The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The image of incommensurable paradigms is a block to scientific progress.

“the image of 'incommensurable' paradigms is a block to scientific progress”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

A standard textbook presentation of International Relations holds that there are three dominant paradigms: realism, liberalism/pluralism/interdependence/world society, and Marxism/radicalism/structuralism/globalism.

“A standard textbook presentation of International Relations (IR) has it that there are three paradigms, three dominant schools. The first is realism, the second is alternately called pluralism, interdependence and world society but it is in some sense always the liberal approach, and the third is Marxism or more broadly radicalism, structuralism or globalism.”

• cites Kauppi and Viotti, 1992Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Viotti and Kauppi 1993 [1987]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Holsti, 1985Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The debate has moved on.

“The debate has moved on; self-referential story-telling in the discipline ought to move with it.”

May combine two claims.

There was a general understanding that an alternative image of international politics had materialised, but realism did not easily give in.

“There was a general understanding, that an alternative image of international politics had materialised, but also that realism did not easily give in.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The story about an inter-paradigm debate does not give a grip on the ongoing controversies in the discipline.

“The story about an inter-paradigm debate' does not give a grip on the ongoing controversies in the discipline.”

May combine two claims.

The new theories were to win no easy victory because realist imagery had a solid hold on decision makers and the new formulations had difficulty consolidating into theory.

“Increasingly, it became clear that the new theories were to win no easy victory. The realist imagery had a solid hold on decision makers who kept to some extent operating in a world of states (Rothstein 1972), and the new formulations had difficulty consolidating into theory and not just complications of the realist theory.”

• cites Rothstein 1972Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Realism and its pluralist challenger appeared to be incommensurable paradigms.

“Realism and its pluralist challenger appeared to be such incommensurable paradigms.³”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Each paradigm constructs its own basic concepts/units and questions, and thereby its data, criteria and stories.

“Each paradigm'constructs its own basic concepts/units and questions – and thereby its data, criteria and not least its stories about paradigmatic experiments or similar scientific events.”

• cites KuhnNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The two paradigms had different strengths, and there was no way to prove one or the other right.

“The two paradigms had different strengths, there were things better explained by the one, and others better dealt with by the other. And more importantly: there was no way to prove one or the other right.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The emerging self-perception in the discipline was that competing theories had emerged which each contained its own confirming stories, data and preferred issues.

“But the emerging self-perception in and of the discipline was that competing theories had emerged which each contained its own confirming stories, data and preferred issues.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Paradigms are incommensurable because they each generate their criteria of judgement and their own language.

“Paradigms are incommensurable, because they each generate their criteria of judgement and their own language'.”

• cites KuhnNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Kuhn's theory holds that theories cannot be judged in any overarching, neutral language.

“theories cannot be judged in any over-arching, neutral language.”

• cites KuhnNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The reason for this pluralism was probably to be found in the weakened mainstream: American IR was marked by self-doubt after the Vietnam war, the student revolt and the oil shock.

“It served a kind of 'infant industry' function and the reason for this pluralism was probably to be found in the weakened mainstream: American IR was marked by self-doubt after the Vietnam war, the student revolt and the oil shock.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The discipline flapped towards the 1970s when it definitely became triangular.

“Thus the discipline flapped towards the 1970s when it definitely became triangular.”

May combine two claims.

Realism and liberalism were no longer incommensurable in the 1980s; they shared a rationalist research programme, a conception of science, a willingness to operate on the premise of anarchy, and an investigation of cooperation and whether institutions matter.

“No longer were realism and liberalism incommensurable' – on the contrary they shared a rationalist' research programme, a conception of science, a shared willingness to operate on the premise of anarchy (Waltz) and investigate the evolution of co-operation and whether institutions matter (Keohane).”

May combine two claims.

Waltz's Theory of International Politics (1979) and Gilpin's War and Change in World Politics (1981) were a revenge of realism, an attempt to relaunch more scientific versions of realism.

