The article “ How Not to be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research” provided a detailed and well structured arguments surrounding scientific methodology in IR Research. In particular as the title suggests, Lakatos’ approach on Methodology of Scientific Research Programs (MSRP) according to the authors provided a middle way between the giants of philosophy of Science, Kuhn and Popper. Although the approach has it’s weaknesses, it’s strengths prove to have created quite an impact on the field of International Relations.
What I found intriguing about the MSRP was that Lakatos’ suggestion that all theories and techniques share a common hard core. What struck in particular was the term “common” which has been an integral part in philosophy as well, the Pre-Socrates philosophers all believed that there was a common element or substance in all things around us. Apart from this MSRP also provides a “nuanced version of Popper’s falsifiability”; Popper’s all out rejection of theories/hypothesis that conflict with the first observation made, was adjusted by Lakatos to provide a more softer approach to scientific methodology and theory.
Secondly, the term “physics envy” used in the paper by Elman and Elman was particularly insightful. The idea that social sciences have this tendency to move towards the hard sciences to justify their findings seems absurd to say the least. Especially when keeping in mind that all knowledge is socially constructed (Be it philosophy, politics or physics) Not everything has to be justified using number and statistics. International Relations and it’s research methodology need to consider the almost reductionist approach when using empiricism.
The absurd nature of these theories is something I also brought up in my post. But, how exactly will a reductionist approach aid the use of empiricism?
ReplyDeleteExcellent points. I agree that it's absurd that some in the social sciences feel compelled to justify their research based on statistical data. This trend started in the 1960s and is a major part of current academic discourse, at least in the Western academe. It's rather unfortunate because, after all, knowledge is indeed socially constructed.
ReplyDelete