Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-xnzsz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-23T16:32:38.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Jörg Friedrichs  and
Friedrich Kratochwil
Jörg Friedrichs
Affiliation:
Department of International Development (Queen Elizabeth House), Oxford University, England. E-mail: joerg.friedrichs@qeh.ox.ac.uk
Friedrich Kratochwil
Affiliation:
Department of Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute, San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy, and Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. E-mail: friedrich.kratochwil@eui.eu
Get access

Abstract

This article moves from deconstruction to reconstruction in research methodology. It proposes pragmatism as a way to escape from epistemological deadlock. We first show that social scientists are mistaken in their hope to obtain warranted knowledge through traditional scientific methods. We then show that pragmatism has grown from tacit commonsense to an explicit item on the agenda of the international relations discipline. We suggest that a coherent pragmatic approach consists of two elements: the recognition of knowledge generation as a social and discursive activity, and the orientation of research toward the generation of useful knowledge. To offer a concrete example of what pragmatic methodology can look like, we propose the research strategy of abduction. We assess various forms of research design to further elucidate how pragmatic research works in practice.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 701 - 731
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 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

REFERENCES

Acharya, Amitav, and Johnston, Alastair Iain, eds. 2007. Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, Emanuel. 2005. Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adler, Emanuel. 2008. The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO's Post–Cold War Transformation. European Journal of International Relations 14 (2):195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alker, Hayward R. 1996. Rediscoveries and Reformulations: Humanistic Methodologies for International Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Harry, and Brighi, Elisabetta, eds. 2009. Pragmatism in International Relations. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, Mark, and Kedar, Asaf. 2008. Concept Formation in Political Science: An Anti-Naturalist Critique of Qualitative Methodology. Perspectives on Politics 6 (3):503–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, Lawrence A. 1979. A Critique of Friedman's Critics. Journal of Economic Literature 17 (2):503–22.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Nice, by Richard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Trans. Nice, by Richard. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. The Peculiar History of Scientific Reason. Sociological Forum 6 (1):3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Trans. Nice, by Richard. Oxford, England: Polity.Google Scholar
Büger, Christian, and Gadinger, Frank. 2007. Reassembling and Dissecting: International Relations Practice from a Science Studies Perspective. International Studies Perspectives 8 (1):90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, Thomas. 1976. Max Weber's Theory of Concept Formation: History, Laws, and Ideal Types. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 1980. A Critique of Friedman's Methodological Instrumentalism. Southern Economic Journal 47 (2):366–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2001. Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. International Organization 55 (3):553–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, Molly. 2002. Deweyan Pragmatism and Post-Positivist Social Science in IR. Millennium 31 (3):525–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, David, and Mahon, James E. Jr. 1993. Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting Categories in Conceptual Analysis. American Political Science Review 87 (4):845–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Neta C. 2002. Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, James W. 2005. Terms of Inquiry: On the Theory and Practice of Political Science. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Paul. 1991. How Does Social Science Work? Reflections on Practice. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1969 [1908]. To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, Emile. 1982 [1895]. The Rules of Sociological Method. Edited by Lukes, Steven. Trans. Hall, by W. D.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Earnest, David C. 2008. Coordination in Large Numbers: An Agent-Based Model of International Negotiations. International Studies Quarterly 52 (2):363–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eco, Umberto, and Sebeok, Tomas A., eds. 1983. The Sign of the Three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin. 2005. Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics. International Organization 59 (2):293–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Trans. Sampson, by Steven. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953. The Methodology of Positive Economics. In Essays in Positive Economics, edited by Friedman, Milton, 3–43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Friedrichs, Jörg. 2008. Fighting Terrorism and Drugs: Europe and International Police Cooperation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fuller, Steve. 2002. Social Epistemology. 2d ed.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1982. Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney G., and Strauss, Anselm L.. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Grounded Research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Glynos, Jason, and Howarth, David. 2007. Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2005. Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 2000. A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 6 (2):147–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Peter M., and Haas, Ernst B.. 2002. Pragmatic Constructivism and the Study of International Institutions. Millennium 31 (3):571–601.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2003. Truth and Justification. Trans. Fultner, by Barbara. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.Google Scholar
Hammersley, Martyn. 1989. The Dilemma of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago Tradition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood Russell. 1958. Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hellmann, Gunther. 2003. In Conclusion: Dialogue and Synthesis in Individual Scholarship and Collective Inquiry. International Studies Review 5 (1):147–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellmann, Gunther, ed. 2009. The Forum: Pragmatism and International Relations. International Studies Review 11 (3):638–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hersh, Reuben. 1997. What Is Mathematics, Really? London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried. 1994. Immanuel Kant. Trans. Farrier, by Marshall. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hollis, Martin, and Smith, Steve. 1990. Explaining and Understanding in International Relations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopf, Ted. 2002. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities & Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 & 1999. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon, and König, Thomas. 2002. In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. International Organization 56 (2):447–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2004. Hegel's House, or ‘People are States Too.’ Review of International Studies 30 (2):281–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2006. Making Sense of Making Sense: Configurational Analysis and the Double Hermeneutic. In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, edited by Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, 264–80. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2008. Foregrounding Ontology: Dualism, Monism, and IR Theory. Review of International Studies 34 (1):129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, William. 1995 [1907]. Pragmatism. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 2005. American Foreign Policy in a New Era. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1993. Pragmatism and Social Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Josephson, John R. 2000. Smart Inductive Generalizations Are Abductions. In Abduction and Induction: Essays on Their Relation and Integration, edited by Flach, Peter A. and Kakas, Antonis C., 31–44. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josephson, John R., and Josephson, Susan G.. 1994. Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Journal of International Relations and Development. 2007. Symposium: Kratochwil's “Tartu” Lecture and its Critics. Journal of International Relations and Development 10 (1):1–78.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1968 [1781/1787]. Kritik der Reinen Vernunft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter [Vols. 3–4 of Kants Werke: Akademie-Textausgabe].Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Sil, Rudra. 2008. Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations. In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan, 109–30. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias. 2004. Explaining Government Preferences for Institutional Change in EU Foreign and Security Policy. International Organization 58 (1):137–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2000. Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt's ‘Social Theory of International Politics’ and the Constructivist Challenge. Millennium 29 (1):73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2007a. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2007b. Foundational Claims: Evidence, Inference, and Truth as Problems of Theory Building in the Social Sciences. In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, edited by Lebow, Richard N. and Lichbach, Mark I., 25–54. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich, and Ruggie, John Gerard. 1986. International Organization: A State of the Art of an Art of the State. International Organization 40 (4):753–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kurki, Milja. 2008. Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Magnani, Lorenzo. 2001. Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation. New York: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Goertz, Gary. 2006. A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Political Analysis 14 (3):227–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makinda, Samuel M. 2000. International Society and Eclecticism in International Relations Theory. Cooperation and Conflict 35 (2):205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. 1936 [1929]. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. Trans. Wirth, by Louis and Shils, Edward. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug, Tarrow, Sidney, and Tilly, Charles. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKaughan, Daniel J. 2008. From Ugly Duckling to Swan: C.S. Peirce, Abduction, and the Pursuit of Scientific Theories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 44 (3):446–468.Google Scholar
Millennium. 2002. . Millennium 31 (3).Google Scholar
Miner, Robert C. 1998. ‘Verum-factum’ and Practical Wisdom in the Early Writings of Giambattista Vico. Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (1):53–73.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51 (4):513–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2003. Theory Synthesis in International Relations: Real Not Metaphysical. International Studies Review 5 (1):131–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2008. The European Constitutional Settlement. World Economy 31 (1):158–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew, and Nicolaïdis, Kalypso. 1999. Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies 37 (1):59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moses, Jonathon W., and Knutsen, Torbjørn L.. 2007. Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1994 [1887]. On the Genealogy of Morality. Edited by Ansell-Pearson, Keith. Trans. Diethe, by Carol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oakes, Guy. 1988. Weber and Rickert: Concept Formation in the Cultural Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Owen, David. 2002. Re-Orienting International Relations: On Pragmatism, Pluralism and Practical Reasoning. Millennium 31 (3):653–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1965. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vol. 1, Principles of Philosophy; Vol. 2, Elements of Logic; Vol. 5, Pragmatism and Pragmaticism; Vol. 7, Science and Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1972. Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1972 [1967]. Epistemology without a Knowing Subject. In Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, edited by Popper, Karl R., 106–52. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1979. Three Worlds. Michigan Quarterly Review 28 (1):1–23.Google Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2007. ‘Sobjectivism’: Toward a Constructivist Methodology. International Studies Quarterly 51 (2):359–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2008. The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities. International Organization 62 (2):257–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puchala, Donald J. 1995. The Pragmatics of International History. Mershon International Studies Review 39 (1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-Oriented Research. In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David, 123–38. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Reichertz, Jo. 2003. Die Abduktion in der Qualitativen Sozialforschung. Opladen, Germany: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickert, Heinrich. 1902. Die Grenzen der Naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung: Eine Logische Einleitung in die Historischen Wissenschaften. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays, 1972–1980. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rosenau, James N. 1988. The Scholar as an Adaptive System. In Journeys Through World Politics: Autobiographical Reflections of Thirty-four Academic Travellers, edited by Kruzel, Joseph and Rosenau, James N., 53–67. Lexington, Ky.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998a. What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge. International Organization 52 (4):855–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998b. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rytövuori-Apunen, Helena. 2005. Forget ‘Post-Positivist’ IR! The Legacy of IR Theory and the Locus for a Pragmatist Turn. Cooperation and Conflict 40 (2):147–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review 64 (4):1033–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni, ed. 1984. Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Schatzki, Theodore R., Cetina, Karin Knorr, and von Savigny, Eike, eds. 2001. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2007. Mapping Contingency. In Political Contingency: Studying the Unexpected, the Accidental, and the Unforeseen, edited by Shapiro, Ian and Bedi, Sonu, 54–78. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin, and Stone Sweet, Alec. 2002. Of Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sil, Rudra, and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 2005. What Is Analytic Eclecticism and Why Do We Need It? A Pragmatist Perspective on Problems and Mechanisms in the Study of World Politics. Paper presented at the 101st Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, September, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Slapin, Jonathan B. 2008. Bargaining Power at Europe's Intergovernmental Conferences: Testing Institutional and Intergovernmental Theories. International Organization 62 (1):131–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinoza, Benedictus de. 1963 [1677]. Ethica. Florence, Italy: Sansoni.Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm, and Corbin, Juliet. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2d ed.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E., and Belkin, Aaron, eds. 1996. Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles, and Tarrow, Sidney. 2007. Contentious Politics. Boulder: Colo.: Paradigm.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E. 1972. Human Understanding. Vol. 1, The Collective Development and Use of Concepts. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E. 2001. Return to Reason. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2004. Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1959. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 2004a [1904]. The ‘Objectivity’ of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy. In Essential Weber: A Reader, edited by Whimster, Sam, 359–404. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 2004b [1921]. Basic Sociological Concepts. In Essential Weber: A Reader, edited by Whimster, Sam, 311–58. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1987. The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization 41 (3):335–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widmaier, Wesley W. 2004. Theory as a Factor and the Theorist as an Actor: The ‘Pragmatist Constructivist’ Lessons of John Dewey and John Kenneth Galbraith. International Studies Review 6 (3):427–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Timothy D. 2002. Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap.Google Scholar
Winch, Peter. 1958. The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. Anscombe, by G. E. M.. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Preliminary Studies for the ‘Philosophical Investigations,’ Generally Known as ‘The Blue and Brown Books.’ Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora, and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, eds. 2006. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Ziman, John. 1991. Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar