METODOS DE LA INVESTIGACION EN LAS RELACIONES INTERNACIONALES

This course examines methodological issues and debates involved in the study of International Relations and the Philosophy of Science. The distinction between theory, methodology, and research techniques is explored by examining natural and social sciences frameworks and challenges from critical, cultural, historical, post-modernist, and realist perspectives. Methodological tools for investigation and analysis will be introduced to sharpen research skills, techniques, and analyses. Methodology is taken to mean: (1) ways of thinking about the nature of the actors and their interactions (ontology), (2) what constitutes valid forms of knowledge (epistemology), (3) the relationship of the researcher/analyst and objects of investigation (including research techniques), and (5) the purpose of science and idea of scientific progress (metatheory).

Course Requirements: (1) One essay (10 pages) on scientific method, due mid-semester = 30 %; (2) One essay (10 pages) on alternatives to scientific method due last week = 70%; and (3) Possible unannounced quiz(zes) and in class participation.

1. Introduction – Methodology & Historical Debates

2. Scientific Knowledge – Concepts, Laws, & Theories

3. Scientific Explanation – Positivism & Logic

4. Science vs. Nonscience – Causation & Falsification

5. Progress in Science – Revolutions, Research Programs, & Anarchy

6. Ontology – Systems vs. Methodological Individualism

7. Degrees of Freedom– Classic Design, Comparisons, & Cases

8. Rationality & Game Theory – Parametric, Instrumental, Strategic

9. Phenomenology& Ethics – Alternative Rationalities

10. Historical Analysis – Synoptic Narration & Process Sciences

11. Hermeneutics – Rules, Meanings, & Thick Description

12. PostModernism – Deconstruction, Texts, & Gender

13. Critical Theory – Knowledge, Power, & Interests

14. Constructivism – Identity, Structure, & Agency

15. Scientific Realism & Complexity – Invisibles, Abductive Inference, & Chaos 16. Conclusion – Reassessing Method(s) in the Sciences & Humanities

1. Introduction – Methodology & Historical Debates

Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), Chapter 1.

Michael Nicholson, “The Methodology of International Relations,” in Steve Smith (ed.), International Relations: British and American Perspectives, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1995), pp.56-70.

Jon Elster, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), Chapter 1.

Alexander Rosenberg, Philosophy of Social Science, (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, 1995), Chapter 1.

2. Scientific Knowledge – Concepts, Laws, & Theories Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods, (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997), Chapter 1.

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, (New York: Random House, 1979), Chapter 1.

Robert Bernstein and James A. Dyer, An Introduction to Political Science Methods, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1984), “Introduction” and Chapter 1, 2.

3. Scientific Explanation – Positivism and Logic

Daniel Little, Varieties of Social Explanation, (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, 1991), Chapter 1.

Peter Godfrey-Smith, Theory and Reality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), Chapter 2.

Michael Nicholson, Cause and Consequences in International Relations, (London: Pinter, 1996), Chapter 7.

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, “Toward a Scientific Understanding of International Conflict,” International Studies Quarterly, 29, (1985), pp.121-136.

4. Science vs. Nonscience – Causation & Falsification

Patrick Baert, Philosophy of the Social Science, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), Capter 3.

2

Peter Godfrey-Smith, Theory and Reality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), Chapter 4.

A.F. Chambers, What is this Thing Called Science? (Cambridge: Hackett, 1999), Chapters 4-7.

Ted Benton and Ian Craib, Philosophy of Social Science, (New York: Palgrave, 2001), Chapter 3.

5. Progress in Science – Revolutions, Research Programs, & Anarchy

Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), Chapters 5, 12.

Terence Ball, “From Paradigms to Research Programs: Towards a Post-Kuhnian Political Science,” American Journal of Political Science, 20, 1, (February, 1976), pp.151-177.

John A. Vasquez, “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition,” American Political Science Review, 91, 4, (December, 1997), pp.899-912.

Kenneth N. Waltz, “Evaluating Theories,” American Political Science Review, 91, 4, (December, 1997), pp.913-926.

6. Ontology – Systems & Methodological Individualism

J. David Singer, “The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations,” in Klaus Knorr and Sidney Verba (eds.), The International System: Theoretical Essays, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp.77-92.

Barry Buzan, “The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations Reconsidered,” in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today, (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995), pp.198-216.

Allan Millett and William Moreland, “What Happened? The Problem of Causation in International Affairs,” in Klaus Knorr (ed.), Historical Dimensions of National Security Problems, (Lawrence, Ka.: University Press of Kansas, 1976), pp.5-37.

A. Nuri Yurdusev, “‘Level of Analysis’ and ‘Unit of Analysis’: A Case for Distinction,” Millennium, 22, 1, (1993), pp.77-88.

7. Degrees of Freedom –Classic Design, Comparisons, & Cases

David Collier, “The Comparative Method,” in Ada W. Finifter (ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, (Washington, D.C.: APSA, 1993), pp.105-119.

3

Arend Lijphart, “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method,” American Political Science Review, 65, 3, (September, 1971), pp.682-693.

David Collier and James E. Mahon, Jr., “Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis,” American Political Science Review, 87, 4, (December, 1993), pp.845-855.

Giovanni Sartori, “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” American Political Science Review, 64, 4, (December, 1970), pp.1033-1053.

8. Rationality & Game Theory – Parametric, Instrumental, Strategic

Jon Elster, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), Chapters 3-4.

Martin Hollis, The Philosophy of Social Science, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), Chapter 6.

Paul MacDonald, “Useful Fiction or Miracle Maker: The Competing Epistemological Foundations of Rational Choice Theory,” American Political Science Review, 97, 4, (November, 2003), pp.551-565.

Roxanne Euben, “When Worldviews Collide: Conflicting Assumptions Human Behavior Held by Rational Actor Theory and Islamic Fundamentalism,” Political Psychology, 16, 1, (March, 1995), pp.157-178.

9. Phenomenology & Ethics – Alternative Rationalities

Richard Little, “Belief Systems in the Social Sciences,” in Richard Little and Steve Smith (eds.), Belief Systems and International Relations, (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988), pp.37-56.

Jon Elster, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), Chapters 5, 10.

Max Weber, “Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy,” in Michael Martin and Lee MacIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994), pp.535-545.

Martin Hollis, The Philosophy of Social Science, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), Chapter 10.

10. Historical Analysis – Synoptic Narration & Process Science

Scott Gordon, The History and Philosophy of Social Science, (London: Routledge, 2003), Chapter 14.

4

John Lewis Gaddis, “History, Science, and the Study of International Relations,” in Ngaire Wood (ed.), Explaining International Relations Since 1945, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), Chapter 2.

Marc Trachtenberg, The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), Chapters 1-2.

Ian S. Lustick, “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias,” American Political Science Review, 90, 3, (September, 1996), pp.605-618.

11. Hermeneutics – Rules, Meanings, & Thick Description

Peter Winch, “The Idea of Social Science,” in Bryan R. Wilson (ed.), Rationality, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), pp.1-17.

Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative theory of Culture,” in Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp.3-30.

Clifford Geertz, “From the Native’s Point of View,” in Paul Rabinow and William M. Sullivan (eds.), Interpretative Social Science, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), pp.225-241.

Martin Hollis, “Reason and Ritual,” in Bryon R. Wilson (ed.), Rationality, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), pp.221-236.

12. PostModernism – Deconstruction, Texts, & Gender

Richard Devetak, “Postmodernism,” in Scott Burchill et al. (eds.), Theories of International Relations, (New York: Palgrave, 2005), pp.161-187.

Ted Benton and Ian Craib, Philosophy of Social Science, (New York: Palgrave, 2001), Chapters 9-10.

Sandra Whitworth, “The Practice, and Praxis, of Feminist Research in International Relations,” in Richard Wyn Jones (ed.), Critical Theory and World Politics, (Boulder, Col.: Lynne Rienner, 2001), pp.149-160.

Craig N. Murphy, “Seeing Women, Recognizing Gender, Recasting International Relations,” International Organization, 50, 3, (Summer, 1996), pp.513-538.

13. Critical Theory – Knowledge, Power, & Interests

Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical Theory,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp.279-298.

5

Richard Devetak, “Critical Theory,” in Scott Burchill et al. (eds.), Theories of International Relations, (New York: Palgrave, 2001), pp.155-180.

Mark Neufeld, “Interpretation and the ‘Science’ of International Relations,” Review of International Studies, 19, (January, 1993), pp.39-61.

Chris Brown, “‘Turtles All the Way Down’: Anti-foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations,” Millennium, 23, 2, (1994), pp.213-236.

14. Constructivism – Identity, Structure, & Agency

Steve Smith, “Reflectivist and Constructivist Approaches to International Theory,” in John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp.224-249.

Christian Reus-Smit, “Constructivism,” in Scott Burchill et al. (eds.), Theories of International Relations, (New York: Palgrave, 20019, pp.209-230.

Colin Hay, “Structure and Agency,” in David Marsh and Gerry Stocker (eds.), Theory and Methods in Political Science, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), pp.189-206.

Alexander Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organization, 41, 3, (Summer, 1987), pp.335-370.

Alexander Wendt, “Constructing International Politics,” International Security, 20, 1, (Summer, 1995), pp.71-81.

15. Scientific Realism & Complexity – Invisibles, Abductive Inference, & Chaos

George Reisch, “Chaos, History, and Narrative,” History and Theory, 30, 1, (February, 1991), pp.1-20.

Gabriel Almond with Stephen Genco, “Clouds, Clocks, and the Study of Politics,” World Politics, 29, 4, (July, 1977), pp.489-522.

Ted Benton and Ian Craib, Philosophy of Social Science, (New York: Palgrave, 2001), Chapter 8.

William Outhwaite, New Philosophies of Social Science, (London: Macmillan, 1987), Chapter 2.

George Steinmetz, “Critical Realism and Historical Sociology,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 40, 1, (Janaury, 1998), pp.170-186.

16. Conclusion – Assessing Method(s) in the Sciences & Humanities

6