Same Difference: Exploring the Divide between Critical and Conventional Constructivism
This paper explores the similarities and differences between the conventional and critical strands of constructivism within International Relation. It concludes that there is a serious cleavage between the two, even though they might appear to be similar.
The first paragraph of this paper tries to define some of the concepts used in this paper, particularly the terms ‘conventional constructivism’, ‘critical constructivism’, ‘research paradigm’ and ‘methodology’. The first part of the paragraph explains the importance of setting definitional parameters, in addition to suggesting an analogy to gain more appreciation for the cleavage, and particular the type of cleavage between critical and conventional strands that this paper will reveal. Then, using taxonomies put forward by a number of academics, the classification for both strands are given, in addition to identifying their most prominent academics. Definitions regarding methodology and research paradigm are examined through Kuhn’s interpretation of paradigms.
The second paragraph starts by giving an overview of similarities different academics have observed within the constructivist tradition. It focuses on the critique of positivism, interpretative methodology and the importance of socially constructed ideas.
The third paragraph highlights the cleavage between critical and conventional constructivism. It argues that, although the position this paper classifies critical constructivists in a certain way which is rejected by some of those scholars, it is legitimised through Kuhn’s interpretation of paradigms. Both differences in methodology and research paradigm are then exposed, and the main argument made is that critical constructivism is so radical that it not only alienates itself from other theories in IR but also conventional constructivism, using the aforementioned analogy to exemplify this.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- Definitional Parameters
- Similarities
- Differences
- Conclusion
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This paper examines the similarities and differences between conventional and critical constructivism in International Relations. It argues that a significant division exists between the two, despite their apparent similarities.
- Defining the terms 'conventional constructivism', 'critical constructivism', 'research paradigm', and 'methodology'
- Highlighting the shared critiques of positivism and emphasis on interpretative methodology among constructivists
- Analyzing the differences in methodology and research paradigms between conventional and critical constructivism
- Exploring the radical nature of critical constructivism and its potential to alienate itself from other IR theories, including conventional constructivism
- Examining the role of ideas, power relations, and the historical context in shaping understanding of the international system
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
- Introduction: This section provides an overview of the paper's objective and scope, which is to explore the similarities and differences between conventional and critical constructivism in International Relations. It also sets out to define key terms, such as 'conventional constructivism', 'critical constructivism', 'research paradigm', and 'methodology'.
- Definitional Parameters: This chapter delves deeper into the definitions of 'research paradigm' and 'methodology', using Kuhn's interpretation of paradigms. It also provides classifications for conventional and critical constructivism, highlighting the difficulty in accurately labeling these strands. An analogy of pregnancy is used to illustrate the subtle yet significant differences between the two approaches.
- Similarities: This section examines the shared theoretical foundations of conventional and critical constructivism. It highlights their common critiques of positivism and empiricism, their commitment to interpretive methodology, and their focus on the "power of ideas" in shaping international relations.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
The main keywords and focus topics of this text are: conventional constructivism, critical constructivism, research paradigm, methodology, positivism, interpretivism, power of ideas, international relations, social constructivism, and the Third Debate.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Bachelor International Relations (Hons) Ralph Myers (Autor:in), 2009, Same Difference, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/159119
