? How do they affect the debate from which they arise? * What competing arguments or explanations does this article refute? * How are the answers reached? Say a few words about methodology. * How is this article organized? A 'roadmap' paragraph should explain the structure of the sections that follow. - The article/study itself, as well as its sections, should be internally logical. - Do not include any extra information or part only because you have done the research. Every part, paragraph, or even a sentence, should be there because it is necessary to the logic of the argument. - In case your study includes a "theoretical part" and an "empirical part", sometimes it is better to rewrite the whole study as one of the last phases of research process into a form where theory and empiria are mixed. Theoretical moves in a way are then followed by empirical applications, illustrations etc. In that way you also may notice whether you have included into your study theoretical parts that have no relevance to your empirical study, or, alternatively, you may get more out of empiria if you are concretely "matching" the theoretical moves with new interpretations of your empirical material. 8. How is the style? - Think what you do regard as a good scientific style. When trying to find your own style, use your "idols" as models. - In a sense, also scientific writing should be good "story-telling". - An article/essay/study, even if "scientific", should always at least try to be an example of "hard writing, easy reading". - this does not mean that you should simplify your argumentation or theories, but you should try to look at your study from the point of view of "outsiders", who usually do not have gone through the same research process as you have: it should be easier for the reader to come to the conclusion than it was for you. - In the first versions, explain rather more than less in order to make your point clear. - However, you should not write the whole research process and call it then an article/study. The idea is that you tell only those things that are needed for the point you like to make. - Make every element to do extra work. For instance, the title should restate the central point; the same goes for the headings. Instead of having "Background" or "Conclusion", these headings could be provocative, descriptive or prescriptive. For instance, "Is Russia's Democratization a Part of the Third Wave?", "From Proletarian Internationalism to Minority Problems" or "Russia's Strategy on Chechnya Was Bound to Fail" etc.

Contents Development of the Discipline Idealism vs. Realism
Traditionalism vs. Scientism Realism vs. Liberalism vs. Marxism Neorealism vs. Institutionalism vs. Constructivism Muistiinpanoja

1. Development of the Discipline
Economics Strategy History Philosophy International Law Thucydides Aquinas 16th 17th Machiavelli Grotius 18th Smith 19th Marx Clausewitz Rousseau Kant 20th Imperialism theories History of Diplomacy Geography Geopolitics WWI The birth of the discipline s IDEALISM WWII REALISM Traditionalism First Debate 1950s Functionalism Natural sciences SCIENTISM (Behavioralism, FPA) Second Debate 1960s Peace research Realism revisited Third Debate 1970s Dependency (Marxism) NEOREALISM LIBERALISM 1980s Critical theory Rationalism INSTITUTIONALISM Humanities Feminism Fourth debate 1990s Postmodernism CONSTRUCTIVISM 2000s Postructuralism Developed Game theory Fifth Debate? Muistiinpanoja

2. Idealism vs. Realism IDEALISM: WWI  How to avoid major wars
peaceful changes instead of changes through war international law League of Nations Muistiinpanoja

2. Idealism vs. Realism REALISM:
international relations should not be studied on the basis how they should be but how they are politics is governed by objective laws the roots of those laws lie in the human nature the laws are objective because human nature does not change in the course of times Muistiinpanoja

we can distinguish between the ’economic person’, the ’religious person’, the ’moral person’, the ’political person’ etc. in order to understand politics, we must study only the ’political person’ we should study the political actions of a statesman (as a synonym of a state) Muistiinpanoja

the theory of political realism is based on the idea of a rational actor we should compare the real events to this ideal, normative picture Muistiinpanoja

the behaviour of a political person in social context is based on power maintenance of power; strengthening of power; demonstration of power Muistiinpanoja

power does not mean only physical or military power, but refers to all kind of control over the minds and actions of other individuals power is important, because whatever interests or goals we have, in order to achieve them in politics this brings the desire to control the actions of others Muistiinpanoja

