Transcript How to write a scientific study? Nine guidelines for students

International Relations
Grand Debates
University of Helsinki, Department of Political
Science, Fall 2003
Christer Pursiainen
For downloading the Power Point
presentation, go to:
www.kolumbus.fi/christer.pursiainen
 teaching
Contents
Development of the Discipline
2. Idealism vs. Realism
3. Traditionalism vs. Scientism
Realism vs. Liberalism vs. Marxism
Neorealism vs. Institutionalism vs.
Constructivism
1.
4.
5.
1. Development of the Discipline
Economics
Strategy
History
Thucydides
Philosophy
Aquinas
International Law
16th
17th
Machiavelli
Grotius
18th Smith
19th
Marx
Clausewitz
Rousseau Kant
20th
Imperialism theories
History of Diplomacy
Geography
Geopolitics
WWI
The birth of the discipline
1920-30s
IDEALISM
WWII
REALISM
Traditionalism
First Debate
1950s
Functionalism
Natural sciences
SCIENTISM (Behavioralism, FPA)
Second Debate
1960s
Peace research
Realism revisited
Third Debate
1970s
Dependency (Marxism) NEOREALISM
LIBERALISM
1980s
Critical theory
Rationalism
INSTITUTIONALISM
Humanities Feminism
Fourth debate
1990s
Postmodernism
CONSTRUCTIVISM
2000s
Postructuralism
Developed Game theory
Fifth Debate?
2. Idealism vs. Realism
IDEALISM:
 WWI  How to avoid major wars
 peaceful changes instead of changes
through war
 international law
 League of Nations
2. Idealism vs. Realism
REALISM:
international relations should not be studied
on the basis how they should be but how
they are
 politics is governed by objective laws
 the roots of those laws lie in the human
nature
 the laws are objective because human
nature does not change in the course of
times

2. Idealism vs. Realism
REALISM:
 we can distinguish between the ’economic
person’, the ’religious person’, the ’moral
person’, the ’political person’ etc.
 in order to understand politics, we must
study only the ’political person’
 we should study the political actions of a
statesman (as a synonym of a state)
2. Idealism vs. Realism
REALISM:
the theory of political realism is based on
the idea of a rational actor
 we should compare the real events to this
ideal, normative picture

2. Idealism vs. Realism
REALISM:
the behaviour of a political person in social
context is based on power
 maintenance of power; strengthening of
power; demonstration of power

2. Idealism vs. Realism
REALISM:
 power does not mean only physical or
military power, but refers to all kind of
control over the minds and actions of other
individuals
 power is important, because whatever
interests or goals we have, in order to
achieve them in politics this brings the
desire to control the actions of others
3. Traditionalism vs. Scientism
TRADITIONALISM:
 Realism, historical approaches etc.
 understanding politics requires historically
based wisdom rather than data-based
models or mechanistic theories
3. Traditionalism vs. Scientism
SCIENTISM (Behavioralism):
 ”Scientific Study of international relations”
 no a priori theories
 hypothesesobservable data
regularities/correlations theory/model
 graphic or mathematic models
 Foreign Policy Analysis (foreign policy
models)
4. Realism vs. Liberalism vs.
Marxism
REALISM slightly revisited:
 more ”scientific” methods, models,
classifications
 state as an actor, less focus on ’human
nature’
 realism as a theory of balance of power
4. Realism vs. Liberalism vs.
Marxism
LIBERALISM:
 ”complex interdependece”:
 a) societies are connected not only by
interstate relations but transgovernmental
and transnational relations as well
4. Realism vs. Liberalism vs.
Marxism
LIBERALISM:
 b) there is no hierarchy between issue areas,
i.e., military security does not dominate
other issues
 c) where complex interdependence prevails,
military power is ineffective and irrelevant
to resolve disagreements
 d) international organisations important in
setting the agenda and inducing coalition
formation
4. Realism vs. Liberalism vs.
Marxism
MARXISM:
 theories of imperialism
 dependency theories
 world system theories; centre-periphery
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
NEOREALISM:
 objective environment: anarchic
structure of international system 
competitive security system
 states behave rationally according to
their national interests, since those who
do not will not survive
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
NEOREALISM:
 zero-sum  states are calculating
relative gaines
 ’self-help’ system: cooperation
difficult/superficial/temporary
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
NEOREALISM:
 security dilemma is always present:
 a) the unintended decrease in the security of
others when one state increases its own
security
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
NEOREALISM:
 b) the uncertainty of present or future
intentions of other states
 c) a state feels insecure if it does not
act and insecure if it does
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
NEOREALISM:
 security dilemma is regulated by balanceof-power politics
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
INSTITUTIONALISM:
 Subjective environment: individual security
system
 international institutions can change states’
cost-benefit calculations
 institutions can help states to overcome
some relative gain problems and therefore
states are calculating also absolute gains
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
INSTITUTIONALISM:
 though we may not completely remove the
security dilemma, it can be mitigated by
creating interdependence and common
security regimes, norms and rules, creating
reciprocal relations and positive
expectations of each other’s behaviour
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
CONSTRUCTIVISM:
 intersubjective environment: cooperative
security community possible
 agency and structure are interrelated:
”anarchy is what states make of it”
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
CONSTRUCTIVISM:
 the security dilemma is often regulated and
sometimes mitigated but it can also be
resolved through changes in identities and
threat perceptions
5. Neorealism vs. Institutionalism
vs. Constructivism
Self-understanding of the theories
NR
-only most important things,
like the law of gravity does
not explaing the path
minimalistic theory
-explains of a leaf in wind
I
-explains the same as
NR + more
C
-explains the same as
NR + I + more
1. Development of the Discipline
Economics
Strategy
History
Thucydides
Philosophy
Aquinas
International Law
16th
17th
Machiavelli
Grotius
18th Smith
19th
Marx
Clausewitz
Rousseau Kant
20th
Imperialism theories
History of Diplomacy
Geography
Geopolitics
WWI
The birth of the discipline
1920-30s
IDEALISM
WWII
REALISM
Traditionalism
First Debate
1950s
Functionalism
Natural sciences
SCIENTISM (Behavioralism, FPA)
Second Debate
1960s
Peace research
Realism revisited
Third Debate
1970s
Dependency (Marxism) NEOREALISM
LIBERALISM
1980s
Critical theory Rationalism
INSTITUTIONALISM
Humanities Feminism
Fourth debate
1990s
Postmodernism
CONSTRUCTIVISM
2000s
Fifth Debate?
Developed Game Theory
1. Development of the Discipline
Economics
Strategy
History
Thucydides
Philosophy
Aquinas
International Law
16th
17th
Machiavelli
Grotius
18th Smith
19th
Marx
Clausewitz
Rousseau Kant
20th
Imperialism theories
History of Diplomacy
Geography
Geopolitics
WWI
The birth of the discipline
1920-30s
IDEALISM
WWII
REALISM
Traditionalism
First Debate
1950s
Functionalism
Natural sciences
SCIENTISM (Behavioralism, FPA)
Second Debate
1960s
Peace research
Realism revisited
Third Debate
1970s
Dependency (Marxism) NEOREALISM
LIBERALISM
1980s
Critical theory
Rationalism
INSTITUTIONALISM
Humanities Feminism
Fourth debate
1990s
Postmodernism
CONSTRUCTIVISM
2000s
Postructuralism
Developed Game theory
Fifth Debate?
International Relations
Grand Debates
University of Helsinki, Department of Political
Science, Fall 2003
Christer Pursiainen
For downloading the Power Point
presentation, go to:
www.kolumbus.fi/christer.pursiainen
 teaching