“As often noted, Waltz's Theory of International Politics (1979) and Gilpin's War and Change in World Politics (1981) were the revenge of realism, an attempt to relaunch more scientific' versions of realism.”

• cites Waltz, 1979Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Gilpin, 1981 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The rationalist-reflectivist axis was the biggest axis in the 1980s, supplemented by a perpendicular but shorter debate over absolute and relative gains.

“The rationalist-reflectivist axis was not the only but the biggest axis in the 1980s. In a sense it was supplemented by a perpendicular but shorter one: the debate over absolute and relative gains (debate 4b in Table 7.3).15”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The perceptions argument can be run on a purely individual basis, but then why the discipline coheres into three coherent paradigms becomes a mystery.

“The perceptions argument can be run on a purely individual basis (we are all caught in our world views'). Why the discipline then coheres into three rather coherent 'paradigms' becomes something of a mystery.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The debate is the discipline.

“The debate is the discipline.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The third debate can be clearly singled out from the other three debates in three ways: its self-conception as incommensurable paradigms; its area for locating differences ontologically; and its participants: the three schools.

“The third debate can be clearly singled out from the other three debates in three ways: its self-conception as incommensurable paradigms'; its area for locating the differences: ontologically' as different conceptions of the nature, units and content of international relations; and its participants': the three schools.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The triangle does not stabilise into a simple dichotomy; the two can line up against the third in all possible constellations.

“You can keep travelling around in the triangle – it does not stabilise into a simple dichotomy.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

With Kuhn's more sociological approach, the emphasis falls on the production of questions or puzzles sufficiently tied to theories to be scientific.

“With the more sociological approach of Kuhn, the emphasis instead falls on the production of questions or puzzles that are sufficiently closely tied to theories to be scientific.”

• cites KuhnNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

The metaphor of paradigms was useful for reconstructing a more decentralised but stabilised image of the discipline in a time of troubles.

“The metaphor of paradigms was useful for reconstructing a more decentralised but stabilised image of the discipline in a time of troubles.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The inter-paradigm debate did not actually exist as an intense three-way debate occupying the minds of International Relationists; it was an artificially constructed debate, mainly invented for presentational purposes, teaching and self-reflection of the discipline.

“Did it exist, the inter-paradigm debate? Partly no, it was not actually an intense three-way debate occupying the minds of International Relationists, but an artificially constructed 'debate', mainly invented for specific presentational purposes, teaching and self-reflection of the discipline.”

May combine two claims.

The 1980s constellation differed from the inter-paradigm debate because there was a change of fronts, it moved to a different level, and it moved beyond incommensurability.

“The 1980s constellation was different. Different because there was a change of fronts, and different because it moved to a different level (as argued above) and, not least, it moved beyond incommensurability.”

May combine two claims.

During the 1980s, realism became neo-realism and liberalism became neo-liberal institutionalism; both underwent a self-limiting redefinition towards anti-metaphysical theoretical minimalism and thereby became increasingly compatible.

“During the 1980s, realism became neo-realism and liberalism neoliberal institutionalism. Both underwent a self-limiting redefinition towards an anti-metaphysical, theoretical minimalism, and they became thereby increasingly compatible.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

With incommensurability, one no longer strived for ending debate, for finding who was right, but acknowledged that each paradigm contained its own truth, and that they were all valuable.

“With incommensurability, one no longer strived for ending debate, for finding who was right, but acknowledged that each paradigm' contained its own truth, and that they were all valuable.”

May combine two claims.

By the mid and late 1980s, the discipline was no longer in the inter-paradigm debate, even though it was still used as a teaching tool and as a schematism for evaluating ideas across the discipline.

“In the mid and late 1980s we were no longer in the inter-paradigm debate, even if it was still used as a teaching tool and as schematism when some idea was to be evaluated across the discipline'.”

May combine two claims.

The main issue of contention in the inter-paradigm debate was the nature of international relations, and the secondary one was methodology.

“The main issue of contention was the nature of international relations' (with ensuing political consequences) and the secondary one methodology'.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The really new thing about neo-realism is its concept of science: general speculation and reflection are no longer sufficient, and realism must express itself as theory, a system of clearly specified sentences.

