The Construction And Cumulation Of Knowledge In International Relations

Metaphors constitute a fundamental way in which humans understand the world around them. This book offers a comprehensive analysis of metaphors in theories of international relations. Until recently, conscious attention to metaphors in theories of international relations has been haphazard and sporadic. This book examines the metaphors that inform the major paradigms in international relations theory. Readers will discover that the vast majority of the terminology cataloguing, defining, and naming theories, concepts, and analytical tools pertaining to the study of international relations are metaphorical in nature. The book concludes that metaphors are an essential element in all aspects of international relations theory.

While many texts on international relations deal only with ideologies, this book goes beyond discussion of ideology to provide an understanding of how global economics, politics, and society operate. The book begins with a history of the International Studies Association, which was founded to develop empirically-based knowledge and was opposed to ideological “isms” as biased guides to policy. The book focuses on four major paradigms—Marxian, Mass Society, Community Building, and Rational Choice—with diagrams indicating their empirical predictions over time. The Marxian paradigm focuses on scientific claims of Marx and Engels. The Mass Society paradigm explains why democracies become dysfunctional. The Community Building paradigm explains how communities can be and are built at the local, national, regional, and international levels. The Rational Choice paradigm assembles proposed explanations of reason-based economic, political, and social life to demonstrate what they have in common. Other candidates for paradigms are reviewed, with a focus on why they need further development to become major paradigms at the decision-making, dyadic, societal, national, and international system levels of analysis.

This edited book complements and follows up on the book, Thompson and Volgy et al, Regions, Power and Conflict: Constrained Capabilities, Hierarchy, and Rivalry. It is predicated in part on the paucity of published material available on comparing regional international politics. Monadic, dyadic, and systemic approaches all have their uses and have been exploited extensively. The same cannot be said about comparative regional analysis. The premise is that a great deal of international politics takes place within regional parameters. Most states simply lack the capability or interest in devoting many resources to extra-regional affairs. Yet each region is distinctive. In some, military coups remain common while they have died out as a form of political practice in others. A few have been highly conflictual and then become more pacific, while others persist in their conflict intensity. Some have powerful neighbors with intervention tendencies, while others are surrounded by relatively weak states. Some are rich; others are poor. The point is that regions, all with proper names, have attributes that can be harnessed through comparison to explain why regional behavior differs greatly across the planet. The aim is to replace the proper names with the leading variables that appear to drive behavior. For instance, to shrug and say “that’s the Middle East for you” does not take us very far. Replacing the Middle East label with conceptualization about how a set of small, weak, autocratic states behave subject to high penetration by major powers might take us farther than shrugging off regional identity. We have good reasons to think that comparative regional analysis can deliver an explanatory value-added product just as much as alternative “levels of analysis” can. Ultimately, we might desire to integrate separate levels of analysis, rather than segregating them. But in the short term, we need to encourage comparative regional analysis because it is the least developed perspective. Why that might be the case can be debated, but it stems in part from our disciplinary tendencies for some analysts to specialize in regional behavior largely in a descriptive vein while others prefer to focus on explaining universal behavior. Comparative regional behavior tends to be squeezed out by regional scholars who suspect generalization about behavior and universal scholars who suspect particular contexts such as regions. Comparative regional analysis requires analysts who are willing to explore generalization but acknowledge regional contexts more explicitly than is customary. At the same time, more general substitutes for those regional labels must be introduced if explanatory headway is to be achieved.

What kinds of knowledge do international relations theories seek? How do they search for it and claim to have found it? Lebow uses his answers to these questions to say something important about the theory project in IR, and in the social sciences more generally.

This title is an examination of the role and relevance of international bureaucracies in global environmental governance. After a discussion of theoretical context, reaserch design, and empiral methodology, the book presents nine in-depth case studies of bureaucracies.

A wide-ranging discussion of factors that impede the cumulation of knowledge in the social sciences, including problems of transparency, replication, and reliability. Rather than focusing on individual studies or methods, this book examines how collective institutions and practices have (often unintended) impacts on the production of knowledge.

What Do We Know about War? reviews the research on causes of war and the conditions of peace over the past forty-five years. Leading scholars explore the critical roles of territorial disputes, alliances, arms races, rivalry, and nuclear weapons in bringing about war as well as the factors promoting peace, including democracy, norms, stable borders, and capitalist economies. Considering what has been learned about the causes of war and the conditions of peace in the ten years since the publication of the first edition, this invaluable text offers an accessible and up-to-date overview of current knowledge and an agenda for future research. Contributions by: Brett V. Benson, Paul F. Diehl, Colin Flint, Daniel S. Geller, Douglas M. Gibler, Gary Goertz, Paul R. Hensel, Choong-Nam Kang, Jack S. Levy, Zeev Maoz, Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Michael Mousseau, Karen Rasler, Susan G. Sample, William R. Thompson, Brandon Valeriano, John A. Vasquez, and Peter Wallensteen.