Suchergebnisse

Social actions can be formulated in the frame of game theory or in a frame using,
and foccussing on, the notion of power. The two frames are described and clarified. The
comparison of theories from these two branches are evaluated from the point of theory of science.

World-systems theory is analyzed in the context of general systems theory, outlining some basic concepts of the latter that are of particular relevance to the former. Particular attention is devoted to the notion of dissipative structures, borrowed from physical chemistry, which extended Newtonian mechanics to the study of open systems, ie, those that exchanged matter & energy with their environments. The characteristics of the world system as a dissipative structure are discussed, & contributions of the theory of dissipative structures to world-systems analysis are identified. 54 References. K. Hyatt Stewart

Considers how game theory fits into ongoing international relations theory development, particularly that branch addressing international politics via the strategic logic of spare stylizations of the international system centered on Hobbesian state of nature. At issue are what game theory offers international relations theory, the extent to which game theory's capacities are needed, & the impacts on international relations theory of adopting a more game theoretic approach. Game theory is viewed as providing a formal method of analyzing strategic interactions; advantages in the formalization concomitant with such analysis are described. After detailing the general properties of research methods & some advantages available with game theory, debates dominating international relations theory are delineated, demonstrating that much of the dialogue is rooted in weakly or poorly specified linkages among actor preferences, the strategic setting in which the actors pursue their goals, & the outcomes. Consequences of adopting a more formal approach to international relations are scrutinized in conclusion. 2 Figures. J. Zendejas

"Social actions can be formulated in the frame of game theory or in a frame using, and foccussing on, the notion of power. The two frames are described and clarified. The comparison of theories from these two branches are evaluated from the point of theory of science." (author's abstract)

Grounded Theory (GT), which Anselm Strauss refers to here in an interview decades later, is one of the most successful methods ever developed and has added a more qualitative note to social research. This is, however, not a result of the c1arity and simplicity of this method established by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss but is rather due to the fact that it counteracts the common prejudice, which is to some extent entertained in science, that theories quasi emerge by themselves from the data (without any previous theoretical input). According to this belief, one only has to evoke the theory inherent in the data by means of suitable methods, the theory would then become apparent without the active actions of scientists. The theories are thus believed to emerge slowly in a process of gradual abstraction from the data. Therefore, one of the most famous quotations from The Discovery of Grounded Theory is the following: 'Clearly, a grounded theory that is faithful to the everyday realities of the substantive area is one that has been carefully induced from the data' (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 239). The incorrectness of such an inductive procedure has already been proven by Popper in general and with respect to GT, by Kelle (1994,2005) and by Strübing (2004: Chapter 27) in particular. Many users of GT therefore regard this approach as an inductive method and are of the opinion, that the approach signals a return to simple "Baconian" inductivism' (Haig, 1995: 2). Representative for many others, here is an example from Qualitative Research in Sociology: Grounded Theory 'is known as an inductive or ground-up approach to data analysis' (Marvasti, 2004: 84). At first the two founders of GT shared this view: 'From its beginnings the methodology of Grounded Theory has suffered from an inductivist self misunderstanding" entailed by some parts of the Discovery book. Although this inductivism plays a limited role in research work of many Grounded Theory studies (including those of the founding fathers) it has often lead to confusion especially among novices who draw their basic methodological knowledge from text books (Kelle 2005: Chapter 24).

Frustration-aggression theory, also known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis, is one of the most seminal theories in aggression research. Since it was first formulated in the late 1930s, it has been applied and studied in many fields, including psychology, ethnology, sociology, and criminology. While there have been several reformulations, additions, and changes, the basic assumption of the frustration-aggression hypothesis is still that frustration, typically understood as an event instead of an emotion, increases the tendency to act or react aggressively. A substantial proportion of the research has dealt with the identification of boundary conditions or moderators and mediators of the causal path from frustration to aggression. Irrespective of these refinements and modifications, there is ample empirical evidence for the existence of this effect and, despite a decline in the overall number of publications that refer to it, frustration-aggression theory has recently found novel applications in particular areas, such as media psychology.

