Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:43:29.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Relations: The Disputed Search for Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Richard B. Finnegan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of international relations has passed through a series of intellectual controversies. These have included the debate between political realism and political idealism and the debate as to whether international relations is a distinct discipline or the subject matter of several other disciplines. Now the discipline is debating appropriate methodology. Proponents of a traditional approach and proponents of a scientific approach both contend for their particular methodology.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 40 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* I am indebted to Richard B. Gray of Florida State University for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

1 See Morgenthau, Hans J., In Defense of the National Interest (New York, 1951)Google Scholar and Moos, Malcolm and Cook, Thomas, Power Through Purpose (Baltimore, 1954)Google Scholar for a sampling of the immense amount of literature on the realist-idealist debate. See Is International Relations a Discipline? (Eugene, 1960)Google Scholar and Kaplan, Morton A., “Is International Relations a Discipline?” Journal of Politics, XXIII, 3 (1961), 462–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a sampling of the literature on the disciplinary debate.

2 Wright, Quincy, A Study of War (Chicago, 1942)Google Scholar.

3 Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years Crisis (New York, 1964)Google Scholar and Morgenthau, Hans J., Scientific Man Versus Power Politics (Chicago, 1946)Google Scholar.

4 Hatig, E. Raymond, International Relations Research (Santa Barbara, 1966), p. 13Google Scholar.

5 Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James N., “Tradition and Science in the Study of International Politics,” in Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James N., eds., Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton, 1969), p. 13Google Scholar.

6 Bull, Hedley, “International Relations Theory: The Case for the Classical Approach,” World Politics, XVIII (04, 1966), 361–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Rosenau, James N., “Games International Relations Scholars Play,” Journal cf International Affairs, XXI (1967), 298Google Scholar.

8 Bull, , “Classical Approach,” p. 20Google Scholar. References are to the above-mentioned Knorr and Rosenau collection.

9 Hoffmann, Stanley H., “International Relations: the Long Road to Theory,” in Rosenau, James N. (ed.) International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York, 1961), p. 427Google Scholar.

10 Jervis, Robert, “The Cost of a Quantitative Study of International Relations,” in Knorr, and Rosenau, , Contending Approaches, p. 205Google Scholar.

11 Bull, , “Classical Approach,” pp. 33–4Google Scholar.

12 Ibid., p. 35.

13 Hoffmann, , “Long Road,” p. 427Google Scholar.

14 Jervis, , “Costs,” p. 206Google Scholar.

15 Hoffmann, , “Long Road,” p. 426Google Scholar.

16 Jervis, , “Costs,” p. 209Google Scholar.

17 Ibid., p. 212.

18 Said, Abdul A., “Recent Theories of International Relations: an Overview,” in Said, Abdul A., ed., Theory of International Relations (Englewood Cliffs; Prentice-Hall, 1968), p. 24Google Scholar.

19 Bull, , “Classical Approach,” p. 35Google Scholar.

20 Ibid., p. 26.

21 Ibid., pp. 26–7.

22 Strausz-Hupé, Robert, “Social Values and Politics: the Uninvited Guest,” Review of Politics, XXX (01, 1968), 71Google Scholar.

23 Haas, Michael, “A Plea for Bridge Building in International Relations,” in Knorr, and Rosenau, , Contending Approaches, p. 166Google Scholar.

24 Bull, , “Classical Approach,” p. 29Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., p. 27.

26 Hoffmann, , “Long Road,” p. 426Google Scholar.

27 Bull, , “Classical Approach,” p. 31Google Scholar.

28 Hoffmann, , “Long Road,” p. 425Google Scholar.

29 Ibid., p. 427.

30 Bull, , “Classical Approach,” p. 30Google Scholar.

31 Ibid.,

32 Ibid.

33 Hoffmann, , “Long Road,” p. 430Google Scholar.

34 Said, , “Recent Theories,” p. 22Google Scholar.

35 Ibid., p. 23.

36 Dahl, Robert A., Modern Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, 1963), pp. 107–10Google Scholar.

37 Hoffmann, , “Long Road,” p. 429Google Scholar.

38 Morgenthau, Hans J., “Common Sense and Theories of International Relations,” Journal of International Affairs, XXI (1967), 208Google Scholar.

