IR and the false promise of philosophical foundations

International Theory

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 15-48

  Monteiro, Nuno P ^a   Ruby, Keven G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

epistemology; foundations; meta theory; ontology; Philosophy of Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650207547     PISSN: 17529719     EISSN: 17529727     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1752971909000050     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Alspector-Kelly M. (2003), ‘The NOAer's dilemma: constructive empiricism and the natural ontological attitude’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 33(3): 307–323.
2. Ashley R.K. (1986), The Poverty of Neorealism, New York: Columbia University Press.
3. Bates S.R., Jenkins L. (2007), ‘Teaching and learning ontology and epistemology in political science’, Politics 27(1): 55–63.
4. Bhaskar R. (1998), The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, 3rd edn., New York, London: Routledge.
5. Boyd R. (2002), ‘Scientific realism’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford, CA: The Metaphysical Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Retrieved 23 January 2008 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism
6. Boyd R., Gasper P., Trout J.D. (eds) (1991), The Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
7. Brady H.E., Collier D. (2004), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield.
8. Brandon E.P. (1997), ‘California unnatural: on Fine's natural ontological attitude’, Philosophical Quarterly 47(187): 232–235.
9. Brown C. (1994), ‘ “Turtles all the way down”: anti-foundationalism, critical theory and international relations’, Millennium 23(2): 213–236.
10. Campbell D. (1998), Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, revised edn., Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press.
11. Chernoff F. (2002), ‘Scientific Realism as a meta-theory of international politics’, International Studies Quarterly 46: 189–207.
12. Cochran M. (2002), ‘Deweyan pragmatism and post-positivist social science in IR’, Millennium 31(3): 525–548.
13. Crasnow S.L. (2000), ‘How natural can ontology be?’, Philosophy of Science 67: 114–132.
14. Daly G. (2008), ‘Ology schmology: a post-structuralist approach’, Politics 28(1): 57–60.
15. Dessler D. (1989), ‘What's at stake in the agent structure debate’, International Organization 43: 441–473.
16. Dessler D. (1999), ‘Constructivism within a positivist social science’, Review of International Studies 25(1): 123–137.
17. Doty R.L. (2000), ‘Desire all the way down’, Review of International Studies 26: 137–139.
18. Du Deffand M. (1989), Lettres à Voltaire, Paris: Rivage Poche/Petite Bibliothèque.
19. Elman C., Elman M.F. (2003), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, Cambridge: MIT Press.
20. Ferguson Y.H., Mansbach R.W. (2003), The Elusive Quest Continues: Theory and Global Politics, New York, NY, USA: Prentice-Hall.
21. Festenstein M. (2002), ‘Pragmatism's boundaries’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31(3): 549–571.
22. Fine A. (1984), ‘And not anti-realism either’, Nous 18(1): 51–65.
23. Fine A. (1986), The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Fine A. (1991), ‘Piecemeal realism’, Philosophical Studies 61(1/2): 79–96.
25. Fine A. (1996), ‘Science made up: constructivist sociology of scientific knowledge’, in P. Galison and D. Stump (eds), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
26. Fine A. (2007), ‘Relativism, pragmatism and the practice of science’, in C. Misak (ed.), The New Pragmatists, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Foucault M. (1979), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage Books.
28. Foucault M. (1980), Power/Knowledge, New York: Pantheon.
29. Friedman M. (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Gunnell J.G. (1995), ‘Realizing theory: the Philosophy of Science revisited’, Journal of Politics 57(4): 923–940.
31. Hall S. (1988), ‘The toad in the garden: Thatcherism amongst the theorists’, in C. Nelson and L. Grosberg (eds), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Urbana, IL, USA: University of Illinois Press.
32. Hay C. (2007), ‘Does ontology trump epistemology? Notes on the directional dependence of ontology and epistemology in political analysis’, Politics 27(1): 55–63.
33. Hollis M. (1994), The Philosophy of Social Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Hollis M. (1996), ‘The last post?’, in S. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Hollis M., Smith S. (1990), Explaining and Understanding in International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
36. Holsti K.J. (1989), ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall, which are the fairest theories of all’, International Studies Quarterly 33(2): 255–261.
37. Honderitch T. (1995a), ‘Epistemology’, in T. Honderitch (ed.), Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Honderitch T. (1995b), ‘Foundationalism’, in T. Honderitch (ed.), Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Honderitch T. (1995c), ‘Ontology’, in T. Honderitch (ed.), Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Houghton D.P. (2008), ‘Positivism “versus” postmodernism: does epistemology make a difference?’, International Politics 45: 115–128.
41. Jackson P.T. (2008), ‘Foregrounding ontology: dualism, monism, and IR theory’, Review of International Studies 34(1): 129–153.
42. Katzenstein P., Sil R. (2008), ‘Eclectic theorizing in the study and practice of international relations’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. King G., Keohane R.O., Verba S. (1994), Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
44. Kivinen O., Piiroinen T. (2004), ‘The relevance of ontological commitments in social science: realist and pragmatist viewpoints’, Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior 34(3): 231–248.
45. Knorr Cetina K. (1999), Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
46. Kuhn T.S. (1996), Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Kukla A. (1994), ‘Scientific realism, scientific practice, and the natural ontological attitude’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45(4): 955–975.
