ID :
93620
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 18:24
Auther :
Shortlink :
http://m.oananews.org//node/93620
The shortlink copeid
‘International relations theory is Anglo-American discipline’
TEHRAN, Dec. 7 (MNA) - Alex Weisiger, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that international relations theory is “historically an Anglo-American discipline.”
But Weisiger says the theory “has strong roots in Europe and elsewhere.”
In an e-mail interview with the Mehr News Agency, the scholar said the way international relations “is studied (e.g. which theories predominate) differs from country to country.”
“For example, while constructivism is quite prominent in Europe, it is much less so in the United States, in part because American IR has emphasized empirical (often quantitative) tests more heavily than has Europe,” he explained. “In this sense American IR is more behavioralist.”
Asked about Professor Christian Reus-Smit’s argument that great debates about international relations theories no longer exist, he said, “I would agree with the Reus-Schmidt claim, both because of this sort of geographical diversity and because the focus, at least in the U.S., has moved away from grand theories to more specific questions (e.g. when does peace after war break down, and when does it survive?).
“This I think has been a good development, but it means that grand IR theories do a less good job of encapsulating discussion. Thus, different scholars would answer a question about what the core debate in the field is differently, depending on their specific research interests.”
Alex Weisiger, Ph.D. Columbia University, 2008, studies international politics, focusing in particular on political decisions relating to the use of force. His primary research focus has been on the sources of variation in the duration and severity of interstate wars. At present he is assistant professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania.
But Weisiger says the theory “has strong roots in Europe and elsewhere.”
In an e-mail interview with the Mehr News Agency, the scholar said the way international relations “is studied (e.g. which theories predominate) differs from country to country.”
“For example, while constructivism is quite prominent in Europe, it is much less so in the United States, in part because American IR has emphasized empirical (often quantitative) tests more heavily than has Europe,” he explained. “In this sense American IR is more behavioralist.”
Asked about Professor Christian Reus-Smit’s argument that great debates about international relations theories no longer exist, he said, “I would agree with the Reus-Schmidt claim, both because of this sort of geographical diversity and because the focus, at least in the U.S., has moved away from grand theories to more specific questions (e.g. when does peace after war break down, and when does it survive?).
“This I think has been a good development, but it means that grand IR theories do a less good job of encapsulating discussion. Thus, different scholars would answer a question about what the core debate in the field is differently, depending on their specific research interests.”
Alex Weisiger, Ph.D. Columbia University, 2008, studies international politics, focusing in particular on political decisions relating to the use of force. His primary research focus has been on the sources of variation in the duration and severity of interstate wars. At present he is assistant professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania.
