In their article, "How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research", Colin Elman's and Miriam Fendius Elman's discourse encourages IR scientists to incorporate meta-theory in their research methodology to enable them to make informed judgments and arguments. This forms the basis of the Lakatosian MSRP. The article addresses the fact that while IR theorists are constantly immersed in rescuing existing theories, a process of creative destruction is in effect which ultimately undermines innovation and novel appraisal.
By employing a comparative analysis of the theories presented by Popper, Lakatos and Kuhn, Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman have constructively critiqued the Lakatosian "research programme" which has replaced Kuhn's "Paradigms". In conclude Lakatos' programmes are generally more progressive and take precedence over other forms of research techniques which tend to be more conventional and dogmatic.
Perhaps the most interesting preconceived notion present in the article manifests itself in the Second Critique of the Lakatosian meta-theory debate which states that "discussing and employing metatheory undermines our status as a scientist. This claim suggests that no self-respecting scientist would be caught dead engaging in philosophical debates." This claim is rather reductionist because it undermines the very basis of scientific philosophy and it overlooks the fact that Lakatos, himself was a scientist, a mathematician and a philosopher. The fact that IR theorists shy away from scientific, empirical and a meta-theoretical approach essentially reduces the credibility of their theory. Drawing tangents from this argument, it would be interesting to bring in the Pythagorean approach to political, economic and philosophical discourse which advocates that no theory can be independent of mathematics and mathematics cannot be free of philosophical dissertation. While many of us know that Pythagoras was a mathematician, we seem to overlook the fact that he was in fact a politician and a religious philosopher as well and asserted that "mathematics is the highest form of abstraction". He was of the view that politics and economics could be deconstructed by mathematics and empirical analysis to create novel ideas. The Pythagorean school bears testimony to the Lakatosian meta-theory debate in which the move away from conventional research requires IR theorists to study all disciplines in relation to each other to encourage the birth of novel ideas and paradigm shifts. Therefore, it would be safe to say that employing meta-theory does not undermine an IR scientists' status as a scientist.
By employing a comparative analysis of the theories presented by Popper, Lakatos and Kuhn, Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman have constructively critiqued the Lakatosian "research programme" which has replaced Kuhn's "Paradigms". In conclude Lakatos' programmes are generally more progressive and take precedence over other forms of research techniques which tend to be more conventional and dogmatic.
Perhaps the most interesting preconceived notion present in the article manifests itself in the Second Critique of the Lakatosian meta-theory debate which states that "discussing and employing metatheory undermines our status as a scientist. This claim suggests that no self-respecting scientist would be caught dead engaging in philosophical debates." This claim is rather reductionist because it undermines the very basis of scientific philosophy and it overlooks the fact that Lakatos, himself was a scientist, a mathematician and a philosopher. The fact that IR theorists shy away from scientific, empirical and a meta-theoretical approach essentially reduces the credibility of their theory. Drawing tangents from this argument, it would be interesting to bring in the Pythagorean approach to political, economic and philosophical discourse which advocates that no theory can be independent of mathematics and mathematics cannot be free of philosophical dissertation. While many of us know that Pythagoras was a mathematician, we seem to overlook the fact that he was in fact a politician and a religious philosopher as well and asserted that "mathematics is the highest form of abstraction". He was of the view that politics and economics could be deconstructed by mathematics and empirical analysis to create novel ideas. The Pythagorean school bears testimony to the Lakatosian meta-theory debate in which the move away from conventional research requires IR theorists to study all disciplines in relation to each other to encourage the birth of novel ideas and paradigm shifts. Therefore, it would be safe to say that employing meta-theory does not undermine an IR scientists' status as a scientist.
Good post, but IR theorists don't necessarily shy away from empirical methods. Although they did so in the past, now it can be argued that empirical methods are too heavily relied upon in the field today.
ReplyDelete