Lakatos and Neorealism: A Reply to Vasquez

Elman, Colin; Elman, Miriam Fendius

doi:10.2307/2952175

Cited by 32 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Organski argues that as a state grows in power, as Germany did, for example, in the decades before World War I, it may come to believe that its ability to enjoy the fruits of that growing power, and, in particular, its ability to improve its share of the division of whatever is of value to the nations of the world, and its ability to shape the rules and norms of the existing international order, are constrained by the order that had been founded by the then-reigning hegemonic state and its nearest associates. This juxtaposition of rising material power and a perception that it is being denied 2 Perhaps the most compelling critique of Waltz's balancing thesis is presented by Vasquez (1997); for responses to him see Waltz (1997), Walt (1997), Schweller (1997), and Elman and Elman (1997). 3 Organski developed his ideas on power transitions and war with Jacek Kugler (1980); additional key works in this line of inquiry include Lemke and Werner (1996), Kim (2002), and Bussmann and Oneal (2007).…”

Section: Power Shifts and International Alignments: Ir Theory And Empmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theories of International Balancing, the Rise of China, and Political Alignments in the Asia Pacific

Grieco¹

2014

kjis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Power Shifts and International Alignments: Ir Theory And Empmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theories of International Balancing, the Rise of China, and Political Alignments in the Asia Pacific

Grieco¹

2014

kjis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This also explains why, for Lakatos, judgments about the progressive or degenerating character of a particular problemshift are necessarily retrospective. Some interpreters of Lakatos argue that the notion of progressive problemshifts between and within research programs “can be used to advise scholars on how to respond to degeneration” (Elman and Elman 1997:925). But Lakatos (1978:117; emphasis original) criticizes Kuhn (and others) for “conflat[ing] methodological appraisal of a programme with firm heuristic advice about what to do.” Lakatos distinguishes between the “internal” and the “external” history of a research programme, arguing that “ normative reconstructions” that provide an internal history “may have to be supplemented by empirical external theories to explain the residual non‐rational factors.”…”

Section: Of Paradigms and Research Programmesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradigmatic Faults in International-Relations Theory

Jackson

Nexon

2009

International Studies Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American scholars routinely characterize the study of international relations as divided between various Kuhnian “paradigms” or Lakatosian “research programmes.” Although most international relations scholars have abandoned Kuhn’s account of scientific continuity and change, many utilize Lakatosian criteria to assess the “progressive” or “degenerative” character of various theories and approaches in the field. We argue that neither specific areas of inquiry (such as the “democratic peace”) nor broader approaches to world politics (such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism) deserve the label of “paradigms” or “research programmes.” As an alternative, we propose mapping the field through Weberian techniques of ideal‐typification.

show abstract

“…1, 7;. The continuing intensity of the debate between Neo-Realism and its critics is evident in the sharp exchange between Vasquez (1997) and several defenders of the faith (Elman and Elman, 1997b;Walt, 1997;Waltz, 1997).…”

Section: Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ISA Presidential Address

Brecher

1999

Int Studies Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The state of International Studies as the 20 th century draws to a close is disconcerting. Among the shortcomings are intolerance of competing paradigms, models, methods, and findings; a closed-mind mentality; a tendency to research fashions; the increasingly-visible retreat from science in International Studies; and the low value placed by most scholars on cumulation of knowledge.Flawed dichotomies are pervasive: theory versus history as approaches to knowledge; deductive versus inductive paths to theory; a horizontal (breadth) versus vertical (in-depth) focus of inquiry, based upon aggregate data (quantitative) vs. case study (qualitative) methods of analysis, using large 'N' vs. small 'N' clusters of data; system vs. actor as the optimal level of analysis, and closely related, unitary vs. multiple competing actors; rational calculus vs. psychological constraints on choice, and the related divide over reality vs. image as the key to explaining state behavior; and neo-realism vs. neo-institutionalism as the correct paradigm for the study of world politics.Without the integration of knowledge, revised from time to time in the light of fresh theoretical insights, improved methods, and new evidence, International Studies is destined to remain a collection of bits and pieces of explanation of reality and behavior.In this spirit, an attempt to overcome the dichotomies and to achieve synthesis, along with cumulation, was the raison d' etre of the International Crisis Behavior Project, now entering its 25 th year of systematic research on crisis, conflict and war in the 20 th century. From the flawed dichotomies has emerged synthesis in paths to theory, methodologies, the testing of propositions, and cumulation of knowledge, one demonstration that it is possible to transform International Studies into a genuine social science discipline. Wilkenfeld for their valuable comments on this paper. While musing about this year's ISA conference, two questions kept recurring: what message should I attempt to communicate to colleagues in the International Studies community?, and what can I say that is different from my predecessors but is, at the same time, stimulating?; for that, along with curiosity, I assume, perhaps naively, is why most of us come to hear a presidential address.Like all of you, I am acutely aware of the impending end of a century and a millennium. However, unlike some, perhaps many, I have long been dissatisfied with the "state of the field" and convinced of the need to break out of what seems to me an academic morass. This conjunction-a turning point in the human experience, at least in chronological terms, and disquiet about International Studiesprovided the catalyst to today's presentation.As the twentieth century draws to a close, it seems timely to reflect on "where have we gone wrong?" The question is not new, but it continues to perplex. The answers, unfortunately, are as numerous as our contentious schools, divided by epistemology, methodology, and ideology, along with idiosyncratic elements like pers...

show abstract

Lakatos and Neorealism: A Reply to Vasquez

Cited by 32 publications

References 21 publications

Theories of International Balancing, the Rise of China, and Political Alignments in the Asia Pacific

Theories of International Balancing, the Rise of China, and Political Alignments in the Asia Pacific

Paradigmatic Faults in International-Relations Theory

ISA Presidential Address

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About