Session 3: Not Lactose Intolerant.

In their article “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research” Elman and Elman attempt to provide a balanced view of Imre Lakatos’s MSRP approach to theorizing in the discipline of International Relations. Lakatos sought to “develop a theory of scientific method which was sufficiently subtle to cope with the detail of the actual history of science and yet sufficiently rationalistic to resist the political dangers” i.e. giving in to the discourse imposed by the “powers-that-be”. 

The MSRP traces the progress of scientific and political thought based on the following criteria: First, is the introduction of the concept of ‘novelty’: theorists should be innovative and add value to the discipline rather than elaborating on ideas that were already known. Coming up with novel ideas has however proved to be very problematic for the discipline and is probably the biggest critique for Lakatos’s work. Four definitions of novelty exist in the domain of IR: temporal novelty which rejects the use of background knowledge; new interpretation novelty which allows for different outlook on existing theories; heuristic novelty which prohibits the use of evidence in both the construction and then the support of the theory; and Musgrave background theory novelty, which asserts that the evidence of a new theory must challenge an old theory. As many theorists fail to understand – or possibly deliberately ignore – what Lakatos tried to explain through his concept of ‘novelty’ of ideas, MSRP has not only faced critique for being very open ended, but has also been misused by theorists to serve their own purpose. 

Secondly, Lakatos maintains that problem-shifts (changes in theory) should be corroborated with empirical evidence. Although theory should be grounded in evidence and must be justifiable, Elman and Elman have some concerns with this aspect of MSRP as well. By stressing on “theoretical novelty” and the time lapse between the corroboration of theoretical and empirical progress, the model faces the possibility of becoming increasingly removed from reality. Furthermore, it is necessary that theoretical adjustments be in accordance with a basic set of rules and principles that ensure continuity in the evolution of thought in the discipline. 

Elman and Elman present a largely holistic view of the MSPR debate. Although there are several drawbacks of using the MSPR model for theorizing, such as the disproportionate emphasis placed on “novelty” and theorists being able to pick and choose the more attractive aspects of the model, there is the need for a structure to theorizing in any scientific or non-scientific discipline. The MSPR model encourages innovation, and allows competing views to exist and therefore promotes tolerance of ideas. In addition, MSPR provides codification and a pattern to research and speculation, which I believe is vital to any theorizing process.