IRII Course Information

1. IRII Course Information Website: http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~lorenzo/ Contact Information: Office: 271305 Phone: 2939-3091 ext. 51305 E-mail: lorenzo@nccu.edu.tw; lorenzodav@gmail.com Course Description: This is the second part of a two part course sequence in IR theory for doctoral students. It will review the spectrum of IR theory and investigate directions for various theoretical approaches. Course Objectives: To review the scope of contemporary IR theory To deepen students’ understanding of various IR theories To increase students’ awareness of debates within the IR field To increase students’ abilities to use various theoretical approaches in IR to conduct research Assignments: Readings will cover several examples of a genre of IR theory each week. Students should read as many of these examples as is practical for them to get through, but should read at least one for each seminar.

2. IR II Course Outline Papers: • A small review paper (3-4 pages) in which the student sets out the major features of a particular approach in IR theory (e.g., constructivism, Offensive Realism) along with a short critical commentary. Due by the end of the 6th week of class • A somewhat larger paper (4-5 pages) in which the student concisely and persuasively sets out the differences between two approaches in IR theory (e.g., a comparison of constructivism and Offensive Realism). Due by the end of the 12 week of class • A final term paper (13-15 pages) in which the student engages in a discussion of an approach or approaches. This could take the form of a criticism of an approach, an outline of a research project in which a particular approach would be used, or a larger scale practical comparison of approaches in which the strengths and weaknesses of approaches are assessed.

3. Term Papers These should be constructed as if they are journal articles: • Propose a question • Construct a literature review that • Reviews (summarizes) the relevant literature • Demonstrates where your question fits • Demonstrates that your findings are new • Engages in an analysis of relevant data. • Draws a conclusion

4. State of the Discipline in Ir February 19, 2013

5. “Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations?” Kratochwil: The problems of dialogue and synthesis in the discipline are those that are relevant to the attempt to engage in such endeavors among any set of different epistemic communities (i.e., the different ways of thinking about IR do not share the same intellectual bases, and each way is a self-enclosed language community)

6. Kratochwil These problems are intensified by the way in which most attempts to engage in dialogue and synthesis are carried out: by appeals to IR as a science, thus the invocation of science as the normative model. • Includes claims that any acceptable partner in dialogue must contribute to a common fund of indubitable and fundamental assertions regarding the nature of the world

7. Kratochwil Problems with science as model: • Problems of identifying the correct scientific method among many competitors that are attached to different epistemic communities: there is no “neutral” and commonly agreed-upon ground on which to stand methodologically

8. Kratochwil: • Science as an endeavor that depends upon experiments to elicit knowledge from Nature is also problematic because Nature does not speak for itself; rather, results are reflected in the language in which questions are asked. Truth is not a property of Nature, but statements about Nature, and there are multiple statements to be made about Nature.

9. Kratochwil • We cannot solve controversies through empirical methods because the answers Nature gives to our questions is not so robust and informative as to allow us always to decisively rule out any of several competing hypotheses. • Therefore have to think about dialogue and synthesis not as a process of weeding out errors, but a conversation among participants governed by procedural standards of fairness– more like legal procedure (which is now used by science agencies) rather than standard accounts of the history of science. • But also embrace notion that certain fundamental norms of good scholarship transcend boundaries

10. Moravesik Synthesis among theories is necessary because pluralism is only useful as a prelude to testing and synthetic incorporation into a unified view Requires: • Overarching common assumptions • But no need for common ontological grounds– different ways of talking about and presenting evidence is ok and party of the synthesizing process. Need only overall coherence, but not necessarily agreement on actors, motivations or understandings of rationality

11. Moravesik • But overall must be based on the goals of social science as a kind of science, thus need: • To understand cause and effect relationships • To create a set of plausible conjectures that are understood as precise, rigorous and reliable • Coherent and general forms of inquiry • Objective methodological procedures for confirming or disconfirming evidence and claims • Reject pluralism for its own sake; such a position insulates theories from empirical testing and leads to the false impression that all theories are equally supported by empirical evidence.

12. Smith No syntheis is possible because there is no single world out there to describe and explain. The very concept of synthesis assumes a baseline agreement that different methodological communities are describing some aspect of a common, external world. But if one does not accept that assumption, there is no grounds for synthesis.

13. Smith Other general problems of synthesis: • Rules for dialogue and synthesis are set by prevailing orthodoxy • Assumption that synthesis leads to better knowledge by better describing a common world is not shared by some theorists, who argue that different theories are describing different social worlds • Assumes common epistemological grounds that are not apparent • Who is included in the process is set by the dominant orthodoxy

14. Smith Problems: • Assumes that relationship between theory and practice is free of normative commitments • Rules that hold that relevant theories must relate to policies; i.e., actions of states • No way to assess research by standards outside of particular research communities. Appealing to a common neutral ground only brings in the dominance of a prevailing orthodoxy that would serve to protect orthodox methods and discredit all others. • Thus dialogue is possible, but synthesis is only a method for disciplining the discipline.

15. Snyder • US scholarly and policy communities spit among realists, liberals and idealists/constructivist. • Each contributes valuable elements for study and policy, and all check one another in ways that make for effective policymaking.

16. Lapid: Third Debate Third debate is about the end of consensus on the notion of paradigms (which had been the outcome of the second debate between the paradigm understanding of scientific inquiry and the history of science approach). Here, the challenger is post-positivist methodologies.

17. Lapid Important discussions: • Nature of reactions to the end of a consensus: • Despair: don’t engage in foundational or ontological arguments, but stick to practical work and ignore the debate • Dogmatic: appeal to authority figure (Marx, Weber) for a way out • Liberationist: celebrate diversity and pluralism • Systematic reconstruction: attempt to order and transcend diversity without re-imposing orthodoxy

18. Lapid Characteristics of post-positivism: • The unit of knowledge accumulation is all-encompassing meta-theory, which includes methodological and ontological assumptions, thus elements that are not empirically falsifiable • Focus on premises and assumptions in a critical fashion, and methodological belief that unexamined premises and assumptions and the factors that block the accumulation of knowledge • Importance and permanence of methodological pluralism, in that plural methods are necessary for us to understand plural aspects of reality and because there is no way for a consensus to be woven out of the methods or the knowledge they disclose. Thus it is pluralism and disagreement rather than consensus that accompanies and is the touchstone of real knowledge.