“Do not those who adhere to classical approach do so out of
vested interest in their own techniques, a slothful reluctance to learn new
ones?”
Bull’s skepticism of the apriori confidence that scholars
have with regards to the failure of the scientific approach is appropriate. He believes
that instead of rejecting the approach all together, rational criticism should
be formulated and in doing so, he lists seven propositions which act as objections
against the scientific approach.
Hedley Bull in his article focuses our attention towards the
two basic distinct approaches for understanding International Relations theory:
Classical and Scientific approach. The former approach is categorized by the exercise
of judgment and makes use of ‘unscientific’ method of perception and intuition,
whereas the latter bases its theorizing on empirical procedure of verification
and requires logical or mathematic proof. Although scientific approach has made
headway in the US, it has made negligent impact in UK academia.
Scientific approach can be considered to be reductionist in
nature precisely because it limits its domains of theorizing to empirical
evidence and models which fail to answer questions in international relations which
solely rely on one’s capacity of judgment, e.g. what is the place of war in
international society? The aspect of judgment will undoubtedly seep into answering
any form of hypothesis formulated to determine the plausibility of an IR theory;
therefore, it is naïve to assume that scientific methodology on its own can
provide an understanding of the field. The fetish for quantification and
measurement has limited the prospects of this school to take a holistic
approach towards understanding the field of IR which relies a lot on perception
and intuition, factors that cannot be measured or quantified.
Though there is a need to introduce rigor and precision
within IR theory, sole reliance on scientific methods discredits the field of
IR. Bull rightly so points out that the contributions made by the scientific
approach aren't worthless but their innate value is that which can readily be accommodated
within classical approach.
It's interesting how you note the distinction between the salience of quantitative methods in the US, while the UK - and the rest of Europe for that matter - continues to rely upon more qualitative approaches to the study of IR. As the academe continues to internationalize, I think there will be more room for scholars who want to pursue quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches to the study of international relations.
ReplyDeleteDoes the fusion of both methods indicate a more credible approach though?
ReplyDeleteI think it all depends on what research question you're trying to answer. The methods should fit the question, not the other way around.
ReplyDelete