Since the behaviourist turn of the 1960s, questions concerning the appropriateness and desirability of a positivist research agenda have been at the forefront of meta-methodological debate within the social sciences. The evolving 'science wars' between positivists and normativists have also presented enormous challenges to the epistemological identities and professional self-images of scholars working in the academic field of International Relations (IR).
Whereas positivists maintain that the overarching aim of science is the experimentally guided explanation of empirical phenomena under 'covering laws', normativists and traditionalists hold that social scientists cannot — and, in fact, should not — emulate the causal models of the natural sciences. According to this view, it is virtually impossible to study the influences of distinct variables in complex social interactions, and statistical aggregation merely obscures the fact that the true 'causes' of events are rarely obvious in the social world.
Hence, the purpose of political and social research ought to be a desire to understand processes 'from within' rather than to explain them 'from outside'. Yet the traditionalist critique of social scientific positivism did not imply that positivists would be entirely oblivious to the importance of norms in international life.
IR does not only deal with descriptive, but with political (and, ultimately, prescriptive) aspects of the social world. Thus, it might appear worthwhile to ask: how scientific are so-called 'scientific' (positivist) approaches to the study of IR — if their theoretical premises and empirical achievements are taken at face value and judged by their own standards of 'scientific' neutrality and precision?
To answer this question, I will first describe the spread of positivist thought in IR. Secondly, I will outline in how far two research programmes which have been heavily influenced by positivist method — game theory and the democratic peace thesis — have challenged traditionalist approaches, and whether they can be regarded as 'truly scientific'. Drawing on these insights, I will conclude that, on closer inspection, positivist research methods in IR do lack a perfectly 'scientific' status, although they have made important contributions to the academic field.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: Some Basic Concepts in the Philosophy of Science, and What it Means to Be ‘Scientific’ in the Academic Study of International Relations
2. From Traditionalism to Behaviouralism: the ‘Second Great Debate’ of the 1960s and its Impact on the Contested Epistemology of IR
2.1 The Success of Positivist Methodology in the Natural Sciences
2.2 Traditional Approaches to the Study of IR and the Positivist Challenge
2.3 Positivism and its Shortcomings: Why ‘Scientific Realism’ Faces Significant Limits in the Social Realm
3. Assessing the Conceptual Adequacy and Empirical Potential of a Synthetic Perspective on IR Research Methodology: Two Illustrations, One Suggestion
3.1 Game Theory and its IR Applications: Reasons for and Against a New Orthodoxy of Rationalist Social Analysis
3.2 The Democratic Peace Thesis as an Example of Combined Positivist and Normativist Thought in IR
3.3 Bridging the Gap between ‘Hard Core’ Positivism and ‘Radical’ Interpretivism: the Study of World Politics and the Differing Foci of Causal and Constitutive Theories
4. Conclusion: Is Positivism (Still) an Appropriate Toolkit for Systematic Inquiry in the Social Sciences?
Objectives & Core Themes
This paper examines the validity and limitations of applying positivist research methodologies to the academic discipline of International Relations, aiming to determine whether such "scientific" approaches hold up when evaluated against their own standards of neutrality and precision.
- The epistemological conflict between positivist and normativist research agendas.
- Critique of positivist methodology and its application to social and political phenomena.
- Analysis of game-theoretic frameworks and rationalist social analysis.
- Evaluation of the "Democratic Peace Thesis" as a synthesis of positivist and normative thought.
- The potential for integrating causal and constitutive theories in IR.
Excerpt from the Book
2.3 Positivism and its Shortcomings: Why ‘Scientific Realism’ Faces Significant Limits in the Social Realm
Some proponents of constructivism argue that a rationalist research programme can be justified by the concept of ‘scientific realism’—i.e., the assumption that an external reality exists, yet independently of the cognitive experience of human observers (Wendt, 1999). Though this relaxed form of positivism marked a notable departure from strict empiricism, it left major objections to its applicability to IR largely unaddressed.
