TY  - CHAP
AB  - The mathematical science approach to the study of social affairs has been much debated not least among scholars of international relations. Wight (2002, p. 37) reviews the current debate – discussing the views of Michael Nicholson and Steve Smith quite extensively – and comments:all of this adds up to a very confused picture in terms of the philosophy of science. IR has struggled to incorporate an increasingly diverse set of positions into its theoretical landscape. In general, the discipline has attempted to maintain an unsophisticated and outdated two-category framework based on the science/anti-science issue.…Currently there are three continuums that the discipline seems to consider line up in opposition to each other. The first of these is the explaining/understanding divide (Hollis & Smith, 1990). The second is the positivism/post-positivism divide (Lapid, 1989; Sylvester, 1993). The third is Keohane's distinction between rationalism and reflectivism (Keohane, 1989). The newly emerging constructivism claims ‘the middle ground’ in between. (Adler, 1997; Price & Reus-Smit, 1998; Wendt, 1999)
VL  - 15
SN  - 978-1-84950-973-2, 978-1-84950-972-5/1572-8323
DO  - 10.1108/S1572-8323(2010)0000015018
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1108/S1572-8323(2010)0000015018
AU  - Burt Gordon
ED  - Gordon Burt
PY  - 2010
Y1  - 2010/01/01
TI  - Chapter 15 Debating the mathematical science approach to international relations
T2  - Conflict, Complexity and Mathematical Social Science
T3  - Contributions to Conflict Management, Peace Economics and Development
PB  - Emerald Group Publishing Limited
SP  - 243
EP  - 259
Y2  - 2024/09/19
ER  -