In Defense of Paradigms

• In Event: Paradigms: What Are They Good For?

Abstract

Are paradigms passé? A growing number of international relations scholars argue that paradigms and interparadigmatic debates should be either radically rethought or abandoned entirely. Some see adherence to paradigms as an artificial constraint on intellectual innovation; some decry as unproductive the seemingly endless disputes over abstract principles in “paradigm wars”; others question whether it is even possible to delineate clear boundaries between paradigms. Many conclude that the field should forgo efforts to formulate logically coherent, analytically constraining paradigms, avoid the temptation to divide into opposing camps, and instead focus on mid-range problem-solving. In this view, scholars should suppress their inner Professor Pangloss, who leaps at every opportunity to make grand declarations of principle, and, instead, focus on the practicalities of empirical research—i.e., cultivate their gardens.

I assert, in contrast, that paradigms and their attendant debates are vital to the functioning and progress of the field. I develop this argument in five steps. In the first section, I review the origin of the concept in philosophy of science and explain why many scholars have found it to be useful. Second, I apply it to international relations. I discuss how realism, liberalism, and constructivism became paradigms and how that shift represented an increasingly rigorous approach to theory. Third, I respond to each of the main arguments made by critics of paradigms. Fourth, I evaluate alternatives proposed by critics of paradigms. Finally, in the conclusion, I consider how two trends in the field of international relations have contributed to discontent with paradigms: the replacement of case studies by statistics as the dominant research method, and the rise of post-positivist social theory as an alternative to social science.

Author

• Kevin Narizny, Lehigh University