DOCSLIB.ORG

Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field Progress in International Relations Theory The BCSIA Studies in International Security book series is edited at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and published by The MIT Press. The series publishes books on contemporary issues in international security policy, as well as their conceptual and historical foundations. Topics of particular interest to the series include the spread of weapons of mass destruction, internal con- ºict, the international effects of democracy and democratization, and U.S. de- fense policy. A complete list of BCSIA Studies appears at the back of this volume. Progress in International Relations Theory Appraising the Field Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, editors BCSIA Studies in International Security MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England © 2003 by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 (617) 495-1400 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without permission in writing from The MIT Press, 5 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142. This book was typeset in Palatino by Teresa Lawson and was printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Progress in international relations theory : appraising the field / Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds. p. c.m—(BCSIA studies in international security) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-262-05068-4 (hc. : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-262-55041-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. International relations—Methodology. I. Elman, Colin. II. Elman, Miriam Fendius. III. Series. JZ1242 .P76 2003 327.1’01—dc21 2002032170 Printed in the United States of America 10987654321 We greatly appreciate permission to include previous publications in the following journals: Chapters 1 and 2 in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 2 (June 2002), pp. 231–262; Chapter 4 in Jonathan M. DiCicco and Jack S. Levy, “Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of the Power Transition Program,” Journal of Conºict Resolution, Vol. 43, No. 6 (December 1999), pp. 675–704; Chapter 5 in Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 1997), pp. 513–553; Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall 1999), pp. 5–55; and Chapter 8 in Robert L. Jervis, “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Dabate,” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Summer 1999), pp. 42–63. On the cover: The Copernican solar system. We gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce this illustration from the University of Chicago Press. Redrawn from William D. Stahlman from Galileo: Dialogue on the Great World Systems, revised, edited, and annotated by Giorzio de Santillano, University of Chicago Press, © 1953. We also thank Donna Whipple for research and design assistance. Contents Foreword Thoughts about Assaying Theories vii Kenneth N. Waltz Acknowledgments xiii Chapter 1 Introduction: Appraising Progress in 1 International Relations Theory Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman Chapter 2 Lessons from Lakatos 21 Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman Part I Applying Lakatos: Judging Theoretical and Empirical Progress in IR Theory Chapter 3 Institutional Theory as a 71 Research Program Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin Chapter 4 The Power Transition Research Program: 109 A Lakatosian Analysis Jonathan M. DiCicco and Jack S. Levy Chapter 5 Liberal International Relations Theory: A 159 Scientific Assessment Andrew Moravcsik Chapter 6 A Lakatosian View of the 205 Democratic Peace Research Program James Lee Ray Chapter 7 Operational Code Analysis as a Scientific 245 Research Program: A Cautionary Tale Stephen G. Walker Chapter 8 Realism, Neoliberalism, and 277 Cooperation: Understanding the Debate Robert Jervis Chapter 9 The Progressiveness of Neoclassical 311 Realism Randall L. Schweller Chapter 10 “Is” and “Ought”: Evaluating Empirical 349 Aspects of Normative Research Jack Snyder Part II Commentaries on Lakatos, and Beyond Chapter 11 Explanation and Scientific Progress 381 David Dessler Chapter 12 Measuring Intra-programmatic Progress 405 Roslyn Simowitz Chapter 13 Kuhn vs. Lakatos? The Case for Multiple 419 Frames in Appraising IR Theory John A. Vasquez Chapter 14 A Lakatosian Reading of Lakatos: What 455 Can We Salvage from the Hard Core? Andrew Bennett About the Contributors 495 Index 499 About the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Foreword Thoughts about Assaying Theories Kenneth N. Waltz S tudents sometimes ask, with a hint of exasperation, why I assign Lakatos in seminars on international-political theory. One easily thinks of a number of reasons to omit him: Philosophy of science is a subject