Suchergebnisse

This paper marks the relation between humanities education and democracyas one of mutual necessity, since the pragmatic value of each is dependent on the other to be recognizable and realizable. Such an understanding is drawn from the ideas of the American philosopher and educator John Dewey. Dewey's system clearly reveals the nature of the stakes of the assault on the humanities; it also indicates the educational measures democratic societies should take in response. By instantiating the "conjoint communicated experience" of democracy in a public, shared space in which differences are respected, human meanings are explored, and the expansion of knowledge and experience is valued as an end in itself, the humanities classroom emerges as a site of social renewal, as well as one of resistance to illiberalism. In order to present such a site in a manner befitting Dewey's pragmatism, a lesser-known, local example of the value of humanities education is examined in this paper: that of the International Institute in Spain, located in Madrid. Beginning with its founding as a school for girls by Boston missionaries in 1892, and through its role at the center of a network of institutions invested in progressive educational reform in Spain during the pre-civil war period, IIE stands as a testament to the continuity through renewal that defines both liberal democracy and humanities education.

Scholars have become increasingly aware of the benefits of multi-method research, through which the strengths of one method can offset the limits of another. Yet epistemological differences between interpretivists and researchers interested in quantitative methods and causal explanation have inhibited a potentially fruitful multi-method approach: combining discourse analysis and computer-assisted content analysis. The growing availability of digital text is creating new opportunities for combining these methods, so if scholars treat their epistemological assumptions as reconcilable and translatable epistemic wagers rather than incompatible commitments, there is much to be gained. Computer-assisted searches can quickly identify patterns in vast amounts of text and provide clues on which particular texts (and silences) merit a close reading and interpretation in context, and scholars versed in discourse analysis are adept at making such interpretations. Researchers from these two communities, who at present rarely cite one another's work, have much to learn from each other, and much to gain by working together.

Theorizing under the rubric of paradigmatic 'isms' has made important conceptual contributions to International Relations, but the organization of the subfield around these isms is based on flawed readings of the philosophy of science and has run its course. A promising alternative is to build on the philosophical foundation of scientific realism and orient International Relations theorizing around the idea of explanation via reference to hypothesized causal mechanisms. Yet in order to transform the practice of International Relations theorizing and research, calls for 'analytic eclecticism' must not only demonstrate that scientific realism is a defensible epistemology amenable to diverse methods; they must provide a structured and memorable framework for diverse and cumulative theorizing and research, field-wide discourse, and compelling pedagogy. I Introduce a 'taxonomy of theories about causal mechanisms' as a structured pluralist framework for encompassing the theories about mechanisms of power, institutions, and legitimacy that have been providing the explanatory content of the isms all along. This framework encourages middle-range or typological theorizing about combinations of causal mechanisms and their operation in recurrent contexts, and it offers a means of reinvigorating the dialogue between International Relations, the other subfields of political science, and the rest of the social sciences.

Beyond Paradigms provides a clear vision of how political science can advance by de-emphasizing paradigmatic debates and using diverse theories to develop policy-relevant research. The book makes two vital contributions. First, it draws on the philosophy of social science to diagnose the problems and costs associated with organizing political science around self-styled Kuhnian paradigms or Lakatosian research programs, such as the "isms" in the international relations sub-field: (neo)realism, (neo)liberalism, constructivism. Second, it demonstrates that an alternative way of doing business already exists, presenting numerous examples of analytically eclectic research that builds upon but goes beyond paradigmatic frameworks to produce theoretically interesting and policy-relevant results. Although the book is focused on the international relations subfield, the authors rightly note that these contributions can promote closer connections to other subfields in political science and to the social sciences more generally, including psychology, sociology, history, and economics (2010: 36).

This article assesses Alexander L. George's seminal contributions in six areas of political psychology and qualitative case study methods. These include George's work on psychological inputs in political processes, the intersection of history and political science, methods of within‐case analysis such as process tracing, the use of structured, focused case comparisons (SFCC), the development of typological theories, and the connections among theory, empirical research, teaching, and policy. The article concludes with an analysis of four ongoing dimensions of George's research agenda: the need to integrate theories on purposive, cognitive, social, and motivational dynamics of decision making; the importance of methodological safeguards against our own cognitive biases as researchers; ways of integrating qualitative, quantitative, formal, and experimental research methods; and ways of modeling and testing theories on causal complexity.

Multi-method approaches to research have generated considerable excitement in the field of political science in recent years. This is particularly true among graduate students, who are inspired by examples of excellent multi-method work by leading scholars, exhorted by their thesis committees to consider alternative approaches, and above all spurred by the apparent success on the job market of candidates whose research proves they are adept at more than one method.

A review essay on a book by Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World.