3. Traditionalism vs. Scientism
Realism, historical approaches etc. understanding politics requires historically based wisdom rather than data-based models or mechanistic theories Muistiinpanoja

3. Traditionalism vs. Scientism
SCIENTISM (Behavioralism): ”Scientific Study of international relations” no a priori theories hypothesesobservable data regularities/correlations theory/model graphic or mathematic models Foreign Policy Analysis (foreign policy models) Muistiinpanoja

4. Realism vs. Liberalism vs. Marxism
REALISM slightly revisited: more ”scientific” methods, models, classifications state as an actor, less focus on ’human nature’ realism as a theory of balance of power Muistiinpanoja

”complex interdependece”: a) societies are connected not only by interstate relations but transgovernmental and transnational relations as well Muistiinpanoja

b) there is no hierarchy between issue areas, i.e., military security does not dominate other issues c) where complex interdependence prevails, military power is ineffective and irrelevant to resolve disagreements d) international organisations important in setting the agenda and inducing coalition formation Muistiinpanoja

theories of imperialism dependency theories world system theories; centre-periphery Muistiinpanoja

5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism vs. Constructivism
objective environment: anarchic structure of international system  competitive security system states behave rationally according to their national interests, since those who do not will not survive Muistiinpanoja

zero-sum  states are calculating relative gaines ’self-help’ system: cooperation difficult/superficial/temporary Muistiinpanoja

security dilemma is always present: a) the unintended decrease in the security of others when one state increases its own security Muistiinpanoja

b) the uncertainty of present or future intentions of other states c) a state feels insecure if it does not act and insecure if it does Muistiinpanoja

security dilemma is regulated by balance-of-power politics Muistiinpanoja

Subjective environment: individual security system international institutions can change states’ cost-benefit calculations institutions can help states to overcome some relative gain problems and therefore states are calculating also absolute gains Muistiinpanoja

though we may not completely remove the security dilemma, it can be mitigated by creating interdependence and common security regimes, norms and rules, creating reciprocal relations and positive expectations of each other’s behaviour Muistiinpanoja

intersubjective environment: cooperative security community possible agency and structure are interrelated: ”anarchy is what states make of it” Muistiinpanoja

the security dilemma is often regulated and sometimes mitigated but it can also be resolved through changes in identities and threat perceptions Muistiinpanoja

Self-understanding of the theories C I NR Muistiinpanoja -only most important things, like the law of gravity does not explaing the path minimalistic theory -explains of a leaf in wind explains the same as NR + more explains the same as NR + I + more

Economics Strategy History Philosophy International Law Thucydides Aquinas 16th 17th Machiavelli Grotius 18th Smith 19th Marx Clausewitz Rousseau Kant 20th Imperialism theories History of Diplomacy Geography Geopolitics WWI The birth of the discipline s IDEALISM WWII REALISM Traditionalism First Debate 1950s Functionalism Natural sciences SCIENTISM (Behavioralism, FPA) Second Debate 1960s Peace research Realism revisited Third Debate 1970s Dependency (Marxism) NEOREALISM LIBERALISM 1980s Critical theory Rationalism INSTITUTIONALISM Humanities Feminism Fourth debate 1990s Postmodernism CONSTRUCTIVISM 2000s Fifth Debate? Developed Game Theory Muistiinpanoja

Economics Strategy History Philosophy International Law Thucydides Aquinas 16th 17th Machiavelli Grotius 18th Smith 19th Marx Clausewitz Rousseau Kant 20th Imperialism theories History of Diplomacy Geography Geopolitics WWI The birth of the discipline s IDEALISM WWII REALISM Traditionalism First Debate 1950s Functionalism Natural sciences SCIENTISM (Behavioralism, FPA) Second Debate 1960s Peace research Realism revisited Third Debate 1970s Dependency (Marxism) NEOREALISM LIBERALISM 1980s Critical theory Rationalism INSTITUTIONALISM Humanities Feminism Fourth debate 1990s Postmodernism CONSTRUCTIVISM 2000s Postructuralism Developed Game theory Fifth Debate? Muistiinpanoja

