Abstract
Since the 1990s, international relations theory (IR) has supposedly been in the grip of a ‘Third Debate’, this time between positivism and postmodernism. While many have cast doubt as to whether this is in fact the case, and others have argued that it is time to move beyond it, it remains true to say that the issue of positivism vs postpositivism has occupied the minds of a number of academic analysts in recent years. This article takes the more radical position of questioning whether this epistemological debate — if, indeed, one accepts that there is one — has any real import in the sense of influencing the empirical research that IR scholars actually conduct. In short, whether one embraces a positivist or a postmodernist epistemology (for example) has little practical effect upon one's empirical findings. By extension, this argument suggests that the emphasis on the philosophical underpinnings of IR, while not necessarily misconceived in and of itself, has thus far not been central to what IR scholars actually do.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashley, R. and Walker, R.B.J. (1990) ‘Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 259–268.
Biersteker, T. (1989) ‘Critical Reflections on Post-Positivism in International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 263–267.
Campbell, D. (1992) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Der Derian, J. (1990) ‘The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed’, International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 295–310.
Der Derian, J. (1992) Antidiplomacy: Spies, Terror, Speed, and War, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Ferguson, Y. and Mansbach, R. (1988) The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Pantheon.
George, J. (1989) ‘International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the Third Debate’, International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 269–279.
Holsti, K.J. (1989) ‘Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Which are the Fairest Theories of All?’ International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 255–261.
Jarvis, D.S.L. (2000) International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism: Defending the Discipline, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
King, G., Keohane, R. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Enquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lapid, Y. (1989) ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 235–254.
Navon, E. (2001) ‘The ‘Third Debate’ Revisited’, Review of International Studies 27 (4): 611–625.
Neack, L., Hey, J. and Haney, P. (1995) ‘Generational Change in Foreign Policy Analysis’, in L. Neack, J. Hey and P. Haney (eds.) Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in its Second Generation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nicholson, M. (1996) ‘The Continued Significance of Positivism?’, in S. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Patomaki, H. and Wight, C. (2000) ‘After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism’, International Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 213–237.
Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, S. (1996) ‘Positivism and Beyond’, in S. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, S. (1997) ‘Power and Truth: A Reply to William Wallace’, Review of International Studies 23 (4): 507–516.
Wallace, W. (1996) ‘Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 22 (3): 301–321.
Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wendt, A. (2000) ‘On the Via Media: A Response To The Critics’, Review of International Studies 26 (1): 165–180.
Acknowledgements
I thank Michael Freeman, Ted Hopf, Ned Lebow, Steve Smith and Donald Sylvan for their comments on an earlier draft of this essay. Any errors that remain are to be attributed to me alone. Warmest thanks are also due to the Editor of the journal, Michael Cox, for his encouragement and advice during the publication process.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Houghton, D. Positivism ‘vs’ Postmodernism: Does Epistemology Make a Difference?. Int Polit 45, 115–128 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800222
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800222