Suchergebnisse

Darstellung und Beschreibung der wichtigsten nicht-staatlichen Forschungseinrichtungen; Charakterisierung der Beziehungen der Forscher zu den Politikern und umgekehrt; seit 1977 weniger Einfluß der Wissenschaft auf die Politik; periodische Veröffentlichungen der einzelnen Forschungsstätten. (DÜI-Seu)

Political scientists are increasingly integrating wargames into their research. Either by fielding original games or by leveraging archival wargame materials, researchers can study rare events or topics where evidence is difficult to observe. However, scholars have little guidance on how to apply this novel methodological approach to political science research. This article evaluates how political scientists can use wargames as a method of scholarly inquiry and sets out to establish a research agenda for wargaming in International Relations. We first differentiate wargames from other methodological approaches and highlight their ecological validity. We then chart out how researchers can build and run their own games or draw from archival wargames for theory development and testing. In doing so, we explain how researchers can navigate issues of recruitment, bias, validity, and generalizability when using wargames for research, and identify ways to evaluate the potential benefits and pitfalls of wargames as a tool of inquiry. We argue that wargames offer unique opportunities for political scientists to study decision-making processes both in and beyond the International Relations subfield.

Political scientists are increasingly integrating wargames into their research. Either by fielding original games or by leveraging archival wargame materials, researchers can study rare events or topics where evidence is difficult to observe. However, scholars have little guidance on how to apply this novel methodological approach to political science research. This article evaluates how political scientists can use wargames as a method of scholarly inquiry and sets out to establish a research agenda for wargaming in International Relations. We first differentiate wargames from other methodological approaches and highlight their ecological validity. We then chart out how researchers can build and run their own games or draw from archival wargames for theory development and testing. In doing so, we explain how researchers can navigate issues of recruitment, bias, validity, and generalizability when using wargames for research, and identify ways to evaluate the potential benefits and pitfalls of wargames as a tool of inquiry. We argue that wargames offer unique opportunities for political scientists to study decision-making processes both in and beyond the International Relations subfield.

A review essay on books by (1) Christopher Clapham, Africa and the International System: The Politics of State Survival (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U Press, 1996); (2) Kevin Dunn & Timothy Shaw (Eds), Africa's Challenge to International Relations Theory (New York: Palgrave, 2001); (3) Pierre Englebert, State Legitimacy and Development in Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000); & (4) Gilbert Khadiagala & Terrence Lyons (Eds), African Foreign Policies: Power and Process (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner). Unquestioned assumptions of universal patterns coupled with unwillingness to conceive of political entities existing at different levels of empirical statehood render international relations research poorly equipped to understand Africa's international relations. Consequently, Africa is effectively missing from prevailing international relations theorizing & data set construction. After discussing specific ways Africa is omitted from standard international relations research, the author reviews four recent volumes describing Africa's international relations for clues about how to close the gap between Africa's experiences & prevailing research practice. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

What is today in the United States conventionally known as international relations is a subject different in content and emphasis from its counterpart of even two decades ago. Much of what seemed important in 1929 seems irrelevant, and some of it even trivial, in 1949. Another twenty years may perhaps bring a similar judgment on work now being done. But we ought at least to be aware of the direction in which we have been moving if we are to control the future development of the field.In 1930 the following statement passed unchallenged in a discussion among some of Ameria's leading social scientists: "The emotional drive is so highly developed in the kind of person who goes into the international relations field that it often leads to unclear thinking." The implication that no one without this drive could conceivably be persuaded to enter the field is a commentary on the disesteem with which international relations research was then regarded.