Email this article 
Pragmatics and eclecticism in international relations
Abstract
There is no abstract available for this language
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Język Polski)References
Bauer, H., Brighi, E. 2009. Introducing Pragmatism to International Relations [w:] Pragmatism in International Relations, H. Bauer, E. Brighi (red.), Routledge, London–New York, s. 1–8.
Bernstein, R.J. 1992. The New Constellation: The Ethical-political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Checkel, J.T., 2013. Theoretical Pluralism in IR: Possibilities and Limits [w:] Handbook of International Relations, W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, B.A. Simmons, Sage Publications Ltd., London s. 22–241.
Controversies in International Theory. Realism and Neoliberal Challenge. 1995. Ch.J. Kegley Jr. (red.), Wadsworth
Cox, R.W. 1981. Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory, „Millennium – Journal of International Studies”, vol. 10, no. 2, s. 126–155.
Cox, R.W. 1992. Towards a post-hegemonic conteptualization of world order: reflections on relevance
of Ibn Khaldun [w:] Governance without government: order and change in world politics, J.N. Rosenau, E.O. Czempiel (red.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, s. 132–159
Feyerabend, P.K. 1975. Against Method, Verso, London–New York.
Frankowski, P. 2010. One World and Many Orders? [w:] Order and Disorder in the International System, S.F.Krishna-Hensel (red.), Ashgate, Aldershot, s. 97–115.
Hermann, M.C. 1998. One Field, Many Perspectives: Building the Foundation for Dialogue, „International Studies Quarterly”, vol. 42, no. 4, s. 605–624.
Holsti, K.J. 1989. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Which Are the Fairest Theories of All, „International Studies Quarterly”, vol. 33, no. 3, s. 255–261.
Jackson, P.T. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations, Routledge, London–New York.
Kratochwil, F. 2003. The Monologue of “Science”, „International Studies Review”, vol. 5, no. 1, s. 123–153
Kratochwil, F. 2011. The Puzzles of Politics, Routledge, London–New York.
Lake, D.A. 2011. Why “isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress, „International Studies Quarterly”, vol. 55, no. 2, s. 465–480.
Lapid, Y. 2002. Sculpting the Academic Identity [w:] D. Puchala, Visions of International Relations: Assessing an Academic Field, D. Puchala (red.), University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, s. 1–15.
Lapid, Y. 2003. Through Dialogue to Engaged Pluralism: The Unfinished Business of the Third Debate, „International Studies Review”, vol. 5, no. 1, s. 128–131.
Laudan, L. 1996. Beyond Positivism and Relativism. Theory, Method, and Evidence, Westview Press, Boulder Co.
Little, R., Buzan, B. 2001. Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do About It, „Millennium”, vol. 30, no. 1, s. 19–39.
Łoś-Nowak, T. 2009. Wyjaśniać czy interpretować: Dylematy i wyzwania czwartej debaty interparadygmatycznej, „Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations”, vol. 39, no. 1–2, s. 29–47.
Monteiro, N.P., Ruby, K.G. 2009a. IR and the false promise of philosophical foundations, „International Theory”, vol. 1, no. 1, s. 15–48.
Monteiro, N.P., Ruby, K.G. 2009b. The promise of foundational prudence: a response to our critics, "International Theory”, vol. 1, no. 3, s. 499–512.
Moravscik, A. 2003. Theory Synthesis in International Relations: Real Not Metaphysical, „International Studies Review”, vol. 5, no. 1, s. 123–153.
Moravcsik, A. 2010. Active Citation: A Precondition for Replicable Qualitative Research, „PS: Political Science and Politics”, vol. 43, no. 1, s. 29–35.
Nau, H. 2011. No Alternative to “isms”, „International Studies Quarterly”, no. 55, no. 2, s. 487–491.
Paul, D.E. 1999. Sovereignty, Survival and the Westphalian Blind Alley in International Relations, „Review of International Studies”, vol. 25, no. 2, s. 217–231.
Shapiro, I. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Sil, R., Katzenstein, P.J. 2010a. Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions, „Perspectives on Politics”, vol. 8, no. 2, s. 411–431.
Sil, R., Katzenstein, P.J. 2010b. Beyond Paradigms. Analytic Eclectism in the Study of World Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Vazquez, J.A. 1997. The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition, „American Political Science Review”, vol. 91, no. 4, s. 899–912.
Wendt, A. 2010. Flatland: Quantum Mind and the International Hologram [w:] New Systems Theories of World Politics, M. Albert, L.-E. Cederman, A. Wendt (red.), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, s. 279–311.
Wendt, A., Duvall, R. 2008. Sovereignty and the UFO, „Political Theory”, vol. 36, no. 4, s. 607–633.
Wight, M. 1960. Why is there no international theory, „International Relations”, vol. 2, no. 1, s. 35–48.
Wight, M. 1966. Western Values in International Relations [w:] Diplomatic Investigations, Essays in the Theory of International Relations, H. Butterfield, M. Wight (red.), George Allen and Unwin, London, s. 89–131.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/k.2013.20.2.7
Date of publication: 2013-11-18 00:00:00
Date of submission: 2015-07-18 07:44:42
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2015 Paweł K. Frankowski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.