48. Kurki M. (2006), ‘Causes of a divided discipline: rethinking the concept of cause in international relations theory’, European Journal of International Relations 32(2): 189–216.
49. Lapid Y. (1989), ‘The third debate: on the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era’, International Studies Quarterly 33(3): 235–254.
50. Locher B., Prügel E. (2001), ‘Feminism and constructivism: worlds apart or sharing the middle ground?’, International Studies Quarterly 45: 111–129.
51. MacDonald P.K. (2003), ‘Useful fiction or miracle maker: the competing epistemological foundations of rational choice theory’, American Political Science Review 97(4): 551–565.
52. Maliniak D., Oakes A., Peterson S., Tierney M.J. (2007), The View from the Ivory Tower: TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in the United States and Canada, Williamsburg, VA, USA: Program on the Theory and Practice of International Relations, College of William and Mary.
53. March D., Furlong P. (2002), ‘A skin not a sweater: epistemology and ontology in political science’, in D. Marsh and G. Toker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science, New York: Palgrave.
54. Musgrave A. (1988), ‘The ultimate argument for Scientific Realism’, in R. Nola (ed.), Relativism and Realism in Science, Boston, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
55. Navon E. (2001), ‘The “third debate” revisited’, Review of International Studies 27: 611–625.
56. Nicholson M. (1996), ‘The continued significance of positivism?’, in S. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Okasha S. (2002), Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Patomäki H., Wight C. (2000), ‘After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism’, International Studies Quarterly 44(2): 213–237.
59. Pepinsky T.B. (2005), ‘From agents to outcomes: simulation in international relations’, European Journal of International Relations 11(3): 367–394.
60. Price R., Reus-Smitt C. (1998), ‘Dangerous liaisons? Critical international relations theory and constructivism’, European Journal of International Relations 4(3): 259–294.
61. Putnam H. (1978), Meaning and the Moral Sciences, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
62. Putnam H. (1981), Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. Putnam H. (1983), ‘Why there isn't a ready made world’, in H. Putnam (ed.), Realism and Reason, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. Rorty R. (1979), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
65. Rosenberg A. (1995), Philosophy of Social Science, 2nd edn., Boulder: Westview.
66. Rosenberg A. (2000), Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction, New York: Routledge.
67. Rouse J. (1988). ‘Arguing for the Natural Ontological Attitude’, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1 (Contributed Papers), pp. 294–301.
68. Rouse J. (2002), ‘Vampires: social constructivism, realism, and other philosophical undead’, History and Theory 41(1): 60–78.
69. Ruse M. (1981), ‘Review of Roy Bhaskar, the possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences’, ISIS 72(3): 493–495.
70. Sankey H. (2001), ‘Scientific Realism: an elaboration and a defence’, Theoria 98: 35–54.
71. Sankey H. (2008), ‘Scientific Realism and the inevitability of science’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39(2): 259–264.
72. Schatzki T.R. (1988), ‘The nature of social reality’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49(2): 239–260.
73. Schmidt B.C. (1997), ‘Further ahead or further behind? The debate over positivism’, Mershon International Studies Review 41(1): 107–112.
74. Schmidt B.C. (2002), ‘On the history and historiography of international relations’, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B.A. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage.
75. Sellars W. (1963), Science, Perception and Reality, New York: Humanities Press.
76. Shapin S. (1994), A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
77. Shapin S. (2008), The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
78. Shapin S., Schaffer S. (1985), Leviathan and the Air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life Princeton, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
79. Smith S. (1996), ‘Positivism and beyond’, in S. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80. Smith S. (2000), ‘Wendt's world’, Review of International Studies 26: 151–163.
81. Steinhoff G. (1986), ‘Internal realism, truth and understanding’, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 352–363.
82. van Fraassen B. (1980), The Scientific Image, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
83. van Fraassen B. (1989), Laws and Symmetry, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
84. Waltz K.N. (1979), Theory of International Politics, 1st edn., New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
85. Wendt A. (1987), ‘The agent structure problem in international relations theory’, International Organization 41(3): 335–370.
86. Wendt A. (1992), ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’, International Organization 46: 391–425.
87. Wendt A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
88. Wendt A. (2000), ‘On the via media: a response to the critics’, Review of International Studies 26: 165–180.
89. Wight C. (1996), ‘Incommensurability and cross-paradigm communication in international relations theory: “What's the frequency, Kenneth?” ’, Millennium 2(1): 291–320.
90. Wight C. (2002), ‘Philosophy of social science and international relations’, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. A. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage.
91. Wight C. (2006), Agents, Structures and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
92. Wight C. (2007), ‘A manifesto for Scientific Realism in IR: assuming the can opener won't work’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35(2): 379–398.
93. Yanow D., Schwartz-Shea P. (eds) (2006), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, Armonk, NY, USA: M.E. Sharpe.