The newly revised and updated edition of International Organization is an introduction to the study of international organizations in the field of International Relations intended for students in the discipline. It looks at the different ways in which IOs are studied and then applies these different modes to a variety of specific case studies
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
I argue two things here, in response to Andrew Bennett's 'Found in Translation: Combining Discourse Analysis with Computer Assisted Content Analysis'. The first is that to speak of a single method within any given research project is misleading. All research projects are necessarily multi-method, so our conversation should be about how to mix, not whether to do so. The second is that, while methods are necessarily mixed within research projects, mixing methodologies is a much more fraught exercise, inasmuch as methodology implies an epistemology, a philosophy of science, in a way that method does not.
There is a large body of literature, both within academic International Relations and in popular discourses, about globalization and regulatory convergence, either through regulatory races to the bottom or the upwards harmonization of regulatory standards. Neither pattern is well supported by empirical findings with respect to industries that can easily move offshore in search of lower regulatory standards. Rather, global patterns of regulation in these industries tend toward dispersion rather than conversion either upward or downward. There is as yet, however, little work in the International Relations literature on how to understand these patterns of global regulatory dispersion, in which states attract offshore business by establishing differentiated regulatory niches. One of the key models of regulatory dispersion in the economics literature was developed by Charles Tiebout in the context of the provision of municipal services, but several International Relations scholars have noted that the assumptions of the model are not appropriate to international regulatory competition. This article develops a model of international regulatory heterogeneity that draws on Tiebout's, and that describes patterns of regulatory dispersion in industries that engage in international regulatory arbitrage. It explains both specific patterns of dispersion and mechanisms for increasing average regulatory levels over time.
This article suggests to quantitative methodologists that the tools that they use (and often others they do not) are more broadly applicable than is often assumed; to reflexivist researchers that there are many more tools available to their research than are often seen as appropriate; and to the IR discipline writ large that most of the disciplinary thinking about the relationships between research, ontology, epistemology, methodology and methods is unnecessarily narrow. Our core goal is to reveal the problematically inaccurate nature of both the qualitative/quantitative and the positivist/post-positivist divides, as well as of traditional methods training. We suggest that the ability to pair, and the utility of pairing, quantitative (traditionally neopositivist) methods with critical (traditionally non-neopositivist) theorising makes this intervention. To this end, the article begins with discussions of the relationships between epistemology and method in IR research. We continue on to frame a disunity of social science in the quantitative/qualitative divide, which lays the groundwork for a section rethinking traditional understandings of how methods, methodology, and epistemology relate. We then make the case for the utility of methods traditionally classified as 'quantitative' for critical research in IR. The article concludes by discussing the transformative implications of this understanding for critical theorising, and for theorising knowledge within disciplinary IR.