Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the practice of International Relations (IR) as a sub-discipline of political science. It is based on two assumptions: i) IR has witnessed an increasing theoretical diversification in the course of the real-world changes after the end of the >Cold War<; ii) this development has not only brought about new possibilities but also new challenges for the IR community. These challenges are conceived as undesired consequences of contemporary IR's action. To reconstruct them and to propose possible alternatives is the major aim of this article. Adapted from the source document.

Pragmatism is ever more popular amongst those who study international relations. Its emphasis on practice is generally acknowledged as a defining characteristic. There is, however, a general tension within pragmatist thought concerning practice, for pragmatism may emphasize the theorizing of practice. It is, then, distinguished from other theories in International Relations (IR) such as neo-realism or constructivism as a contender in their midst. We delineate a pragmatist theory of IR in the first part of this article, but insist on going beyond merely establishing the next paradigm, for pragmatism may also emphasize the practice of theorizing. Theories are, then, considered different tools useful for dealing with the social world. This will be corroborated in the second part by a close reading of William James. Finally, we submit that instead of a paradigm war, a metaphor such as that of the Papini hotel is needed in IR -- a metaphor that accounts for theory competition without neglecting the limitations set by the practice of theorizing itself. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd. & ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research.]

Pragmatism is ever more popular amongst those who study international relations. Its emphasis on practice is generally acknowledged as a defining characteristic. There is, however, a general tension within pragmatist thought concerning practice, for pragmatism may emphasize the theorizing of practice. It is, then, distinguished from other theories in International Relations (IR) such as neo-realism or constructivism as a contender in their midst. We delineate a pragmatist theory of IR in the first part of this article, but insist on going beyond merely establishing the next paradigm, for pragmatism may also emphasize the practice of theorizing. Theories are, then, considered different tools useful for dealing with the social world. This will be corroborated in the second part by a close reading of William James. Finally, we submit that instead of a paradigm war, a metaphor such as that of the Papini hotel is needed in IR — a metaphor that accounts for theory competition without neglecting the limitations set by the practice of theorizing itself.

AbstractThe following article refers to the current debate about state personhood opened by Wendt's claim for a treatment of states as real persons in order to prevent the reductionist argument that states only are treated 'as if' they were persons. By understanding phenomena like states consistently as structures – as 'structures of corporate practice' – we argue that there is a possibility to escape from the situation dually framed by Wendt. This alternative is constituted by a tripartite pragmatist ontological model that consists of actors, structures of corporate practice, and processes. After having presented our view of the debate and its central problems in a first step, we will set forth our model and its implications for the study of international relations in a second and third step.

The authors show that Rusche & others mislead their readers by using a sketch of a "decision matrix". Their approach is based on the aspect that the contents of "national interests' are already known. The authors remind the reader that the preamble of the German Basic Law carries a different interpretation of national interest than the one portrayed by Rusche & others as orientation on national welfare. E. Sanchez

Die rekonstruktiv verfahrende Sozialforschung zeichnet sich gegenüber subsumtionslogischer Forschung vor allem dadurch aus, dass ein Untersuchungsgegenstand nicht unter vorab entwickelten Kategorien subsumiert, sondern aus einer ergebnisoffenen Grundhaltung heraus erschlossen werden soll. Im Zentrum des Beitrags stehen die Konsequenzen eines solchen Ansatzes für die konkrete Forschungspraxis. Anhand der objektiven Hermeneutik und der Grounded Theory werden zwei rekonstruktionslogische Forschungsansätze vorgestellt, die zwar in fachfremden Kontexten entstanden sind, jedoch problemlos dazu eingesetzt werden können, um das Spektrum der Vorgehensweisen in der politikwissenschaftlichen Teildisziplin der Internationalen Beziehungen zu erweitern. Im ersten Teil geht der Beitrag auf den Entstehungskontext, die Prämissen und die Verfahrensweisen der objektiven Hermeneutik ein und geht auf die Erfordernisse einer Anwendung der objektiven Hermeneutik auf die Gegenstände der Internationalen Beziehungen ein. Im zweiten Teil beschreibt der Beitrag Methodologie und Methode der Grounded Theory. (ICB2)