First, in most game-theoretic frameworks, actors’ preferences are seen as exogenous and defined a priori/ex ante, but such postulations regularly turn out to be quite arbitrary—an internal contradiction that might be at odds with self-proclaimed standards of ‘neutrality’ (Wendt, 1998: 106). For instance, the assumption of bilateral diplomacy as a pre-existing norm in analyses of inter-state bargaining ignores the fact that the empirical centrality of this norm has only been made possible by a number of social practices (Keohane, 1988: 385). History therefore not only matters; it conditions the formation and availability of largely unquestioned preferences in the first place.
Second, the mechanistic notion ‘that the social world can be understood by the same method that we used to understand a machine’ (Rosenberg, 1994: 97) is still to be found in many moderately positivist frameworks, resulting in the formulation of oversimplified stimulus-response models at the expense of ‘creative and emergent properties’ (Almond/Genco, 1977: 492). But, as argued above, the possibility of exact predictions may be questioned in many social and even natural scientific contexts.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Some Basic Concepts in the Philosophy of Science, and What it Means to Be ‘Scientific’ in the Academic Study of International Relations: This chapter introduces the "science wars" in IR, contrasting the positivist aim of seeking covering laws with the normativist desire to understand social processes from within.
2. From Traditionalism to Behaviouralism: the ‘Second Great Debate’ of the 1960s and its Impact on the Contested Epistemology of IR: This section details the historical shift toward positivism, exploring its roots in natural sciences and its inherent difficulties when applied to social realities.
3. Assessing the Conceptual Adequacy and Empirical Potential of a Synthetic Perspective on IR Research Methodology: Two Illustrations, One Suggestion: This chapter evaluates game theory and the democratic peace thesis as case studies to test the effectiveness of combining rationalist and normative research models.
4. Conclusion: Is Positivism (Still) an Appropriate Toolkit for Systematic Inquiry in the Social Sciences?: The final chapter concludes that while positivism has contributed significantly to IR, it must be combined with interpretive approaches to maintain analytical depth and validity.
Keywords
Positivism, International Relations, Normativism, Behaviouralism, Scientific Realism, Epistemology, Game Theory, Democratic Peace Thesis, Rational Choice, Causality, Constitutive Theories, Social Science, Methodology, Research Paradigm, Interpretivism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper critically examines the application of positivist, "scientific" methodologies within the field of International Relations, assessing their effectiveness and theoretical limitations.
Which schools of thought are contrasted?
The study contrasts positivists, who seek empirical explanation through covering laws, with normativists and traditionalists, who argue for the necessity of understanding social meaning.
What is the central research question?
The author asks how scientific positivist approaches in IR truly are when judged by their own standards of neutrality, precision, and empirical performance.
What methodological approach does the author take?
The author conducts a meta-methodological analysis, drawing on existing scholarly debates and specific research programs like game theory to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of positivism.
What does the main body discuss?
It covers the historical transition to behaviouralism, the shortcomings of strict empiricism in the social realm, and the potential for a synthetic approach that bridges causal and constitutive theorising.
Which keywords best describe this work?
Key terms include Positivism, International Relations, Epistemology, Game Theory, Rational Choice, and Methodology.
How does the paper evaluate game theory?
The paper acknowledges game theory’s utility in reducing uncertainty and modeling institutions but critiques it for treating actor preferences as arbitrary and for ignoring the role of history and social norms.
What is the author's stance on the Democratic Peace Thesis?
The author views it as a robust example of combined positivist and normative thought, noting that while it has empirical salience, it must account for the historical development of democratic norms to remain accurate.
What is the "ceteris paribus" rule, and why is it problematic in IR?
The rule assumes all other factors remain constant, which the author argues is nearly impossible to achieve in complex, real-world social interactions, unlike in a controlled laboratory setting.
What is the final conclusion regarding positivism?
The author concludes that positivism should not be discarded, but that it must be complemented by interpretative and normative perspectives to avoid oversimplification and ensure comprehensive inquiry.
- Citar trabajo
- Dipl.-Pol., MSc (IR) Jan-Henrik Petermann (Autor), 2006, Scientific Approaches to the Study of International Relations, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/182615
