The heuristic application of explanatory theories in International Relations

Humphreys, Adam

doi:10.1177/1354066109344008

Cited by 27 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, each theory functions as a heuristic resource: it helps to delineate particular problems or questions, provides a conceptual vocabulary with which to investigate specific instances of those problems, and orients the resulting inquiry towards certain mechanisms, actors, and background conditions (see Humphreys 2011). In the absence of causal generalizations, it is the choice of subject matter and of conceptual vocabulary that carries much of the explanatory weight.…”

Section: Theory As a Heuristic Resourcementioning

confidence: 99%

What Should We Expect of a Liberal Explanatory Theory?

Humphreys¹

2012

Journal of International Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most problematic aspects of the 'Harvard School' of liberal international theory is its failure to fulfil its own methodological ideals. Although Harvard School liberals subscribe to a nomothetic model of explanation, in practice they employ their theories as heuristic resources. Given this practice, we should expect them neither to develop candidate causal generalizations nor to be value-neutral: their explanatory insights are underpinned by valueladen choices about which questions to address and what concepts to employ. A key question for liberal theorists, therefore, is how a theory may be simultaneously explanatory and value-oriented. The difficulties inherent in resolving this problem are manifested in Ikenberry's writing: whilst his work on constitutionalism in international politics partially fulfils the requirements of a more satisfactory liberal explanatory theory, his recent attempts to develop prescriptions for US foreign policy reproduce, in a new form, key failings of Harvard School realism.In 1995, David Long called for the closure of what he termed the 'Harvard School of Liberal International Theory'. He coined this term to denote efforts by scholars such as Robert Keohane and Andrew Moravcsik, then based at Harvard, to develop a liberal theory that would subsume or supersede (neo)realism. 1 Long (1995: 489-91, 501) welcomed attempts to 'frame liberalism' as an 'explanatory theory', but criticized Harvard School liberals for borrowing 'a number of normative, ontological, and methodological premises' from realism. He argued that this stifled the prospects for a renewal of liberalism's

show abstract

Section: Theory As a Heuristic Resourcementioning

confidence: 99%

What Should We Expect of a Liberal Explanatory Theory?

Humphreys¹

2012

Journal of International Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus we often call theory a 'framework'. While some are satisfied with the heuristic function and relegate the discovery of causes to empirical research (Humphreys 2011), most scholars expect theory to provide not This is the accepted version of a forthcoming article that will be published by Sage in European Journal of International Relations: http://journals.sagepub.com/loi/ejta Accepted version downloaded from SOAS Research Online: 5 just concepts but to connect them into explanations and arguments, "statements of what may roughly be called a causal nature" (Sabine, 1969(Sabine, [1931: 12). In other words, theory has an explanatory function; it helps us understand how and why things happen.…”

Section: Re-approaching Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, we often call theory a ‘framework’. While some are satisfied with the heuristic function and relegate the discovery of causes to empirical research (Humphreys, 2011), most scholars expect theory not just to provide concepts, but to connect them into explanations and arguments, ‘statements of what may roughly be called a causal nature’ (Sabine, 1969 [1939]: 12). In other words, theory has an explanatory function; it helps us understand how and why things happen.…”

Section: Re-approaching Theorymentioning

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

“…In the hands of Hollis and Smith (1990), explanation is that kind of social science story that looks in from outside and attempts to unify phenomena under some regularity, usually lawlike. Despite their caution that this is only ever half the story, explanation is still generally advocated or opposed in terms of a specific variant embodied by positivism, neo-positivism and mathematically enthralled programmes of overt hyper-rationalism (for enlightening discussions, see Humphreys, 2011; Jackson, 2010: 63–69).…”

Section: War Rape In the Feminist Imaginarymentioning

confidence: 99%

How is rape a weapon of war? Feminist International Relations, modes of critical explanation and the study of wartime sexual violence

Kirby

2012

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rape is a weapon of war. Establishing this now common claim has been an achievement of feminist scholarship and activism and reveals wartime sexual violence as a social act marked by gendered power. But the consensus that rape is a weapon of war obscures important, and frequently unacknowledged, differences in ways of understanding and explaining it. This article opens these differences to analysis. Drawing on recent debates regarding the philosophy of social science in IR and social theory, it interprets feminist accounts of wartime sexual violence in terms of modes of critical explanation -expansive styles of reasoning that foreground particular actors, mechanisms, reasons and stories in the formulation of research. The idea of a mode of critical explanation is expanded upon through a discussion of the role of three elements (analytical wagers, narrative scripts and normative orientations) which accomplish the theoretical work of modes. Substantive feminist accounts of wartime sexual violence are then differentiated in terms of three modes -of instrumentality, unreason and mythology -which implicitly structure different understandings of how rape might be a weapon of war. These modes shape political and ethical projects and so impact not only on questions of scholarly content but also on the ways in which we attempt to mitigate and abolish war rape. Thinking in terms of feminist modes of critical explanation consequently encourages further work in an unfolding research agenda. It clarifes the ways in which an apparently commonality of position can conceal meaningful disagreements about human action. Exposing these disagreements opens up new possibilities for the analysis of war rape.

show abstract

The heuristic application of explanatory theories in International Relations

Cited by 27 publications

References 39 publications

What Should We Expect of a Liberal Explanatory Theory?

What Should We Expect of a Liberal Explanatory Theory?

Deep theorizing in International Relations

How is rape a weapon of war? Feminist International Relations, modes of critical explanation and the study of wartime sexual violence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About