Introduction

Burchill, Scott; Linklater, Andrew

doi:10.1007/978-1-137-31136-8_1

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second is interpretivism (reflectivism or post-positivism) which seeks to understand social meanings embedded in international or global politics by questioning the social and power structures characteristic of politics among nations (Lamont, 2015: p. 19;Braemoeller & Satori, 2002: p. 144). This is despite the 'a fundamental division within the discipline' (Burchill et al, 2013;Burchill & Linklater, 2009), with an attempt to resolve the confusion arising from, but while, entrenching appreciation of IR's plurality in methodologies, its diversity in research methods (Lamont, 2015), and the principle of incommensurability (Feyerabend, 1975) and the existence of the numerous methods and methodological traditions (Lamont, 2015). This was methodologically rigorous research that met the standards of inquiry as recommended in Lamont (2015) was desired.…”

Section: O O Sanmac Et Al Open Journal Of Political Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Public Opinion on Multi-Track Diplomacy Actors’ Critical Assessment of Kenya’s Presidential Elections

Sanmac¹,

Okoth²,

Odhiambo³

2021

OJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the effects of public opinion on multi-track diplomacy election monitors' critical assessment of Kenya's presidential elections with reference to such elections held from the year 2007 to the year 2017. The study was conducted in Nairobi between July and October 2020 using questionnaires among voters, focus groups discussions and key informant interviews among state and non-state actors in the political system. It was found that it was believed by the majority of respondents that multi-track diplomacy actors that monitored Kenya's presidential elections were influenced by public opinion thereby affecting their critical assessment of the outcomes of the elections, putting the credibility of their statements, reports and verdicts insofar as their role in promoting credible elections by preventing, detecting and deterring election fraud, to question.

show abstract

Section: O O Sanmac Et Al Open Journal Of Political Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Public Opinion on Multi-Track Diplomacy Actors’ Critical Assessment of Kenya’s Presidential Elections

Sanmac¹,

Okoth²,

Odhiambo³

2021

OJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, the newly emerging specialty of international relations was home for many scholars who studied interstate relations. The field of international relations was dominated by a realist philosophy (Burchill & Linklater, 2001) that maintained sovereign states operated within an anarchical international system, with each state seeking to advance its interests through the demonstration, consolidation, and projection of power (Morgenthau & Thompson, 1985). There were, however, a few notable pieces of scholarship by psychologists in the 1940s that would likely fall within the rubric of “peace psychology” today; examples include surveys by Stagner, Brown, Gundlach, and White (1942) on public attitudes toward war and books by Cantril (1950), Klineberg (1950), and Murphy (1945).…”

Section: Contributions Of Psychology To Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

Contributions of psychology to war and peace.

Christie¹,

Montiel²

2013

American Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contributions of American psychologists to war have been substantial and responsive to changes in U.S. national security threats and interests for nearly 100 years. These contributions are identified and discussed for four periods of armed conflict: World Wars I and II, the Cold War, and the Global War on Terror. In contrast, about 50 years ago, largely in reaction to the threat of nuclear war, some psychologists in the United States and around the world broke with the tradition of supporting war and began focusing their scholarship and activism on the prevention of war and promotion of peace. Today, peace psychology is a vibrant area of psychology, with theory and practice aimed at understanding, preventing, and mitigating both episodes of organized violence and the pernicious worldwide problem of structural violence. The growth, scope, and content of peace psychology are reviewed along with contributions to policies that promote peace, social justice, and human well-being.

show abstract

“…The celebration of theoretical pluralism is accompanied by the relative absence of a serious conversation about what ‘theory’ is or could or should be. Of course, there are exceptions (Burchill and Linklater, 2013; Chernoff, 2007; Dunne et al, 2013; Jahn, 2016; Waever, 2009; Weber, 2015). However, for the most part, IR scholars seem to be happy with typologies and vague definitions of theory that do not offend anyone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deep theorizing in International Relations

Berenskötter

2017

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper starts from the observation that, at a time when the popularity of grand theory is in decline among IR scholars, they do not agree on what they mean by theory. In fact, the celebration of theoretical pluralism is accompanied by the relative absence of a serious conversation about what 'theory' is, could, or should be. Taking the view that we need such a conversation, this puts forward the notion of 'deep theorizing'. Countering both the shallow theorizing of modern scholarship that conflates theory with scientific method, and the postmodern view that abstract narratives must be deconstructed and rejected, it offers a reading of the parameters along which substantial theorizing proceeds. Specifically, it suggests that 'deep theorizing' is the conceptual effort of explaining (inter)action by developing a reading of drives/basic motivations and the ontology of its carrier through an account of the human condition, that is, a particular account of how the subject (the political actor) is positioned in social space and time. The paper illustrates the plausibility of this metatheoretical angle in a discussion of realist, liberal and postcolonial schools of thought. This article explores practices of theorizing world politics to put forward a reading of what is called 'deep theorizing'. It starts from two observations. The first is that scholars of International Relations (IR) do not agree on what they mean by 'theory'. More than three decades after James Rosenau noted that "much of the writing [in the field] suffers from loose and ambiguous conceptions of theory" (Rosenau 1980), the editors of EJIR stated "there remains no agreement on what constitutes proper theory in IR" (Dunne et al. 2013: 14; also Burchill, 2001: 8). Instead, we are presented with different kinds and types of theories attesting pluralism not only in the sense of having an ever-growing number of theories but in the very meaning of theory (Zalewski 1996; Jorgensen 2010; Dunne et al. 2013). The second observation is that the proliferation of 'theories' goes hand in hand with the perceived decline of established 'isms'. If there is a consensus among IR scholars it seems to be dismissing 'grand theory' as suitable frameworks for generating meaningful insights and conversations This is the accepted version of a forthcoming article that will be published by Sage in European

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

The Effects of Public Opinion on Multi-Track Diplomacy Actors’ Critical Assessment of Kenya’s Presidential Elections

The Effects of Public Opinion on Multi-Track Diplomacy Actors’ Critical Assessment of Kenya’s Presidential Elections

Contributions of psychology to war and peace.

Deep theorizing in International Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About