“The really new thing about neorealism is its concept of science. General speculation and reflection is no longer sufficient, realism has to express itself in the form of theory, of a system of clearly specified sentences”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

It became fashionable to present the discipline as engaged in a triangular debate, but it was de facto mainly a debate along one side of the triangle.

“It was not really equally well established within IR, but it became fashionable to present the discipline as engaged in a triangular debate (Marcusian repressive tolerance'?). Maybe it was triangular, but it was de facto mainly a debate along one side of the triangle (Figure 7.1).”

May combine two claims.

The role of Marxism as contender in great debates has clearly waned; in the debates the discipline uses to orient itself, the position formerly occupied by Marxists was in the mid and late 1980s taken over by post-modernists.

“Watching with the task of writing the history of the discipline, it can just be noticed that the role of Marxism as contender in great debates clearly has waned.”

• Also stated in: § How did it end? · plain

  “In the debates which the discipline uses to orient itself, the position which used to be occupied by Marxists was in the mid and late 1980s taken over by post-modernists.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

There was also a kind of sideways inspiration from within the discipline, implicitly borrowing from perceptions studies.

“I would further suggest that there was also a kind of sideways inspiration from within the discipline. Implicitly, one seemed to borrow from the perceptions' studies that proliferated in the same period (notably Jarvis, 1970, 1976; Snyder and Diesing, 1977; Janis and Mann, 1977): we are all caught by our view of the world, and this structures our way of importing new information and evaluating it.”

• cites Jarvis, 1970Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Jarvis, 1976Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Snyder and Diesing, 1977Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In the longer run, the inter-paradigm debate might have had a conservative function, becoming a barrier against critique and a legitimation for scientific routine.

“In the longer run, however, the inter-paradigm debate might have had a conservative function. 'It became a welcomed barrier against any critique and a good legitimation for scientific routine.”

• cites Guzzini, 1988Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Guzzini, 1992Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Only within a paradigm can there be clear criteria for choosing competing explanations; among competing paradigms there are not, and therefore there is no logically definitive way of proving what paradigm is right.

“Only within a paradigm, there can be clear criteria for choosing competing explanations – among competing paradigms not, and therefore no logically definitive way of proving what paradigm is 'right'.”

• cites KuhnNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The absolute/relative gains debate echoed old realist-liberalist debates but was post-third debate in form: it was not about incommensurable paradigms, participants agreed on 90 per cent, and the remainder was essentially an empirical question.

“The remaining short distance between neo-realism and neo-liberalism is being argued out in this debate, which clearly echoes old realist-liberalist debates, but in its form is very post-third debate like: 'this is not the inter-paradigm debate'(as Keohane said in a panel on the relative/absolute gains debate at the APSA meeting in 1992; cf. also Keohane, 1993a, pp. 291ff), this is not about incomm”

• cites Keohane, 1993aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The rationalist-reflectivist axis was the main line of struggle in the 1980s, registered in many ways, including resistance to post-structuralism and in articles allegedly not dealing with the controversy.

“That this rationalist-reflectivist axis was the main line of struggle was to be registered in many ways in the 1980s.”

May combine two claims.

In the first two debates, it was expected that one side would eventually win and International Relations would evolve as a coherent discipline in the winning camp.

“In the first two debates, it was expected that one side would eventually win and International Relations would evolve as a coherent discipline in the winning camp.”

May combine two claims.

In the 1980s the main line of controversy shifted to the rationalist-reflectivist axis, the postmodernism debate; as the previous line dried out, radicals filled the vacuum, making the two main poles the neo-realist/neo-liberal synthesis and reflectivism.

“In this environment, the main line of controversy shifted to the opposite direction as one between rationalists and reflectivists, the postmodernism debate. As the previous line of debate 'dried out', the radicals entered to fill the vacuum. Thus the two main poles became on the one hand a neo-realist, neo-liberal synthesis and on the other reflectivism”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The image of the triangle has been the one to be used most often as a guiding metaphor for the discipline.

