THE KUHNIAN NOTION OF PARADIGM IN THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEBATE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53477/2668-2001-21-01Keywords:
Kuhn; paradigm; debates in International RelationsAbstract
The paper reviews some of the major IR scholars and how they view the applicability of Kuhn’s notion of paradigm in the case of the third IR debate. The starting point is Laipd’s idea of positivism versus post-positivism. I argue that pessimism and optimism are interrelated in the debate. Also, for the future, if the IR scientific community wants to contribute to real problem solution, it should not restrict to the narrow notion of Kuhn’s paradigm. However, there should be some loose sense of a paradigm as a cumulation of lessons learned. The grand theorizing or bridge-building should be replaced by the idea of lots of “doors” or many mediators linking only certain issues in different approaches. If there is only one bridge, this will not adequately reflect the emerging stage of proliferation of pluralism in the field. The pragmatic tendency is towards eclecticism of the approaches. Elements are interrelated and the border between positivism and relativism is moving.
References
Alker, Hayward. Thomas Biersteker. 1984. “The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire“, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 28, No 2, 121-142.
Ball, Terence. 1976. “From Paradigms to Research Programs: Toward a Post-Kuhnian Political Science“, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.20, 151-177.
Booth, Ken and Steve Smith, ed. 1995. International Relations Theory Today, Polity Press.
Chalmers, A. F. 1999. What is This Thing Called Science?, Open Univ. Press, UK, ch.8-p.104-129
Crane, Diana. 1972. Invisible Colleges, Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, University of Chicago.
Dogan, Mattei. 1998. “Political Science and the Other Social Sciences“ in Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, eds. A New Handbook of Political Science, ch.3.
Ferguson, Yale and Richard Little. 2004. “From International Politics to Global politics: An Evolving Field“, Standing Group on International Relations, prepared for presentation at the fifth Pan European International Relations Conference, Netherlands, The Hague, www.sgir.org
Geller, Daniel and John Vasquez. 2004. “The Construction and Cumulation of Knowledge in International Relations: Introduction“, International Studies Review, 6, 1-6.
Halliday, Fred and Justin Rosenberg. 1998. Interview with Ken Waltz, Review of International Studies, 24, 371-386.
Hellman, Gunter. 2003. ed. “The Forum: Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations?,“International Studies Review, 123-153.
Holsti. K. 1989. “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Which Are the Fairest Theories of All?,“ International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, 255-261.
Holsti, K. 1985. The Dividing Discipline, Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, “Allen and Unwin“ Inc.
Katzenstein, Peter, Robert Keohane, and Stephen Krasner, ed. 1999. Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics, The MIT Press, ch.1.
Krasner. Stephen. 1985. “Toward Understanding in International Relations,“ International Studies Quarterly, Vol .29, No. 2, 137- 144.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., Univ. of Chicago.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. “Reflections on My Critics“, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, Cambridge Univ. Press, 231-277.
Lapid. Yosef. 1989. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era,“International Studies Quarterly, Vol.33, No3, 235-254.
Lickbach, Mark. 2003. Is Rational Choice All of Social Science?, Part IV, ch.7, The University of Michigan Press, USA.
Nickles, Thomas. 2003. “Normal Science: From Logic to Case – Based and Model - Based Reasoning“, 142-177, in Thomas Kuhn, ed. by Thomas Nickles, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Rosenau, James. 1986. “Before Cooperation: Hegemons, Regimes, and Habit-driven Actors in World Politics, “International Organization 40”, 4, 849-894.
Skocpol, Theda. 1987. “The Dead End of Metatheory“, Contemporary Sociology, Vol .16, No. 1, 1-6.
Vasquez, John. 1997. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, No. 4, 899- 912.
Von Dietze, Erich. 2001. Paradigms Explained, Rethinking Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science, Prager Publisher.
Waltz. K. 1990. “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory“, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 44.
Wendt, Alexander. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory“, International Organization, Vol. 41, No.3, 335-370.