International Relations Grand Debates
University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science, Fall 2003 Christer Pursiainen For downloading the Power Point presentation, go to:  teaching back home 1. What makes an article/essay/ study scientific? - A scientific debate is a social construction, that is, the scientific community or its part defines what science is all about at a given time, and what is regarded as a scientific genre and subject of study, form, style etc. in the first place. Those subjects, methods, forms, practices etc. present in scientific activity at a given time can be considered as non-science at another time. - A (social) scientific article or study, in turn, is always a part of an existing scientific debate. Even in the case it brings (as it should) something new to it, it either explicitly or implicitly refers to earlier debates. Changes in scientific beliefs, theories, methods etc. do not arise in vacuum, instead something new is created by challenging the older beliefs. - In formal arenas of science, such as scientific journals, the article should summarize or at least refer to the debate of which it is part, and should specify what previous literature it confirms or revises. 2. Is there a research problem? - What is it? Is it motivated: why should we be interested in it? Many texts fail to clear the "so what?" hurdle. Even if everything in the writing is true, one should ask whether it tells us something important. An article should frame, discuss, solve etc. at least part of an important puzzle. - "What" and "How" questions are always a part of a study, but they easily lead to mere descriptions. One should therefore also consider "Why" questions. 3. Is there an argument or a conclusion? - A research problem leads to more specific research questions, which are supposed to be answered. Therefore, one should always include a clear argument, thesis, or conclusion in the study. - The arguments and their conditions should be stated clearly, so that there is no confusion about what is and what is not argued. - Then arises the question, whether the argument/conclusion is well-founded? - Legitimate counter-arguments should be acknowledged and addressed, that is, one should discuss also the alternative views on the same research problem as well, and show why the argument or solution arrived at should be regarded better than the alternatives. - Is the argument original? It does not make much sense to present an argument that is too self-evident or does not challenge or revise the existing views or beliefs, or at least bring something new to the discussion in question. This could be a totally new theoretical innovation, or a new empirical finding leading to a new interpretation, or an application of a more general theoretical viewpoint to an empirical problem bringing about a new interpretation of the events and at the same time confirming the value of the theory in question etc. 4. Is there an explicit theory or framework? - Within contemporary philosophy of science, there is a widely accepted belief that facts are always theory-dependent. - Or as Martin Hollis and Steve Smith put it: "Observation is an intelligent activity of bringing concepts to bear." - Thomas Kuhn has pointed out the difficulties that are present without any kind of a paradigm or theory: "In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant." - Or as Paul Feyerabend puts it: "The attempt to create knowledge needs guidance, it cannot start from nothing. More specifically, it needs a theory, a point of view that allows the researcher to separate the relevant from the irrelevant, and that tells him in what areas research will be most profitable." - From the perspective of, for instance, Soviet studies, Alexander Motyl has this point even clearer: "If, then, we want to understand Soviet politics, where do we start? By carefully reading the New York City telephone directory? The Moscow directory? Of course not. Why? Because our theoretical inclinations tell us that these are nonfacts and that we should be looking for real facts in, say, Pravda or Izvestia. How do we know that a speech by Gorbachev is a fact we should consider? Because we are already working on the assumption that general secretaries are important personalities in the Soviet political process." - It must be noted that Motyl's example points out only the mechanism how we are directed by our theoretical assumptions, not what those assumptions should be. - Theories seem therefore to be inevitable already in the first stage of inquiry, where we have not even started to interpret the "facts", but are only thinking about which kind of fact-gathering is relevant, and which fact and data, or what units and levels of analysis, are worth of studying. - This seems to require an awareness of our own theoretical assumptions, as well as those of our rivals, which is best realised if theories are explicated and openly scrutinised. If you are definitive in your approach of not using any explicit theory (as historians often do), you should at least think what are the (implicit) assumptions that direct the research/fact gathering? 