“The image of the triangle, however, has been the one to be used most often as a guiding metaphor for the discipline.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Liberal theory underwent a parallel development: it moved away from being a general interpretation of international relations and concentrated on precise questions, principally how institutions affect incentives facing states.

“Liberal theory underwent a parallel development. It moved away from being a general interpretation of the nature of international relations or an idea of overall developments, and concentrated instead on asking a few precise questions. Or maybe simply one: how institutions affect incentives facing states' (Keohane, 1989, p. 11).”

• cites Keohane, 1989Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Without paradigms, there would be no scientific questions.

“Without paradigms, there would be no scientific questions (Kuhn, 1970b, p. 9).”

• cites Kuhn, 1970b, p. 9Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Neo-realism is no longer an ethico-philosophical position; sweeping statements on life and politics are replaced by precise statements, and neo-realism consciously limits itself to a small number of big and important things.

“(Neo-)Realism is no longer an ethico-philosophical position. Sweeping statements on the nature of life and politics are replaced by precise statements.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

In the triangular third debate, the three sides were probably never equal; the Marxist/structuralist side did not achieve full equivalence, and for a while the initiative lay with interdependence, the liberalist brand of the day.

“In the triangular third debate, the three sides probably were never equal. The Marxist/structuralist side did not achieve full equivalence, and at least for a while the initiative was with 'interdependence'(the liberalist brand of the day).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The principal thesis of liberal institutionalism is that variations in the institutionalization of world politics exert significant impacts on the behaviour of governments, and patterns of cooperation and discord can be understood only in the context of institutions.

“And the principal thesis is that variations in the institutionalization of world politics exert significant impacts on the behaviour of governments. In particular, patterns of cooperation and discord can be understood only in the context of the institutions that help define the meaning and importance of state action. (Keohane, 1989, p. 2)”

• cites Keohane, 1989Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

The inter-paradigm debate is the accord on seeing international relations theories as competing and incommensurable perceptional filters.

“The inter-paradigm debate is the accord on seeing international relations theories as competing and incommensurable perceptional filters.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Progress can only appear in science within paradigms.

“Progress can only appear in science within paradigms.”

• cites KuhnNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The fourth debate is not the third, inter-paradigm debate; on all three defining dimensions-form of relationship, theme, and combatants-it has changed, and we are probably now after the fourth debate.

“Thus, it should be clear, that the fourth debate is not the third, the inter-paradigm debate. Table 7.3 sums up how on all three defining dimentions, it has changed. Not only has this move taken us beyond the inter-paradigm debate; now we are probably after the fourth debate (Wæver, 1994).”

• cites Wæver, 1994Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The discipline was in some sense richer for having all three voices, but also potentially in danger of fragmenting.

“The discipline was thus in some sense richer for having all three voices, but also potentially in danger of fragmenting.”

May combine two claims.

The paradigms could not have a real, normal debate; they could not be tested against each other, since they basically did not speak the same language.

“The paradigms could not have a real, normal debate'. They could not be tested against each other, since they basically did not speak the same language.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The term inter-paradigm debate arouses in most scholars the image of three competing paradigms, and more important than the number is the form and content of debate, the meeting of incommensurable paradigms.

“The term inter-paradigm debate' arouses in most scholars the image of three competing paradigms, and more important than the number is the form and content of debate, the meeting of incommensurable paradigms.”

May combine two claims.

The debate took place mainly in the 1970s but gained its self-reflection as the inter-paradigm debate or the third debate in the beginning of the 1980s.

“The debate took place mainly in the 1970s but gained its self-reflection as the inter-paradigm debate' or 'the third debate' in the beginning of the 1980s (Holsti, Rosenau, Banks).⁶”

• cites HolstiNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites RosenauNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites BanksNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Academic work is always guided by a picture of the discipline itself as the immediate social context.

“Academic work is always guided by a picture of the discipline itself as the immediate social context.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The image of paradigms internally communicating and externally only interacting closely resembles late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century romanticism, a belief in closed cultures where meaning rests with the community and cultures can only be understood from within.

“The image of paradigms internally communicating, externally only interacting, closely resembles late eighteenth-early nineteenth-century romanticism. Romanticism is a belief in closed cultures. Meaning rests with the community.”

May combine two claims.

Anglo-Saxon critics have attacked the myth of the framework and the very idea of a conceptual scheme, focusing on the exaggeration of limits to communication; a solution to incommensurability lies in investigating the exaggeration of unlimited communication.

“AngloSaxon criticisers have attacked 'the myth of the framework'(Popper, 1970) or 'the very idea of a conceptual scheme' (Davidson, 1974). They focus on the exaggeration of limits to communication. A solution to the problem of incommensurability is to be found in an investigation of the exaggeration of unlimited communication.20”

• cites Popper, 1970 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Davidson, 1974Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Keohane and others in the 1980s, especially around International Organization, conducted a surprisingly consistent and systematic attempt to create cumulative research from a few theoretical questions-the consequences of anarchy, polarity, and institutionalisation-which pushed toward less philosophical articles but became boring and unable to hold attention.

“Stated differently: Keohane and others have in the 1980s – especially around the journal International Organization - conducted for the discipline a surprisingly consistent and systematic attempt to create cumulative research from a few theoretical questions (the consequences of anarchy, of polarity and of institutionalisation).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Even if all debates could be constructed as nice typologies exhaustive and exclusive, they would still become misleading at a point when the practitioners had organised themselves along different lines, arguing the next debate.

“Even if they could all be constructed as nice typologies exhaustive and exclusive - they would still become misleading at a point when the practitioners had organised themselves along different lines, arguing the next debate.”

May combine two claims.

The new wave of English School enthusiasm ties in with the attempted rapprochement between reflectivists and rationalists, the deradicalisation of reflectivism, and the rephilosophisation of the rationalists.

“The new wave of English School enthusiasm thus ties in with the attempted rapprochement between reflectivists and rationalists, with the deradicalisation of reflectivism and the rephilosophisation of the rationalists.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Sovereignty is not an institution in the narrow rationalist sense but a thick social phenomenon with historicity, and its centrality and possible changes are hard to avoid for the present situation.

“The issue of sovereignty especially has pushed the rationalists out of their own garden. Sovereignty is clearly not an 'institution'in the narrow rationalist sense, but rather a thick' social phenomenon with historicity.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

There are dangerous effects of counting wrongly.

“Thus, there are dangerous effects of counting wrongly.”

May combine two claims.

Grand synthesis and literal co-operation of several theories, even if logically incompatible in some abstract sense, become possible if the meta-theory is adjusted towards constructivism; this plays with incommensurability but against the cognitivist idea of different lenses creating different pictures of the same.

“Grand 'synthesis' and (literal) co-operation (simultaneous running) of several theories (that might in some abstract sense be logically incompatible), thus becomes possible if the meta-theory is adjusted towards constructivism (Luhmann, 1990a, 1990b; Wæver, 1994). This in a sense is to play with incommensurability, but against the cognitivist idea of different lenses' that create different”

• cites Luhmann, 1990aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Luhmann, 1990bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Wæver, 1994Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Self-reflection in International Relations of the 1980s and 1990s is blocked if presented with the choice of either using the triangle as scheme or abstaining from pictures of its own development.

“Self-reflection in International Relations of the 1980s and 1990s is blocked if presented with the choice of either using the triangle as scheme or abstaining from pictures of its own development.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The discipline is leaving the fourth debate.

“and now I even claim that we are leaving the fourth.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

These debates and the ideas about the debates are part of the self-reflection and thus self-management of the discipline.

“But more importantly these debates and the ideas about the debates are part of the self-reflection and thus selfmanagement of the discipline.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Since debate in a discipline is an inter-subjective and interactive phenomenon, there will be a certain convergence.

“Each of the debates first emerged as constellation, as implicit picture - the picture is not totally consistent from person to person, but since debate in a discipline is an inter-subjective and interactive phenomenon, there will be a certain convergence.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Incommensurability is only a meaningful term if combined with romanticising the warmth of community; it derives its meaning from the distinction between incommensurability and commensurability, a deeply problematic distinction.

“Incommensurability is only a meaningful term if combined with romanticising the warmth of community (as we see in its replay today in US multi-culturalism). Incommensurability as concept derives its meaning from a distinction, the distinction between incommensurability and commensurability – a deeply problematic distinction”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Based on realist premises-that all theories are ultimately talking about the same reality out there-a division of labour can have evolved because different explanatory sources are placed in different areas; each theory carves out its own explanatory mechanisms and sources in ways that do not overlap, so theories should be articulated rather than tested against each other.

“Based on realist premises (i.e. that all theories are ultimately talking about the same reality out there), a division of labour can have evolved because the different explanatory sources are placed in different areas. Each theory carves out its own explanatory mechanisms and sources in ways that do not overlap. In the end they partly explain the same object, but they do not compete for this, and”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: All theories are ultimately talking about the same reality out there.

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The remaining argument often made for incommensurability-that the three paradigms are really political groupings corresponding to conservative, liberal, and radical orientations and therefore can never agree because their world views are tied to different normative programmes-ought to lead to a general relativism or perspectivism and can hardly sustain a picture of three paradigms; political Struc

“There is, however, one remaining argument which is often made for incommensurability: these paradigms are really political groupings. The three paradigms' are obviously the three classical political main orientations: conservative, liberal and radical. Therefore, they can never be brought to agree. Not because of cognitive filters or the closedness of sign systems, but because their world views”

• cites Krasner, 1989Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Little and Smith, 1991Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

In the 1990s there were increasing signs of rapprochement between rationalists and reflectivists, with leading rationalists showing boredom with rational choice extremes and reflectivists moving towards post-radical reflectivism.

“In the 1990s there have been tendencies towards opening up a middle ground on the rationalist/reflectivist axis. After the clear polarisation between rationalists and reflectivists which was at times a rather tough struggle not least in the USA in the 1980s, we have in the 1990s witnessed increasing signs of rapprochement between the two.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Post-structuralists argue that all meaning systems are open-ended systems of signs referring to signs referring to signs, so no concept can have an ultimate, unequivocal meaning; the image of closed paradigms assumes a closed sign system that post-structuralism denies.

“Post-structuralists argue that all meaning systems are open-ended systems of signs referring to signs referring to signs.19 No concept can therefore have an ultimate, unequivocal meaning. The image of closed paradigms or any other closed culture assumes that a closed sign system has been achieved which gives a stable and ultimate meaning to its participants.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

The next phase will be defined in relation to this picture of the discipline.

“Then in a second step, this constellation is labelled, which reinforces the constellation, but also guides the phase of moving beyond it, because the next phase will be defined in relation to this picture of the discipline.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The inter-paradigm debate is a very informative metaphor for telling discipline history about the 1970s-early 1980s.

“Probably, 'the inter-paradigm debate'should be retained as a very informative metaphor for telling discipline history about the 1970s-early 1980s.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The inter-paradigm debate was a debate of the 1970s-early 1980s.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The inter-paradigm debate idea tends to produce straw men, not least of the realists.

“Yes, there is a tendency in it to produce straw men, not least of the realists (cf. Buzan's chapter in this volume; Wæver, 1992, ch. 3).”

• cites Buzan's chapter in this volumeNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Wæver, 1992, ch. 3Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The debates are distinctions involved in the work of the discipline.

“The debates are partly constructed and artificially imposed on much more diverse activities, partly they are implicit operators in actual academic practice, they are distinctions involved in the work of the discipline.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Images of the internal battlelines do exist and they have effects.

“On the other hand, images of the internal battlelines do exist and they have effects.”

May combine two claims.

Along the rationalist/reflectivist axis, extreme rationalists and extreme anti-IR approaches became increasingly marginalised, and a middle ground emerged where neo-institutionalists from the rationalist side meet constructivists from the reflectivist side; more philosophical issues became increasingly welcome in the mainstream.

