Session 19: Another Debate

With the development of the field, new ideas sprung up. Some scholars embraced them while others scrutinized them. Considering the brief history of the field, the move from realism to liberalism and from institutionalism to constructivism appeared to be a roller coaster ride. The first debate was all about “history vs science” controversy while the second debate questioned the methodology. The third debate talked about the nature and progression of knowledge.

Post-Positivism can sometimes be referred to as a “philosophy of science”. However, before that is done, some sort of convergence between the ideas already present should be discovered. It has mainly three themes –Paradigmatism, perspectivism and relativism. 

Paradigmatism suggests that contrary to the generalizations in scientific approaches, long-lived, large-scale and multi-tiered constructs should be studied. Moreover, perspectivism insists that before making assumptions about theories, they should be carefully examined because some important points can be ignored while others can be distorted. Furthermore, relativism argues that the attack on scientific assumptions is a fierce one that not only objects to certain aspects but to the entire process of assumptions. However, due to the gaining popularity of the scientific approach, scholars have considered reviewing their line of action while making theories.

Though this piece progresses in a systematic way, I did not quite like it because of the complex terminology that has been used which restricts my ability to assimilate key concepts. Moreover, though the debate raises important questions, I do not find them convincing because of the lack of relevant examples present in the article.