that demands clarity and precision; Lakatos’s prose is opaque and vague; reading his well-known essay on “Falsification and Research Programmes” provides no clear guide to the evaluation of theories.1 One certainly is not told just what to do. Yet the answer to why we should take Lakatos seriously is simple: He demolishes the simplistic notions about testing that have been and remain part of the intellectual stock of most students of political science. How can we assay theories? Karl Popper gave a pleasingly simple answer. First, make a conjecture, preferably a bold one such as all swans are white. Then, search for falsifying instances. Thousands or millions of white swans do not prove that all swans are white, but just one black swan proves the conjecture false. Simply multiplying observations that appear to offer confirmation will not do, because one cannot know of the lurking instance that would defeat the “theory.” Popper’s idea of the “critical” test rests on a distinction between trying to prove truth and being able to demonstrate falsity. Popper believed that the latter is possible; the former, not. 1. Imre Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, vol. 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 91–196. viii | progress in international relations theory In 1970, Errol Harris published an insightful but little-known book, Hypothesis and Perception.2 His title suggested that the results of tests require interpretation, and his text developed the argument that seemingly critical tests are at best problematic. Tests attempting to falsify a theory are conducted against background information that in its day is taken for granted. How can we know that the background information is valid? Perhaps the black bird one thought a swan was really a turkey. That nothing is both empirical and certain is a proposition established long ago by David Hume and Immanuel Kant. If the bold conjecture seems to flunk the critical test, the scientist- observer still has decisions to make about the implications that are to be drawn from the outcome. Lakatos takes the problem up at this point. His dictum is that “we cannot prove theories and we cannot disprove them either.”3 He was right for this reason among others: Facts are no more independent of theories than theories are independent of facts. The validity of theories does not depend on facts that are simply given. Theory and fact are interdependent. As the English astronomer Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington put it, “We should not put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they have been confirmed by theory.”4 A moment’s thought reveals the wisdom of his advice. The earth is the center of the universe, and the sun and other heavenly bodies swirl around it: These beliefs were among the “facts” accepted in antiquity and through the Middle Ages. They were easily “verified” by looking around; they conformed to everyday experience. From Copernicus onward, however, new theories changed old facts. Are these thoughts relevant for today’s political scientists? We have to believe so when we read the following statement in a widely consulted manual on the design of social inquiry: “A theory must be consistent with prior evidence about a research question.” To drive the 2. Errol Harris, Hypothesis and Perception (London: Allen and Unwin, 1970). 3. Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” p. 100 (emphasis in original). 4. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, New Pathways in Science (New York: Macmillan, 1935), p. 211. foreword | ix point home the manual’s authors quote Stanley Lieberson’s pronouncement that a “theory that ignores existing evidence is an oxymoron.”5 Ironically, these thoughts are recorded in a chapter titled “The Science in Social Science.”6 The authors’ science, however, is of the medieval variety. Theories, they say, may “emerge from detailed observation, but they should be evaluated with new observations.” In this positivist perspective, facts are a source of theories and their arbiters as well. A theory is tested by confronting it with “the hard facts of empirical reality.”7 Yet seeming facts exist in infinite number. Which facts are to be taken as providing evidence for or against a theory? Because of the interdependence of theory and fact, one cannot give a simple answer. As Goethe put it, “The highest wisdom is to realize that every fact is already a theory.”8 According to the manual, a theory must indicate what evidence would show the theory wrong. According to Lakatos, a theory cannot specify the observations that would over- throw it.9 According to the manual, there is an asymmetry between proving something true and proving something false.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Field and Diverse Purposes: Science, Application and Critique in the American Field of International Relations
