Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T21:57:03.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defending foundations for International Relations theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2009

Fred Chernoff
Fred Chernoff*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY, USA
*
E-mail: Fchernoff@mail.colgate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Meeting Report
Information
International Theory , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 466 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alker, H. (2004), ‘Pedagogical principles of methodological pluralism’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Bially, J. (2000), ‘Taking identity seriously’, Cooperation and Conflict 35(3): 299–308.Google Scholar
Chernoff, F. (2002), ‘Scientific realism as a meta-theory of international relations’, International Studies Quarterly 46(2): 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernoff, F. (2004), ‘The study of democratic peace and progress in international relations’, International Studies Review 6(3): 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernoff, F. (2005), The Power of International Theory: Re-forging the Link to Policy-making through Scientific Enquiry, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chernoff, F. (2007a), ‘Methodological pluralism and the limits of naturalism in the study of politics’, in R.N. Lebow and M. Lichbach (eds), Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Chernoff, F. (2007b), ‘Scientific realism, critical realism, international relations theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35(2): 402–408.Google Scholar
Chernoff, F. (2009a), ‘Conventionalism as an adequate basis for policy-relevant IR theory’, European Journal of International Relations 15(1): 157–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernoff, F. (2009b), ‘The ontological fallacy: a rejoinder on the status of scientific realism in international relations’, Review of International Studies 35(2): 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, P. (1954), The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, P. P. Wiener (trans.), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1984), ‘And not anti-realism either’, Noûs 18(1): 51–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honderitch, T. (1995b), ‘Foundationalism’, in T. Honderich (ed.), Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, R. (1985), ‘Pluralistic rigor: a comment on Bueno de Mesquita’, International Studies Quarterly 29(2): 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R.O.Verba, S. (1994), Designing Social Enquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, R. (2008), ‘History, theory and methodological pluralism in the English school’, in C. Navari, (ed.), Theorising International Society: English School Methods, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Martin, L.L. (1999), ‘The contributions of rational choice: a defense of pluralism’, International Security 24(2): 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, N.P.Ruby, K.G. (2009), ‘IR and the false promise of philosophical foundations’, International Theory 1(1): 15–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasquez, J.A. (1998), The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walt, S.M. (1999), ‘Rigor or rigor mortis? Rational choice and security studies’, International Security 23(4): 5–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar