A Reply to A.G. Hopkins

In: Review of international studies: RIS, Band 26, Heft 2, S. 321-325

Abstract

The political scientist who relies upon historiographic sources to propose and test
hypotheses runs the risk of riling up not only her peers in the discipline, but also the
historians upon whose work she must rely to provide the materials for these hypotheses.
It was intellectually satisfying and stimulating to learn that my work has been
read not only by scholars in 'my' discipline, but also by those in the discipline which
made my own analysis possible, and I am grateful for Professor Hopkins' extensive
comments. As Hopkins notes, there are differences in the orientation of the two
disciplines: political science has as one of its central concerns 'the state', while
historians are more interested 'in charting changing relativities in international
relations'. As a political scientist, I am indeed interested in identifying the factors
which lead to such changes.