In, Prospects of International Theory in Post-Positivist era, Yosef Lapid discusses the idea that IR theory is in the middle of a 'third debate' between positivistic and post-positivistic approaches. This debate is concerned with the underlying epistemology of international relations scholarship and is also described as a debate between rationalists and reflectivists, On one side Rationalist are positivistic in methodology and prefer to measure and analyze what can be observed. And on the other side, Reflectivists reject this and prefer more interpretive and subjective ways of studying information and they belief that values can not be separate from observation.
The third great debate did not change the views of the fields positivists but however, it did dramatically make factors such as; norms, identities, ideas and principles sensitive to scholars. As a consequence scholars no longer belief that 'facts' speak for themselves and insist that we should give greater importance to meaning and interpretation of events after subjectively analyzing them.
However, what the third debate failed to establish is that the theorists who strive for balance and as much objectivity as possible can argue about contradictory interpretations of an event in a meaningful way.
The third great debate did not change the views of the fields positivists but however, it did dramatically make factors such as; norms, identities, ideas and principles sensitive to scholars. As a consequence scholars no longer belief that 'facts' speak for themselves and insist that we should give greater importance to meaning and interpretation of events after subjectively analyzing them.
However, what the third debate failed to establish is that the theorists who strive for balance and as much objectivity as possible can argue about contradictory interpretations of an event in a meaningful way.
No comments:
Post a Comment