“Along the axis of debate of the 1980s – rationalist/reflectivist - we thus see an increasing marginalisation of extreme rationalists (rational choice) and of extreme anti-IR approaches (deconstructivists), and the emergence of a middle ground where neoinstitutionalists from the rationalist side meet constructivists arriving from the reflectivist side (Figure 7.4). More philosophical'issues are”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The debates operate as a dialectic between implicit pictures and articulate self-representations of the discipline.

“The debates' operate as a dialectic between implicit pictures and articulate selfrepresentations of the discipline.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The picture of a debate is not totally consistent from person to person.

“Each of the debates first emerged as constellation, as implicit picture - the picture is not totally consistent from person to person, but since debate in a discipline is an inter-subjective and interactive phenomenon, there will be a certain convergence.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The discipline seems to organise itself through a constant oscillation between grand debates and periods in-between where the previous contestants meet.

“The discipline seems to organise itself through a constant oscillation between grand debates and periods in-between where the previous contestants meet.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The quandary of incommensurability can be dealt with most fundamentally from a post-structuralist perspective.

“I will argue the opposite: the quandary of incommensurability – which most commonsensical Anglo-Saxon minded social scientists find unacceptable but difficult to rebut – can be dealt with most fundamentally from a post-structuralist perspective.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

None of these debates lasts forever.

“None of these debates lasts forever.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In a second step, the constellation is labelled.

“Then in a second step, this constellation is labelled, which reinforces the constellation, but also guides the phase of moving beyond it, because the next phase will be defined in relation to this picture of the discipline.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

One of these debates was the inter-paradigm debate.

“One of these debates was the inter-paradigm debate.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In academic debates, there always have to be three positions, three options, three scenarios.

“In academic debates, there always have to be three positions, three options, three scenarios.22”

• cites Arendt (1972, p. 12)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The debates are partly implicit operators in actual academic practice.

“The debates are partly constructed and artificially imposed on much more diverse activities, partly they are implicit operators in actual academic practice, they are distinctions involved in the work of the discipline.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The English school fits the scheme because it is a respectable traditional approach with quasi-philosophical and historical reflection that interrogates deep institutions, can be linked to post-modernist notions, and its classics such as Bull's Anarchical Society offer clear operational concepts, allowing the American mainstream to extend institutionalism moderately.

“The English school is a respectable, traditional approach which includes quasi-philosophical and historical reflection, and especially it interrogates deep institutions in the system. Thus, it can relatively easily be linked to more or less post-modernist notions”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Each of the debates first emerged as a constellation, as an implicit picture.

“Each of the debates first emerged as constellation, as implicit picture - the picture is not totally consistent from person to person, but since debate in a discipline is an inter-subjective and interactive phenomenon, there will be a certain convergence.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Danger arises especially when one model of schools gets fixed, such as the timeless triangle, and projected backwards as well as forwards, as the map of all possible positions.

“Danger arises especially when one model of schools gets fixed, such as the timeless triangle, and projected backwards as well as forwards, as the map of all possible positions.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The theories do not modify each other; each has its separate area-domestic, international political structure, systemic pressure, political action and interaction-and each is an absolute demand, so the theoretician must accept the inner logic of a theory when entering an analysis in its terms.

“The theories do not modify each other – they have each their separate area: domestic, international political structure, systemic pressure, political action and interaction. They are each absolute demands. The theoretician has to accept the inner logic of Waltzianism when he enters an analysis in terms of international political structure.”

May combine two claims.

The problem is not the concept of incommensurability but the concept of commensurability; the argument about incommensurability rests on a dichotomy between radical incommensurability/incommunicability among paradigms and radical commensurability/communicability within paradigms.

“The first step is to notice that the concept of incommensurability is not the problem, the problem is the concept of commensurability. The argument about incommensurability rests on a dichotomy, between on the one hand radical incommensurability (and ultimate incommunicability) among paradigms and on the other hand radical commensurability and communicability within paradigms.”