International Relations Theory has
traditionally been of two types: classical and scientific. The earlier of the
two is based on insight and intuition upon the matter while the latter is based
on statistical or mathematical proof.
Since, the Classical approach is entirely
based on theories and assumption its nature lacks certainty. This is because
the entire field on International Relation Theory has itself been based on theories
which do not give the study a strong foundation. Also, some of the methods are
inconsistent and highly dependent on reasoning based on events that have
happened in the past and then using those as indicators to predict the future.
On the other hand, the Scientific method is
a relatively modern approach and because a logical explanation can be given for
theories makes it seem fundamentally stronger. Unlike other social sciences,
mathematical evidence can be given for the situation at hand. Specific classification
systems as well as testing followed by establishing a theory makes it all the
more appealing to academics. However, this method of developing theory cannot
give adequate value to the subject matter and henceforth appropriately deal
with its content.
As, both the matters have lapses that
cannot be ignored there is a dire need to come up with a new approach
altogether. There needs to be analytical, in-depth study of the issues under
consideration. The inter relation between different matters and their impact on
the national as well as international level are some of the factors that need
to be accounted for.
I agree with you that both empirical and classical approaches to theorizing have their strengths and weaknesses. Hence why I think a 'mixed methods' approach is probably the best, as it incorporates elements of both approaches.
ReplyDeleteI too agree with Mahnoor that a better way to approach the study of IR is to merge both the approaches however what i do not understand is that way in which the merger can be made possible. And to what degree will the merger allow us to come up with a legitimate explanation of the field. I just hope that as we further delve into the field, we'll be in a better position to come up with a definite answer,
ReplyDelete