Suchergebnisse

This article explores the concept of diaspora in relation to constructivism within IR theory. It begins by investigating the origins, definition and implications of the phenomenon of diaspora, before focusing on issues concerning identity interpenetration and multiple loyalties. Consequently, the article outlines diaspora's relationship to constructivism, particularly in terms of identity formation and the self/other dyad, as well as in the analysis of culture and transnational norms, and concludes by examining the challenges and possibilities diaspora poses for constructivist IR theory. Acting as both commentary and conjecture, this article serves as a conceptual overview of diaspora, while arousing intellectual concern for what will be a dominant issue of emerging identity politics in the twenty-first century. Adapted from the source document.

This article explores the concept of diaspora in relation to constructivism within IR theory. It begins by investigating the origins, definition and implications of the phenomenon of diaspora, before focusing on issues concerning identity interpenetration and multiple loyalties. Consequently, the article outlines diaspora's relationship to constructivism, particularly in terms of identity formation and the self/other dyad, as well as in the analysis of culture and transnational norms, and concludes by examining the challenges and possibilities diaspora poses for constructivist IR theory. Acting as both commentary and conjecture, this article serves as a conceptual overview of diaspora, while arousing intellectual concern for what will be a dominant issue of emerging identity politics in the twenty-first century.

If evaluators do not borrow from the natural and social sciences for their methods, what do their enquiries look like? Many who seek to answer that question pursue naturalistic or case study or qualitative approaches, conceived of as a reaction to scientism to produce a more faithful response to the social and political nature of the world being evaluated. Among those approaches is constructivism, familiar in the philosophy of science, science education and psychology. This is a general critique of science for its failure to acknowledge that theories and realities are not 'out there' waiting to be discovered or uncovered, but are constructed in the minds of individuals or in the discourses of groups. This article looks critically at constructivism as it has appeared in the field of evaluation and presents it as an overreaction to the problems of objective reality.

Abstract
In these comments, I share some remarks concerning two main points lying at the core of Gava's book Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and the Method of Metaphysics: Gava's reconstruction and account of a transcendental deduction, its relation to a metaphysical deduction, and more specifically his reading of the B-Deduction. I will discuss Gava's arguments in order to highlight the key tenets of his interpretation and raise questions related to (1) the meaning and scope of the notion of 'transcendental'; and (2) the commitment to – and the extent of – what we might call 'cognitive constructivism'.

How do we understand the relationship between 'national security' and a global capitalist economy? I argue in this article that liberal constructivist scholars have tended to ignore the constitutive effects of the global economy in the process of distancing themselves from 'materialist ontologies' and 'rationalist epistemologies'. I contend that an important aspect of state identities is that they are dynamic and are historically constituted in and through a relationship to global capital. Only by paying close attention to this fluctuating terrain, can one make sense of the security practices of nation-states. In the latter half of the article, I illustrate my argument with an analysis of the Indian nuclear tests of 1998.