39 Hoffmann, , “Long Road,” p. 427Google Scholar.

40 Thompson, Kenneth, Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics (Princeton, 1960), pp. 4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Haas, , “Bridge Building,” p. 164Google Scholar.

42 Ibid., p. 167.

43 Vital, David, “On Approaches to the Study of International Relations or Back to Machiavelli,” in Knorr, and Rosenau, , Contending Approaches, p. 148Google Scholar. This article originally appeared in World Politics.

44 Bull, , “Classical Approach,” p. 37Google Scholar.

45 Ibid., p. 36.

46 Singer, J. David, “Introduction,” in Singer, J. David, ed., Human Behavior and International Politics (Chicago, 1965), p. 7Google Scholar.

47 Singer, J. David, “The Behavioral Science Approach to International Relations, Payoff and Prospect,” in Rosenau, James N. (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York, 1969), p. 68Google Scholar.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 Alker, Hayward, “The Long Road to International Relations Theory, Problems of Statistical Non-additivity,” in Kaplan, Morton A. (ed.), New Approaches to International Relations (New York, 1968), p. 162Google Scholar.

51 Singer, , “Introduction,” pp. 7–8Google Scholar.

52 Singer, J. David, “The Incompleat Theorist, Insight Without Evidence,” in Knorr, and Rosenau, , Contending Approaches, p. 74Google Scholar.

53 Kaplan, Abraham, The Conduct of Inquiry (San Francisco, 1964), pp. 28–29Google Scholar.

54 Singer, , “Incompleat Theorist,” p. 67Google Scholar.

55 Deutsch, Karl W. et al. , Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, 1957)Google Scholar.

56 Rosecrance, Richard, Action and Reaction in World Politics (Boston, 1963)Google Scholar.

57 Hsi-sheng Chi, “The Chinese Warlord System as an International System,” and Franke, Winfried, “The Italian City-State System as an International System” in Kaplan, (ed.), New Approaches, pp. 405–458Google Scholar.

58 Kaplan, Morton A., “Traditionalism Versus Science in International Relations,” in Knorr, and Rosenau, , Contending Approaches, p. 54Google Scholar. The article originally appeared in World Politics.

59 Ibid.

60 Hoffmann, Stanley, The State of War (New York, 1965)Google Scholar.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

63 Singer, , “Incompleat Theorist,” p. 74Google Scholar.

64 Ibid., p. 72–3.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid., p. 75.

67 Ibid., p. 76.

68 Kaplan, , “Traditionalism,” p. 58Google Scholar.

69 Ibid., p. 59. It must be noted that Kaplan himself is not above criticism by those who are in the scientific approach. One particularly scathing attack is Levy, Marion J., “Does it Matter if He's Naked Bawled the Child,” in Knorr, and Rosenau, , Contending Approaches, pp. 87–109Google Scholar.

70 Singer, , “Introduction,” pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

71 Dahl, , Modern Political Analysis, pp. 107–10Google Scholar.

72 See, for example, Kelman, Herbert C., ed., International Behavior (New York, 1965)Google Scholar, and Singer, ed., Human Behavior and International Politics as cited.

73 Singer, , “Behavioral Science Approach,” p. 68Google Scholar.

74 However, see Dallmayr, Fred R., “Empirical Political Theory and the Image of Man,” Polity, II (Summer, 1970), 443–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Singer, , “Incompleat Theorist,” p. 68Google Scholar.

76 Kaplan, , “Traditionalism,” p. 56Google Scholar.

77 Singer, , “Incompleat Theorist,” p. 82Google Scholar.

78 Ibid., p. 68. Italics in original.

79 Rosenau, , “Games,” p. 295Google Scholar.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid., p. 297.

82 Ibid., p. 303.

83 North, Robert, “Research Pluralism and the International Elephant,” in Knorr, and Rosenau, , Contending Approaches, p. 241Google Scholar.

84 See, for example, Yalem, Ronald J., “Toward the Reconciliation of Traditional and Behavioral Approaches to International Theory,” Orbis, XIII (Summer, 1969) 578–600Google Scholar. An outstanding effort at mutual enrichment is Robinson, Thomas, “A National Interest Analysis of Sino-Soviet Relations,” International Studies Quarterly XI (06, 1967), 135–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Robinson takes Morgenthau's concept of national interest as “representative of the best which the ‘traditional’ approach has to offer. …” and works it into a model and tests it on a particular case.