PL EN


2013 | 20 | 2 | 7-27
Article title

Pragmatics and eclecticism in international relations

Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
This article provides an overview of analytic eclecticism as an alternative method in comparative studies and international relations. It presents methodological aspects of analytic eclecticism and goes on to answer two questions: what is an added value of analytic eclecticism, and what kind of possible pitfalls and problems could occur. This article proceeds in the following manner. First, it briefly reviews the literature regarding pragmatism, methodological pluralism, and analytic eclecticism. Part two discusses theoretical framework of this method, regarding formulated problems (wider in scope) and proposed research strategy adopted in this method. In part three I argue that, despite seemingly easiness to bound all paradigms and approaches, analytic eclecticism requires more than methodological pluralism, and alternative understanding of research. Moreover, this method cannot be adopted by the unskilled scholar, and must be carefully used, to avoid oversights and misleading simplifications.
PL
W artykule przeprowadzono analizę nowego podejścia metodologicznego w badaniu stosunków międzynarodowych, jakim jest eklektyzm analityczny. Omawiana metoda stanowi próbę wyjścia z impasu w badaniach rzeczywistości międzynarodowej, jaki zaistniał w wyniku sporu toczonego przez zwolenników najważniejszych paradygmatów. U jej podstaw leży odrzucenie, traktowanego jako z zasady błędnego, założenia o możliwości uzyskania pełnej i weryfikowalnej wiedzy o badanym zjawisku, jeśli prowadzi się badania, odwołując się tylko do jednego paradygmatu. Drugi postulat eklektyzmu analitycznego dotyczy sposobu generowania i gromadzenia użytecznej wiedzy, służącej do rozwiązywania rzeczywistych problemów. W artykule dokonano krytycznej oceny założeń eklektyzmu analitycznego, wskazano na możliwe pułapki i zagrożenia wynikające z nierozważnego stosowania postulatów tego podejścia metodologicznego.
Publisher
Year
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
7-27
Physical description
Dates
published
2013-12-01
online
2014-05-17
Contributors
References
  • Bauer, H., Brighi, E. 2009. Introducing Pragmatism to International Relations [w:] Pragmatism in International Relations, H. Bauer, E. Brighi (red.), Routledge, London-New York, s. 1-8.
  • Bernstein, R.J. 1992. The New Constellation: The Ethical-political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity, MIT Press, Cambridge.
  • Checkel, J.T., 2013. Theoretical Pluralism in IR: Possibilities and Limits [w:] Handbook of International Relations, W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, B.A. Simmons, Sage Publications Ltd., London s. 22-241.
  • Controversies in International Theory. Realism and Neoliberal Challenge. 1995. Ch.J. Kegley Jr. (red.), Wadsworth Publishing, New York.
  • Cox, R.W. 1981. Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory, „Millennium - Journal of International Studies”, vol. 10, no. 2, s. 126-155.
  • Cox, R.W. 1992. Towards a post-hegemonic conteptualization of world order: reflections on relevance of Ibn Khaldun [w:] Governance without government: order and change in world politics, J.N. R osenau, E.O. Czempiel (red.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, s. 132-159
  • Feyerabend, P.K. 1975. Against Method, Verso, London-New York.
  • Frankowski, P. 2010. One World and Many Orders? [w:] Order and Disorder in the International System, S.F.Krishna-Hensel (red.), Ashgate, Aldershot, s. 97-115.
  • Hermann, M.C. 1998. One Field, Many Perspectives: Building the Foundation for Dialogue, „International Studies Quarterly”, vol. 42, no. 4, s. 605-624.[Crossref]
  • Holsti, K.J. 1989. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Which Are the Fairest Theories of All, „International Studies Quarterly”, vol. 33, no. 3, s. 255-261. [Crossref]
  • Jackson, P.T. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations, Routledge, London-New York.
  • Kratochwil, F. 2003. The Monologue of “Science”, „International Studies Review”, vol. 5, no. 1, s. 123-153
  • Kratochwil, F. 2011. The Puzzles of Politics, Routledge, London-New York.
  • Lake, D.A. 2011. Why “isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress, „International Studies Quarterly”, vol. 55, no. 2, s. 465-480.[WoS][Crossref]
  • Lapid, Y. 2002. Sculpting the Academic Identity [w:] D. Puchala, Visions of International Relations: Assessing an Academic Field, D. Puchala (red.), University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, s. 1-15.
  • Lapid, Y. 2003. Through Dialogue to Engaged Pluralism: The Unfinished Business of the Third Debate, „International Studies Review”, vol. 5, no. 1, s. 128-131.
  • Laudan, L. 1996. Beyond Positivism and Relativism. Theory, Method, and Evidence, Westview Press, Boulder Co.
  • Little, R., Buzan, B. 2001. Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do About It, „Millennium”, vol. 30, no. 1, s. 19-39.
  • Łoś-Nowak, T. 2009. Wyjaśniać czy interpretować: Dylematy i wyzwania czwartej debaty interparadygmatycznej, „Stosunki Międzynarodowe - International Relations”, vol. 39, no. 1-2, s. 29-47.
  • Monteiro, N.P., Ruby, K.G. 2009a. IR and the false promise of philosophical foundations, „International Theory”, vol. 1, no. 1, s. 15-48.
  • Monteiro, N.P., Ruby, K.G. 2009b. The promise of foundational prudence: a response to our critics, „International Theory”, vol. 1, no. 3, s. 499-512.[WoS]
  • Moravscik, A. 2003. Theory Synthesis in International Relations: Real Not Metaphysical, „International Studies Review”, vol. 5, no. 1, s. 123-153.
  • Moravcsik, A. 2010. Active Citation: A Precondition for Replicable Qualitative Research, „PS: Political Science and Politics”, vol. 43, no. 1, s. 29-35.[WoS]
  • Nau, H. 2011. No Alternative to “isms”, „International Studies Quarterly”, no. 55, no. 2, s. 487-491.[WoS][Crossref]
  • Paul, D.E. 1999. Sovereignty, Survival and the Westphalian Blind Alley in International Relations, „Review of International Studies”, vol. 25, no. 2, s. 217-231.[Crossref]
  • Shapiro, I. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Sil, R., Katzenstein, P.J. 2010a. Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions, „Perspectives on Politics”, vol. 8, no. 2, s. 411-431.[WoS]
  • Sil, R., Katzenstein, P.J. 2010b. Beyond Paradigms. Analytic Eclectism in the Study of World Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
  • Vazquez, J.A. 1997. The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition, „American Political Science Review”, vol. 91, no. 4, s. 899-912.[Crossref]
  • Wendt, A. 2010. Flatland: Quantum Mind and the International Hologram [w:] New Systems Theories of World Politics, M. Albert, L.-E. Cederman, A. Wendt (red.), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, s. 279-311.
  • Wendt, A., Duvall, R. 2008. Sovereignty and the UFO, „Political Theory”, vol. 36, no. 4, s. 607-633.[Crossref]
  • Wight, M. 1960. Why is there no international theory, „International Relations”, vol. 2, no. 1, s. 35-48.
  • Wight, M. 1966. Western Values in International Relations [w:] Diplomatic Investigations, Essays in the Theory of International Relations, H. Butterfield, M. Wight (red.), George Allen and Unwin, London, s. 89-131.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.doi-10_2478_v10226-012-0037-3
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.