    A FIELD AND DIVERSE PURPOSES: SCIENCE, APPLICATION AND CRITIQUE IN THE AMERICAN FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Félix Grenier Thesis submitted to The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctoral program in Political Science School of Political Studies Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa © Félix Grenier, Ottawa, Canada, 2017 Abstract One of the most important aspects of the American field of International Relations (IR) is the deeply-rooted and broadly shared commitment to a “scientist” understanding of scholarly work. Scientism can be described as an indubitable belief in our ability to produce value-free and non-normative knowledge and in the power of such knowledge to resolve societal problems. Since the mid-20th century, this scientist commitment prevailed in the main approaches and standards guiding the practice of IR scholarship in the United States. One problem with the dominance of scientism is that it reproduces a restrictive view of American IR scholarship. More precisely, the dominance of scientism has not only limited the diversity of methodological and theoretical approaches but, this thesis argues, also restricted American IR scholars’ ability to further different understandings of the legitimate purposes of scholarly work. Following this idea, this thesis endeavors to challenge the dominance of scientism and legitimize alternative forms of scholarship in American IR. More precisely, this thesis advances that American IR scholars’ work is guided by three categories of objectives, that is, the production of scientific knowledge, the application of knowledge and the advancement of critical thinking. To clarify how these three objectives are concretely formulated, the thesis also specifies nine categories of epistemic approaches (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Fluid Identities: Toward a Critical Security of Water
    Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 9-27-2013 12:00 AM Fluid Identities: Toward a Critical Security of Water Cameron Harrington The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Dr. Erika Simpson The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Political Science A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Cameron Harrington 2013 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Harrington, Cameron, "Fluid Identities: Toward a Critical Security of Water" (2013). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 1716. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1716 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLUID IDENTITIES: TOWARD A CRITICAL SECURITY OF WATER MONOGRAPH by Cameron Harrington Graduate Program in Political Science A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada © Cameron Harrington 2013 Abstract Water wars are coming! Water is the defining security threat of the 21st century! The future belongs to the water-rich! These types of warnings are frequently proclaimed, urging attention to looming water conflict, which will occur as stores of freshwater diminish in both quality and quantity. Yet the issue of water security is far more complex than as an inevitable source of future violent conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Selected Efforts/Research in the Area of Warning Susanne Schmeidl The entries listed below are based on a very broad definition ment Efforts; Research kentres at Universities; and Indi- of early warning. Anyone involved in research on conflict vidual Researchers. The difference between the last two is prediction, mediation, and/or resolution is included as I that the former is an orgianized researcheffort with an estab- believe that early warning, in order to be successful, must lished research project, *bile the latter refers to a research take into consideration a wide range of factors. In addition, project that is undertake~lbyone or two researchers. Most of I wish to encourage interaction among different participants the listings here are self-entries. Only in a very few circum- who share an interest in early warning. stances did I include a research effort without an initial sub- The following descriptions of efforts/research in the area mission (these efforts are marked with an asterik [*]). of early warning are based on submissions to the Centre for Individual researchers were only included if they answered Refugee Studies after request for the creation of a directory our request for information and provided enough material on "Who is Who and does What in Early Warning" was to be discussed. This sedtion, therefore, is the most incom- posted on the Internet. Thus, this list is incomplete by defi- plete. If you wish to lem more about certain efforts/re- nition, excluding those efforts that for some reason have not search you can contact the people identified. come to the attention of the Prevention/Early Warning Unit As the author of this r~mpilation,I take complete respon- at the Centre for Refugee Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • PP5883 IGCC Layout 4
    iGCC INSTITUTE ON GLOBAL CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IGCCIGCC NEWNEWSSWWiredired AnAn AnnualAnnual ReviewReview 20022002 IGCC Quick Reference Main Office Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, California 92093-0518 Telephone: (858) 534-3352 Fax: (858) 534-7655 Director: (858) 534-0348 Development/External Affairs: (858) 534-6429 Publications: (858) 534-1979 Campus Programs: (858) 534-7224 E-mail: Campus Programs: [email protected] Development/External Affairs: [email protected] Publications: [email protected] Washington, D.C., Office 1608 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Third Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington Representative: (202) 974-6295 Fax: (202) 974-6299 URL: http://www-igcc.ucsd.edu/home/ucdc/ Campus Program Offices UC Berkeley Institute of International Studies Michael Watts, (510) 642-1106 UC Davis Institute of Governmental Affairs Alan Olmstead, (530) 752-2043 UC Irvine Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies Wayne Sandholtz, (949) 824-6410 UC Los Angeles Burkle Center for International Relations Geoffrey Garrett, (310) 825-4921 UC Riverside Program on Global Studies Juliann Allison, (909) 787-4582 Christopher Chase-Dunn, (909) 787-2063 UC San Diego Institute for International, Comparative, and Area Studies Miles Kahler, (858) 822-5295 UC San Francisco Program in Health Science and Human Survival Chris Kiefer (415) 476-7543 UC Santa Barbara Global Peace and Security Program Mark Juergensmeyer, (805) 893-4718 UC Santa Cruz IGCC-UCSC Program Ben Crow, (831) 459-5503
    [Show full text]
  • UC San Diego Old Archived Documents
    UC San Diego Old Archived Documents Title IGCC 2002 Annual Report Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1qg3k8kb Author Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation Publication Date 2002 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California iGCC INSTITUTE ON GLOBAL CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IGCCIGCC NEWNEWSSWWiredired AnAn AnnualAnnual ReviewReview 20022002 IGCC Quick Reference Main Office Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, California 92093-0518 Telephone: (858) 534-3352 Fax: (858) 534-7655 Director: (858) 534-0348 Development/External Affairs: (858) 534-6429 Publications: (858) 534-1979 Campus Programs: (858) 534-7224 E-mail: Campus Programs: [email protected] Development/External Affairs: [email protected] Publications: [email protected] Washington, D.C., Office 1608 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Third Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington Representative: (202) 974-6295 Fax: (202) 974-6299 URL: http://www-igcc.ucsd.edu/home/ucdc/ Campus Program Offices UC Berkeley Institute of International Studies Michael Watts, (510) 642-1106 UC Davis Institute of Governmental Affairs Alan Olmstead, (530) 752-2043 UC Irvine Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies Wayne Sandholtz, (949) 824-6410 UC Los Angeles Burkle Center for International Relations Geoffrey Garrett, (310) 825-4921 UC Riverside Program on Global Studies Juliann Allison, (909) 787-4582 Christopher Chase-Dunn, (909) 787-2063 UC San Diego Institute for International, Comparative, and
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Sociology of a Diverse Discipline
    The Sociology of a Diverse Discipline: International Relations, American Dominance and Pluralism. Submitted by Helen Louise Turton, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics, January 2013. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgment. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signed: Helen Louise Turton. 1 Abstract. The discipline of International Relations is frequently depicted as an American dominated discipline. This disciplinary self-image has become so entrenched that it is rarely questioned and operates as a ‘quasi-fact’ within the field. However, the manner in which this widespread claim has been put forth is largely speculative. There is a surprising lack of data verifying the prominent notion, and indeed the ‘evidence’ that does exist is largely out-dated and methodologically problematic. As such, this thesis attempts to remedy this dearth of data by systematically investigating if and how the United States dominates the discipline of IR. Rather than speaking of a generic and ambiguous form of dominance this thesis begins by disaggregating the concept of dominance and stating the ways in which an actor can potentially dominate and how this can be measured. What this crucially means is that the US may dominate in some ways and not others.
    [Show full text]
  • GRINDINGS 021709.Docx
    Tuesday, February 17, 2009 Editor: SF Rotary Webmaster THE SF ROTARY OFFICE HAS MOVED If you have any comments or by SF Rotary Webmaster questions, email the editor. The new address for the SF Rotary office is: Upcoming Events 300 Montgomery St. Suite 200 WE GOTTA DANCE AT THE ARC- FEB 20 San Francisco, CA 94104 Feb 20 2009 International Service Committee Meeting Feb 24 2009 Public FEBRUARY 17 - David DesMarais, Sr. Scientist NASA Relations/Communications by SF Rotary Webmaster Feb 24 2009 World Wide Rotary Day Feb 24 2009 FEBRUARY DIVISION COCKTAIL MIXER- FEB. 25 BIO: David Des Marais has investigated the biogeochemistry of Feb 25 2009 microbial ecosystems and Earth's early biosphere, and he has participated in Mars ROTARY ROOTS OF PEACE GALA exploration. Feb 27 2009 Tahoe City Rotary Ski He has published more than 160 technical articles and chapters on the stable Challenge Feb 27 2009 isotope geochemistry of carbon in lunar samples, meteorites and oceanic basalts, Community Service Committee the Meeting biogeochemistry of marine cyanobacterial communities, the geochemistry Mar 3 2009 of ancient sedimentary carbon, and Mars science. Jean Paul Jacob, UC Scholar Mar 3 2009 MT SUTRO ROTARY MEADOW David is a member of the science teams of NASA's 2003 Mars Exploration Rover RESTORATION mission, the CRISM instrument of the 2005 Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter mission, Mar 7 2009 and Carl Djerassi, Phd Mar 10 2009 the CHEMIN instrument of 2009 Mars Science Laboratory mission. He is the P.I. Club Service Committee of the Ames team of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. He is a Fellow of the Meeting Geochemical Society, the European Association of Geochemistry, the International Mar 10 2009 Society for the Study of the Origins of Life, the California Academy of Sciences Rotary Peace Symposium and the American Geophysical Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Alumni Newsletter School of International Relations, University of Southern California * Winter 1998
    Alumni Newsletter School of International Relations, University of Southern California * Winter 1998 FEATURES COLUMNS Director's Message Fall 1998 update on School activities, faculty searches and publications, new courses, and Gear up for the 75th the 75th anniversary kick-off. 2 BY JONATHAN ARONSON (literally!) 3 Changes to South Asian Security 9 BY DA YID KARL SIR and USC Alumni Asn. host this year's reception Claude Buss Remembered 4 Ross Berkes and Robert Dockson remember their former professor. 7 Center for International Studies update 5 "Do Not Fear Democracy in Taiwan" SIR Professor Dan Lynch on Taiwan's democracy movement. 11 BY DANIELLYNCH Faculty Focus 6 "Lonely at the Top" SIR in Newsweek 6 It's tough being a superpower. Dr. Steel address the trials and tribulations of being the only hegemon on the block. 12 BY RONALD STEEL EU Center of CA 7 USC is "Watching" Publication Profile: USC students and faculty initiate University Watch chapter of Human Rights Watch. Kick­ Laurie Brand 8 off event was covered by Voice of America. 13 BY ERIC GARCETTI USC Calendar is online 17 Anniversary Wishes and Good Advice SA VE THIS DATE! President Sample introduces Distingished Lecturer Senator George Mitchell, chairman Katzenstein lectures at SIR/ peace talks between Northern Ireland and British governments. 14 CIS on January 19th BY SHELBY URITZ 18 "New Perspectives-New Disciplines" Plus, Alumni Class Notes in The new Culture, Gender and Global Society emphasis has brought attention and innova­ center section! tion to SIR's graduate program. 16 BY LESLIE WIRPSA Director's Message Dear SIR Alumni and Friends: Alumni Newsletter~ School of International Relations, USC 01 Fall 1998 A colleague recently asked me to summarize what we have accomplished this semester.
    [Show full text]
  • The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning
    The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning Edited by Frank Fischer and John Forester © 1993 Duke University Press Published outside North America by: UCL Press Limited University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002. The name of University College London (UCL) is a registered trade mark used by UCL Press with the consent of the owner. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 0-203-49946-8 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-80770-7 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN: 1-85728-183-7 PB Patsy Healey’s chapter was published in an earlier version as “Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory,” Town Planning Review 63, no. 2 (1992): 143–162, and appears in this volume by permission of Liverpool University Press. Duncan MacRae’s chapter was published in an earlier version as “Professional Knowledge for Policy Discourse,” Knowledge in Society 1, no. 3 (1988): 6–24, and appears in this volume by permission of Transaction Publishers. James Throgmorton’s chapter was published in an earlier version as “Planning as a Rhetorical Activity: Survey Research as a Trope in Arguments about Electric Power Planning in Chicago,” Journal of the American Planning Association 59, no.3 (Summer 1993), and appears in this volume by permission of the journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Prelim Test 2
    49th Annual ISA Convention San Francisco, CA March 26th ‐ March 29th, 2008 “Bridging Multiple Divides” Jack S. Levy, 2008 ISA President Kelly M. Kadera and Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2008 ISA Program Chairs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Preliminary Program Updated on 4/17/2008 at 3:25:21 PM ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ WA01 Wednesday 8:30 ‐ 10:15 AM Room:Continental 5 Knowledge, Discourse and Practice in Global Health Governance Sponsors Global Development Convention Theme Chair(s) Cornelia Ulbert Institute for Development and Peace (INEF), University of Duisburg‐Essen Between Knowledge and Power: Exploring the Discursive Arena of Global SARS Governance Sung‐Won Yoon London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Creating Science and Technology for Neglected Diseases. The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) as a Social Technology Experiment Joanna Chataway Open University Rebecca Hanlin The Open University Organizational Dysfunctions and the Effectiveness of Public‐Private Partnerships Marco Schäferhoff Free University Berlin The Effectiveness of Global Health Partnerships: What Determines Their Success or Failure? Cornelia Ulbert Institute for Development and Peace (INEF), University of Duisburg‐Essen Discussant(s) Sonja Bartsch German Institute of Global and Area Studies ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
    [Show full text]
  • Self Study Report
    Department of International Relations College of Liberal and Creative Arts Seventh Cycle Program Review – Self Study Report May 15, 2018 Revised August 25, 2018 Prepared and assembled by the faculty of the IR Department Mahmood Monshipouri, PhD Chair/Professor International Relations The enclosed self-study was submitted for external review on August 25, 2018 and sent to reviewers on September 17, 2018. 2 Table of Contents Contents I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4 II. Overview of Program ................................................................................................................................ 6 III. Program Indicators ................................................................................................................................... 9 Section 3.1 Program Planning ........................................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Student Learning and Achievement ......................................................................................................... 13 3.3 The Curriculum ........................................................................................................................................ 17 3.3.1 Undergraduate ...................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.2. Graduate .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of International Relation: Masters in the Making?
    The Future of International Relations The Future of International Relations presents the state of the art of international relations theory through an analysis of the work of twelve key contemporary thinkers. The authors break with the procedure in the field which juxtaposes aspects of the work of contemporary theorists with others, presenting them as part of a disembodied school of thought or paradigm. A more individual focus can demonstrate instead, the well-rounded character of some of the leading oeuvres and can thus offer a more representative view of the discipline. The book covers the work of theorists whom students of international relations will read and sometimes struggle with. Each chapter places the thinker in the landscape of the discipline, identifies how they go about studying International Relations and discusses what others can learn from them. The twelve theorists are: John Vincent, Kenneth Waltz, Robert O.Keohane, Robert Gilpin, Bertrand Badie, John G.Ruggie, Hayward Alker, Nicholas G.Onuf, Alexander Wendt, Jean Bethke Elshtain, R.B.J.Walker and James Der Derian. Iver B.Neumann is head of the Centre for Russian Studies at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. He is also Jean Monnet Fellow at the European University Institute 1995–6. Ole Wæver is Senior Research Fellow at Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI). He is also SSRC MacArthur Post- Doctoral Fellow at the University of California at Berkeley 1996–7. The New International Relations Edited by Barry Buzan, University of Warwick, and Gerald Segal, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London The field of international relations has changed dramatically in recent years.
    [Show full text]