Critical objections to Michel Foucault's genealogical method are oriented toward his supposed Nietzscheanism, by which is meant his creation of a theoretical system in which definite directions for resistance or change are absent. It is shown that Foucault viewed his method as in line with Immanuel Kant's ethical prescription that philosophy remain attentive to how political rationality may exceed its bounds. In this sense, his genealogical method has much in common with the critical theory of the Frankfurt school in that it too is dedicated to a form of internal critique of reason. While it is true that Foucault's method renounces the search for certainty to embrace contingent truths, it may still be directed at unmasking substantive injustices & imagining more just ways of living. Thus, the genealogical method views politics & philosophy as mutually reinforcing activities that allow people to see how they could want to be different from how they presently are. D. Ryfe

Following an overview of James Heckman's (2000) article on the state of econometrics to shed light on the role of statistics in political science, efforts to link theory & data in formal empirical research are scrutinized. The empirical content of formal models is described, using the example of political outcomes in a democracy to illustrate the simultaneous equations model. Why contemporary theorists see such a model as inadequate is addressed, along with how they are moving beyond them. In addition, why they view such empirical work as unsatisfactory is considered as well as how they are pursuing stronger theory-data links. However, benefits of inadequate models for structuring empirical work are noted. Attention turns to a series of thumbnail sketches of examples from microinstitutionalist theory & austere political theory with simultaneous equations modeling & structural estimation; examples come from US politics, comparative politics, international relations, & international political economy. Four standards guide a look at the substantive contributions of formal empirical work: (1) understanding political phenomena & solving empirical puzzles, (2) advancing rich theory & stimulating new theory, (3) rejecting theory, & (4) improving public policy. Advances in the study of voter turnout are seen to demonstrate the utility of formal empirical work. A call is made for more & improved research of this kind. 3 Figures. J. Zendejas

An overview of the emergence of the nation-state determines that the bases for intervention were rooted in the multicultural heritage of every nation-state & that, unless there was a security or economic threat, indifference was registered to the actions of other states. Thus, considered is the significance of the nation-state in determining when to intervene, particularly in the context of globalization. The weakness of states is examined to underpin the assertion that global consensus regarding responses to complex emergencies is really more myth than reality. In this light, whether the UN ought to evolve into a true form of global governance is pondered, concluding that the state, weaker though it may be, remains the major political institution mediating between local cultures & the emerging global civilization. Attention turns to the bifurcation points (vs turning points) in conflicts, contending that they are the most significant point of intervention. After noting the theoretical conflicts at play, the huge gap between theory & actual foreign policy is examined, focusing on Rwanda. In conclusion, the humanitarian intervention implemented in Zaire is scrutinized, finding that proponents of intervention were in such conflict that the chance for founding an intervention on norms & rules & for utilizing the crisis to express a consistent rational was forfeit. A call is made to articulate the rules for justifying intervention. J. Zendejas

Contends that political engagement has always been a troubled issue for Critical Theorists. Early theorists like Horkheimer & Adorno avoided politics because the situation at the time made any attempt at political action futile. However, it is argued that they should not be dismissed as having no politics since Critical Theory consistently expressed an interest in freeing humanity from injustice. Although much of Herbert Marcuse's work represents engaged withdrawal, it inspired the activism of the New Left & student movements of the 1960s. Attempts by Jurgen Habermas to correct the immobility of the early theorists & claims that he avoids politics are addressed, along with the work of third generation Critical Theorists, especially Axel Honneth's variant of Critical Theory; Nancy Fraser's challenge of Honneth's theory of recognition; & Seyla Benhabib's attempt to untangle problematic issues raised by theories of recognition. It is concluded that current theorists are caught in the same bind as the first & second generation & that Critical Theory will always be frustratingly limited by the democratic will. J. Lindroth