5. What are the criteria for theory choice and how to use theories? - Having always several alternative and rival, usually incommensurable theories, explanations and interpretations, one should also discuss one's own standards for theory choice: why should one prefer one solution over another? Alternative answers can be found in philosophy of science (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan Bhaskar etc.) - Theories and theoretical assumptions can be used in different ways in empirically oriented studies: they can work as a organizing frameworks; two or several theories can be compared in the light of the interpretations they produce, and at the same time empirical evidence can be marshalled to support one or several theories; theories can be appreciated and utililized in terms of their instrumental value, using them as tools and generators of concepts that lead one forward in the jungle of facts; theories may have a great heuristic value, that is, a theory may pour light on factors or causal links that otherwise remain unidentified etc. etc. 6. What are the sources of evidence? - Have the proper sources/literature been used? Is the study sound and reliable? One should be aware of the scientific theoretical and empirical debate one's study is supposed to be a part of. One should be able to distinguish between the rival approaches or interpretations in the previous studies in the same field. - Statements of fact should be properly documented. - Whether some piece of evidence is a first- or second-hand source depends on what you are studying. Therefore, be careful to say what you are studying. If your study is, say, about "what Zyuganov thinks", you should refer to his texts and speeches (first-hand sources) , not to someone else who has analyzed what "Zyuganov thinks" (second-hand sources). However, you can use someone else's (X) analysis to support your own arguments and conclusions, or to say that you have come to a different conclusion than X has. If you are only using the latter kind of evidence, your are not really studying "what Zyuganov thinks", rather "what X says Zyuganov thinks". If this is the case, your object of study makes X's writings as a piece of first-hand evidence. 7. Is the structure and organization of the study logical? - In case you are trying to publish your study in a refereed journal, many journals prefer that each article should begin with a summary introduction, of a few paragraphs or pages, that gives the reader an outline of the argument. This summary introduction might include the following questions: * What question or questions does the article address? * Why do these questions arise? What scholarly debate or current events set the context for the article? * What answer or answers does the article offer? * Why do these answers matter? How do they affect the debate from which they arise? * What competing arguments or explanations does this article refute? * How are the answers reached? Say a few words about methodology. * How is this article organized? A 'roadmap' paragraph should explain the structure of the sections that follow. - The article/study itself, as well as its sections, should be internally logical. - Do not include any extra information or part only because you have done the research. Every part, paragraph, or even a sentence, should be there because it is necessary to the logic of the argument. - In case your study includes a "theoretical part" and an "empirical part", sometimes it is better to rewrite the whole study as one of the last phases of research process into a form where theory and empiria are mixed. Theoretical moves in a way are then followed by empirical applications, illustrations etc. In that way you also may notice whether you have included into your study theoretical parts that have no relevance to your empirical study, or, alternatively, you may get more out of empiria if you are concretely "matching" the theoretical moves with new interpretations of your empirical material. 8. How is the style? - Think what you do regard as a good scientific style. When trying to find your own style, use your "idols" as models. - In a sense, also scientific writing should be good "story-telling". - An article/essay/study, even if "scientific", should always at least try to be an example of "hard writing, easy reading". - this does not mean that you should simplify your argumentation or theories, but you should try to look at your study from the point of view of "outsiders", who usually do not have gone through the same research process as you have: it should be easier for the reader to come to the conclusion than it was for you. - In the first versions, explain rather more than less in order to make your point clear. - However, you should not write the whole research process and call it then an article/study. The idea is that you tell only those things that are needed for the point you like to make. - Make every element to do extra work. For instance, the title should restate the central point; the same goes for the headings. Instead of having "Background" or "Conclusion", these headings could be provocative, descriptive or prescriptive. For instance, "Is Russia's Democratization a Part of the Third Wave?", "From Proletarian Internationalism to Minority Problems" or "Russia's Strategy on Chechnya Was Bound to Fail" etc.

International Relations Grand Debates

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "International Relations Grand Debates"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

International Relations Grand Debates

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "International Relations Grand Debates"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback