Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:03:04.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Before eclecticism: competing alternatives in constructivist research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2015

Craig Parsons
Craig Parsons*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Eugene, OR, USA
*
E-mail: cap@uoregon.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Should constructivist research engage empirical debates with other approaches, especially non-constructivists? Recent calls for ‘eclectic’ and ‘pluralistic’ scholarship seem to encourage engagement, including across epistemological divides many constructivists have long perceived with non-constructivists. Yet this literature downplays competition between approaches, instead emphasizing that they answer different parts of questions. In seeming to evoke a division of labor, the eclectic turn actually strengthens a sense that approaches occupy distinct spaces. This article offers a sympathetic corrective to the eclectic turn, and to common accounts of older epistemological divides. Before eclectic combinations, empirical work necessarily begins from contrasting accounts on the same terrain. Only a naïve positivist imagines that meaningful scholarship tests solitary hypotheses against reality. Today’s scholars vary in how far they move toward more socially based epistemologies, with constructivists moving furthest – and the further we move, the more the shape and significance of our accounts depends on contrasts to others. Thus, all scholars should seek out competing alternatives, especially constructivists. After making this point, the article unpacks how it has been obscured by four arguments that limit competition between constructivist claims and alternatives, concerning constitutiveness, understanding, holistic methodology, and anti-foundationalism. Each view contains errors that can be corrected without undercutting the epistemological commitments of its proponents. This clears the way for introducing more competition into constructivism and into the eclectic turn more generally. All scholars, including all constructivists, working within their own epistemologies, will do their best work through contrasts to alternatives across our old divides.

Keywords

constructivismphilosophy of scienceepistemologypluralismeclectivismresearch design
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 501 - 538
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

Abdelal, Rawi, Blyth, Mark, and Parsons, Craig. eds. 2010. Constructing the International Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, Emmanuel. 1997. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 3(2):319–363.Google Scholar
Adler, Emmanuel. 2013. “Constructivism and International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations, 2nd ed., edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons, 95–119. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Adler, Emmanuel, and Pouliot, Vincent. 2011. “International Practices.” International Theory 3(1):1–36.Google Scholar
Adler, Emmanuel, and Pouliot, Vincent. eds. 2012. International Practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. ed. 2012. Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2014. Opting Out of the European Union: Diplomacy, Sovereignty and European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ashley, Richard. 1984. “The Poverty of Neorealism.” International Organization 38(2):225–286.Google Scholar
Ashley, Richard, and Walker, Rob B.J.. 1990. “Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 34(3):259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartelson, Jens. 1995. A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 2006. “Is Causal-Process Observation an Oxymoron?” Political Analysis 14(3):347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, Mark. 1999. The Logic of the History of Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark. 2006. “How Narratives Explain.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, edited by Dvora Yanow, and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, 281–290. Armonck, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark, and Kedar, Asaf. 2008. “Concept Formation in Political Science: An Anti-Naturalist Critique of Qualitative Methodology.” Perspectives on Politics 6(3):503–517.Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark, and Rhodes, Roderick A.W.. 2003. Interpreting British Governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy. 1987. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Biernacki, Richard. 1995. The Fabrication of Labor: Germany and Britain, 1640-1914. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Biernacki, Richard. 1999. “Method and Metaphor After the New Cultural History.” In Beyond the Cultural Turn, edited by Vicki Bonnell, and Lynn Hunt, 62–92. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Biersteker, Thomas. 2002. “State, Sovereignty, and Territory.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, and Beth Simmons, 157–276. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Biersteker, Thomas, and Weber, Cynthia. eds 1996. State Sovereignty as Social Construct. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biggart, Nicole Woolsey, and Beamish, Thomas. 2003. “The Economic Sociology of Conventions: Habit, Custom, Practice and Routine in Market Order.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Wacquant, Loic J. D. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry. 2008. “Causation and Explanation in Social Science.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry Brady, and David Collier, 217–270. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry, and Collier, David. eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers. 1985. “Rethinking Classical Sociology: The Sociological Vision of Pierre Bourdieu.” Theory and Society 14(6):745–775.Google Scholar
Bukovansky, Mlada. 2000. “Review: Rodney Bruce Hall, National Collective Identity.” American Political Science Review 94(1):240–241.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig, Edward LiPuma and Moises Postone. eds. 1993. Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, David. 1998. National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey. 2004. “Social Constructivisms in Global and European Politics.” Review of International Studies 30(2):229–244.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey. 2013. “Theoretical Pluralism in IR: Possibilities and Limits.” In Handbook of International Relations, 2nd ed., edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons, 220–243. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cornut, Jérémie. 2015. “Analytic Eclecticism in Practice: A Method for Combining International Theories.” International Studies Perspectives 16(1):50–66.Google Scholar
Cummins, Richard. 1983. The Nature of Psychological Explanation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Goede, Marieka. 2005. Virtue, Fortune and Faith: A Genealogy of Finance. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
De Goede, Marieka. 2012. Speculative Security: The Politics of Pursuing Terrorist Monies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Der Derian, James. 1987. On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Der Derian, James and Michael Shapiro. eds. 1989. International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics. New York, NY: Lexington.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1978. Writing and Difference, Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dessler, David, and Owen, John. 2005. “Constructivism and the Problem of Explanation.” Perspectives on Politics 3(3):597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul. 1979. “On Pierre Bourdieu.” American Journal of Sociology 84(6):1460–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doty, Roxanne. 1996a. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Encounters. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Doty, Roxanne. 1996b. “Review: Cynthia Weber,” Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange .” American Political Science Review 90(1):237–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunne, Tim, Hansen, Lene, and Wight, Colin. 2013. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19(3):405–425.Google Scholar
Edkins, Jenny. 1999. Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Elman, Miriam Fendius. eds. 2003. Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1983. Explaining Technical Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1986. “Introduction.” In Rational Choice, edited by Jon Elster, 1–6. New York, NY: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Charlotte. 2008. The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 2002. “Rational Choice Theory and Social Explanation.” Economics and Philosophy 18(2):211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 2004. “External and Internal Explanation.” In Problems and Methods in Political Science, edited by Ian Shapiro, Rogers Smith, and Tarek Masoud, 144–166. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1995. “Rational Choice, Empirical Contributions, and the Scientific Enterprise.” Critical Review 9(1–2):85–94.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forsberg, Tuomas. 2012. “Review: Vincent Pouliot, International Security in Practice.” Europe-Asia Studies 64(1):169–171.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But….” Comparative Political Studies 43(11):1499–1526.Google Scholar
Gill, Stephen. 1991. American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Mahoney, James. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91(3):481–510.Google Scholar
Grynaviski, Eric. 2012. “Contrasts, Counterfactuals and Causes.” European Journal of International Relations 19(4):823–846.Google Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 2000. “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 6(2):147–182.Google Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 2010. “De gustibus (valoribus) est disputandum: Friedrich Kratochwil contra Realpolitik without Politics, Theory without Reflexivity, Science without Judgment.” In On Rules, Politics and Knowledge: Friedrich Kratochwil, International Relations and Domestic Affairs, edited by Kessler Oliver. et al. 23–36. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 2013. “The Ends of International Relations Theory: Stages of Reflexivity and Modes of Theorizing.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3):521–541.Google Scholar
Hall, Rodney Bruce. 1999. National Collective Identity: Social Constructs and International Systems. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Rodney Bruce. 2003. “The Discursive Demolition of the Asian Developmental Model.” International Studies Quarterly 47(1):71–99.Google Scholar
Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haugeland, John. 1978. “The Nature and Plausibility of Cognitivism.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(2):215–226.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2004. “Taking Ideas Seriously in Political Analysis.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6(2):142–148.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2014. “Neither Real Nor Fictitious But ‘As If Real’? A Political Ontology of the State.” British Journal of Sociology 65(3):459–480.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin, and Andreas, Gofas. eds. 2010. The Role of Ideas in Political Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hedstrom, Peter, and Swedberg, Richard. eds. 1998. Social Mechanisms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hellmann, Gunther. ed. 2003. “Forum: Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations?.” International Studies Review 5(1):123–153.Google Scholar
Hellmann, Gunther. ed. 2009. “Forum on Pragmatism and International Relations.” International Studies Review 11(3):638–662.Google Scholar
Hollis, Martin, and Smith, Steve. 1990. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Hopf, Ted. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations.” International Security 23(1):171–200.Google Scholar
Hopf, Ted. 2010. “The Logic of Habit in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 16(4):539–561.Google Scholar
Hopf, Ted. 2011. “Review of Vincent Pouliot, International Security in Practice.” Perspectives on Politics 9(3):772–773.Google Scholar
Houghton, David Patrick. 2008. “Positivism ‘vs.’ Post-Positivism: Does Epistemology Make a Difference?” International Politics 45(2):115–128.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2008. “Constructivism.” In Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Christian Reus-Smit, and Duncan Snidal, 298–316. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Nexon, Daniel. 2013. “International Theory in a Post-Paradigmatic Era: From Substantive Wagers to Scientific Ontologies.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3):543–565.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert, and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Klotz, Audie, and Lynch, Cecilia. 2007. Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. Armonck, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2006. “Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt’s Social Theory of International Politics and the Constructivist Challenge.” In Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and His Critics, edited by Stefano Guzzini, and Anne Leander, 21–47. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2007. “Of False Promises and Good Bets: A Plea for a Pragmatic Approach to Theory Building.” Journal of International Relations and Development 10(1):1–15.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2008. “Constructivism: What It Is (Not) and How It Matters.” In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences, edited by Donatella della Porta, and Michael Keating, 80–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2012. “Making Sense of International Practices.” In International Practices, edited by Emmanuel Alder, and Vincent Pouliot, 36–60. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kurki, Milja. 2006. “Causes of a Divided Discipline: Rethinking the Concept of Cause in International Relations Theory.” Review of International Studies 32(2):189–216.Google Scholar
Kurki, Milja. 2008. Causation in International Relations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laffey, Mark, and Weldes, Jutte. 2002. “Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 3(2):193–237.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos, and Alan Musgrave, 91–195. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lake, David. 2013. “Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3):567–587.Google Scholar
Levi, Margaret. 1997. “A Model, a Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis.” In Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, edited by Mark Lichbach, and Alan Zuckerman, 19–41. New York, NY.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Little, Daniel. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Lynch, Cecilia. 1999. Beyond Appeasement: Interpreting Interwar Peace Movements in World Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
March, James, and Olsen, Johan. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mérand, Frédéric. 2010. “Pierre Bourdieu and the Birth of European Defence.” Security Studies 19(2):342–374.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Nexon, Daniel. 2005. “Zeitgeist? The New Idealism in the Study of International Change.” Review of International Political Economy 12(4):700–719.Google Scholar
Patomaki, Heikki, and Wight, Colin. 2000. “After Postpositivism? The Promise of Critical Realism.” International Studies Quarterly 44(2):213–237.Google Scholar
Philpott, Daniel. 2001. “Usurping the Sovereignty of Sovereignty?” World Politics 53(2):297–324.Google Scholar
Pinto, Louis. 1999. “Theory in Practice.” In Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, edited by Richard Shusterman, 94–112. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon.Google Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2004. “The Essence of Constructivism.” Journal of International Relations and Development 7(3):319–336.Google Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2007. “‘Sobjectivism’: Toward a Constructivist Methodology.” International Studies Quarterly 51(2):359–384.Google Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2008. “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities.” International Organization 62(2):257–288.Google Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2010. International Security in Practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Walter, and DiMaggio, Paul. eds. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Price, Richard, and Reus-Smit, Christian. 1998. “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism.” European Journal of International Relations 4(3):259–294.Google Scholar
Ringmar, Erik. 2014. “The Search for Dialogue as a Hindrance to Understanding: Practices as Inter-Paradigmatic Research Program.” International Theory 6(1):1–27.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2013. “Beyond Metatheory?” European Journal of International Relations 19(3):589–608.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge.” International Organization 52(4):855–885.Google Scholar
Schram, Sanford, and Caterino, Brian. eds. 2006. Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research and Method. New York, NY: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra, and Katzenstein, Peter. 2010. Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Smith, Steve. 2000. “Wendt’s World.” Review of International Studies 26(1):51–163.Google Scholar
Suganami, Hidemi. 2013. “Meta-Jackson: Rethinking Patrick Thaddeus Jackson’s Conduct of Inquiry .” Millennium 41(2):248–269.Google Scholar
Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51(2):273–286.Google Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 2005. “Ideas and Explanation: Advancing the Theoretical Agenda.” Journal of Cold War Studies 7(2):13–42.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1971. “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man.” Review of Metaphysics 25(1):3–51.Google Scholar
Walker, R. B. J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waever, Ole. 1996. “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate.” In nternational Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, 149–185. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1958 [1922]. “Social Psychology of the World’s Religions.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by Hans H. Gerth, and C. Wright Mills, 267–301. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Cynthia. 1996. Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weldes, Jutta. 1999. Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1998. “On Constitution and Causation in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 24(5):101–118.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, Hayden. 1987. The Content of the Form. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Wight, Colin. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wight, Colin. 2012. “Critical Realism: Some Responses.” Review of International Studies 38(1):267–274.Google Scholar
Winch, Peter. 1958. The Idea of a Social Science. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora, and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. eds. 2006. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonck, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, Peter. 2013. “Causal and Constitutive Explanation Compared.” Erkenntnis 78(2):277–297.Google Scholar
Zehfuss, Maja. 2002. Constructivism in International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar