Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science

Abstract

The concern of this study is admittedly narrow; it is focused on the issue of how International Relations has developed as a social science. Within that general focus it is concerned specifically with the dominance of a US view of the subject as a social science. Of course, such a definition of International Relations theory is partial, and certainly many Would resent the very suggestion that the subject is, or should become, a social science. However, my interest is with the reasons why US views of the subject have dominated the broad development of paradigms within the discipline. This issue has crucial relevance for any understanding of the evolution of the discipline, and for any possibility of inter-paradigm debate. My broad argument will be two-fold: on the one hand, the US view of International Relations as a social science has led to the subject strongly reflecting US policy concerns; on the other, this US concern with policy relevance has made it very difficult for the subject to evolve on a cross-national, cumulative basis. Both of these factors make the task of paradigm confrontation even more complex than is implied by those philosophers of social science who have taken the concept of ‘paradigm’ to imply an essentially relativistic epistemology. After outlining the development of the subject as a social science, this study will discuss the existence of a US dominance of the discipline, then conclude with an examination of the implications for the inter-paradigm debate.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 95 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.