International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wagers to scientific ontologies

European Journal of International Relations

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 543-565

  Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus ^a   Nexon, Daniel H ^b  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

choice theoretical; experience near; great debates; International Relations theory; paradigms; scientific ontology; social relational

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883636669     PISSN: 13540661     EISSN: 14603713     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1354066113495482     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. International Practices. Adler EPouliot V, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011:.
2. Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR. Adler-Nissen R, ed. London: Routledge; 2013:.
3. Alker HR.The long road to International Relations theory: Problems of statistical nonadditivity.World Politics. 1966;18 (4): 623-655.
4. Analytic Narratives. Bates RHGreif ARosenthal JL, ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1998:.
5. Millennium. Bially Mattern J, ed. 2005:583-612.
6. Bigo D.Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of practices, practices of power.International Political Sociology. 2012;5 (3): 225-258.
7. Bukovansky MLegitimacy and Power Politics: The American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture. 2002) Legitimacy and Power Politics: The American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture. Emended edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2002:.
8. Carpenter RC.Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks.International Organization. 2007;51 (1): 99-120.
9. Carpenter RC.Vetting the advocacy agenda: Network centrality and the paradox of weapons norms.International Organization. 2011;65 (1): 69-102.
10. Clarke KA,Primo DM.Modernizing political science: A model-based approach.Perspectives on Politics. 2007;5 (4): 741-753.
11. Crane-Seeber J.Everyday counterinsurgency.International Political Sociology. 2011;5 (4): 450-453.
12. Duffield JS.Political culture and state behavior: Why Germany confounds neorealism.International Organization. 1999;53 (4): 765-803.
13. Easton DThe Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 1953:.
14. Elman C,Elman M.How not to be Lakatos intolerant: Appraising progress in IR research.International Studies Quarterly. 2002;46 (2): 231-262.
15. Enloe C.The mundane matters.International Political Sociology. 2011;5 (4): 447-450.
16. Epstein CThe Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2008:.
17. Farrell H,Newman A.Domestic institutions beyond the nation state: Charting the new interdependence approach.World Politics. 2014;65 (2):.
18. Finnemore MThe Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 2004:.
19. Finnemore M,Sikkink K.International norm dynamics and political change.International Organization. 1998;52 (4): 887-917.
20. Gammon E,Reid J.Whither Deleuze and Guattari: A critical introduction.Journal of International Relations and Development. 2010;13 (4): 323-324.
21. Geertz CThe Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books; 1973:.
22. Giddens AThe Constitution of Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1984:.
23. Go J.Global fields and imperial forms: Field theory and the British and American empires.Sociological Theory. 2008;26 (3): 201-227.
24. Goddard SE.Uncommon ground: Indivisible territory and the politics of legitimation.International Organization. 2006;60 (1): 35-68.
25. Goddard SE.Brokering change: Networks and entrepreneurs in international politics.International Theory. 2009;1 (2): 249-281.
26. Goddard SE,Nexon D.Paradigm lost? Reassessing theory of international politics.European Journal of International Relations. 2005;11 (1): 9-61.
27. GoemansH (2012) Comment. The Duck of Minerva. Available at: http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2012/03/professionalization-and-poverty-of-ir.html#comment-478958169 (accessed 2 July 2012).
28. Guillaume X.The international as an everyday practice.International Political Sociology. 2011;5 (4): 446.
29. The Return of Geopolitics in Europe? Social Mechanisms and Foreign Policy Identity Crises. Guzzini S, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012:.
30. Hacking IThe Social Construction of What?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999:.
31. Hafner-Burton E,Kahler M,Montgomery AH.Network Analysis for International Relations.International Organization. 2009;63 (03): 559-92.
32. Hafner-Burton E,Montgomery AH.Power positions: International organizations, social networks, and conflict.Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2006;50 (1): 3-27.
33. Hellmann G.Pragmatism and International Relations.International Studies Review. 2009;11 (3): 638-662.
34. Hobson JM,Sharman JC.The enduring place of hierarchy in world politics: Tracing the social logics of hierarchy and political change.European Journal of International Relations. 2005;11 (1): 63-98.
35. Hoffmann S.An American social science: International Relations.Daedalus. 1977;106 (3): 41-60.
36. Hopf T.The logic of habit in International Relations.European Journal of International Relations. 2010;16 (4): 539-561.
37. Jackson PTThe Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London: Routledge; 2011:.
38. Jackson PT,Nexon D.Relations before states: Substance, process, and the study of world politics.European Journal of International Relations. 1999;5 (3): 291-332.
39. Jackson PT,Nexon D.Paradigmatic faults in International-Relations theory.International Studies Quarterly. 2009;53 (4): 907-940.
40. Joseph J.Hegemony and the structure-agency problem in International Relations: A scientific realist contribution.Review of International Studies. 2008;34 (1): 109-128.
41. Kratochwil F.History, action and identity: Revisiting the 'second' great debate and assessing its importance for social theory.European Journal of International Relations. 2006;12 (1): 5-29.
42. Kristensen PMA Not So American Social Science - Alternative Cartographies of International Relations. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen; 2012:.
43. Kroeber AL,Parsons T.The concepts of culture and of social system.American Sociological Review. 1958;23 (5): 582-583.
44. Lakatos ICriticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Lakatos IMusgrave A, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1978:91-195.
45. Lake DAHierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 2009a:.
46. Lake DA.Open economy politics: A critical review.Review of International Organizations. 2009b;4:219-244.
47. Lake DA.Why 'isms' are evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress.International Studies Quarterly. 2011;55:465-480.
48. Lapid J.The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era.International Studies Quarterly. 1989;33 (3): 235-254.
49. Leander A.The promises, problems, and potentials of a Bourdieu-inspired staging of International Relations.International Political Sociology. 2012;5 (3): 294-313.
50. Legro JWRethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 2007:.
51. Lynch CBeyond Appeasement: Interpreting Interwar Peace Movements in World Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1999:.
52. McNamara KR.Of intellectual monocultures and the study of IPE.Review of International Political Economy. 2009;16 (1): 72-84.
53. MaliniakDOakesAPetersonS. (2007) TRIP Around the World: Teaching, Research, and Policy Views of International Relations Faculty in 20 Countries. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary. Available at http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/trip/trip_around_the_world_2011.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.
54. March JG,Olsen JP.The institutional dynamics of international political orders.International Organization. 1998;52 (3): 943-969.
55. Mercer J.Emotion and strategy in the Korean War.International Organization. 2013;67 (2): 221-252.
56. Montgomery AH.Proliferation determinism or pragmatism? How to dismantle an atomic bomb network.International Security. 2005;30 (2): 153-187.
57. Moon DHandbook of Political Science. Greenstein FPolsby N, ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975:131-228.
58. Murdie A.The ties that bind: A network analysis of human rights INGOs.British Journal of Political Science. forthcoming;:.
59. Nau HR.No alternative to 'isms'.International Studies Quarterly. 2011;55:487-491.
60. Neumann IBAt Home with the Diplomats: Inside a European Foreign Ministry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 2012:.
61. Nexon DThe Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009:.
62. Nexon D,Wright T.What's at stake in the American empire debate.American Political Science Review. 2007;101 (2): 253-271.
63. Oatley T.The reductionist gamble: Open economy politics in the global economy.International Organization. 2011;65:311-341.
64. Oatley T,Winecoff W,Pennock A, et al.The political economy of global finance: A network model.Perspectives on Politics. 2013;11 (1): 133-153.
65. Passoth J,Rowland N.Actor-network state: Integrating actor-network theory and state theory.International Sociology. 2010;25 (6): 818-841.
66. Patomäki H,Wight C.After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism.International Studies Quarterly. 2000;44 (2): 213-237.
67. Pouliot VInternational Security in Practice: The Politics of Nato-Russia Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010:.
68. Pouliot V.Diplomats as permanent representatives: The practical logic of the multilateral pecking order.International Journal. 2011;66 (3): 543-561.
69. Price R,Reus-Smit C.Dangerous liaisons? Critical international theory and constructivism.European Journal of International Relations. 1998;4 (3): 259-294.
70. Price R,Tannenwald NThe Culture of National Security. Katzenstein PJ, ed. New York: Columbia University Press; 1996:114-152.
71. Rancatore JP.It is strange: A reply to Vrasti.Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 2010;39 (1): 65-77.
72. RathbunBC (2011) Papa don't preach: Rationalism is an ism. The Duck of Minerva. Available at: http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2011/06/papa-dont-preach-rationalism-is-ism.html (last updated: 16 June 2011. Accessed 2 July 2012).
73. Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. Schatz E, ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2009:.
74. Schmidt BCThe Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1998:.
75. Sending OJ.Constitution, choice and change: problems with the 'logic of appropriateness' and its use in constructivist theory.European Journal of International Relations. 2002;8 (4): 443-470.
76. Sil R,Katzenstein PJ.Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions.Perspectives on Politics. 2010;8 (2): 411-431.
77. Steinmo SApproaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Della Porta DKeating M, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008:113-138.
78. Sterling-Folker JTheories of International Cooperation and the Primacy of Anarchy: Explaining US International Monetary Policy-Making after Bretton Woods. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 2002:.
79. Stroschein SEthnic Struggle, Coexistence, and Democratization in Eastern Europe. 2012) Ethnic Struggle, Coexistence, and Democratization in Eastern Europe, 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012:.
80. Thies CG.Progress, history and identity in International Relations theory: The case of the idealist-realist debate.European Journal of International Relations. 2002;8 (2): 147-185.
81. Tilly CState/Culture: State Formation after the Cultural Turn. Steinmetz G, ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1999:407-419.
82. Tilly CStories, Identities, and Political Change. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield; 2002:.
83. Vasquez JAThe Power of Power Politics: From Realism to Neotraditionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998:.
84. Vrasti W.The strange case of ethnography and International Relations.Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 2008;37 (2): 279-301.
85. Wæver O.The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations.International Organization. 1998a;52 (4): 687-727.
86. Wæver OSecurity Communities. Adler EBarnett M, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998b:69-118.
87. Wendt ASocial Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999:.
88. Wendt A,Fearon JHandbook of International Relations. Calrsnaes WRisse TSimmons B, ed. London: Sage; 2002:52-72.
89. Wight C.Incommensurability and cross-paradigm communication in International Relations theory: 'What's the frequency Kenneth?'.Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 1996;25 (2): 291-319.
90. Wight CAgents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006:.
91. Interpretation and Method. Yanow DSchwartz-Shea P, ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe; 2006:.