The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 43 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate
Abstract
The separation of concepts applicable to groups from those applicable to individuals is a powerful tool for eliminating the solipsism characteristic of traditional methodologies. Science becomes intrinsically a group activity, no longer even idealizable as a one-person game. Thomas S. Kuhn (1993, p. xiii) 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. Some writers claim that this is the timeless pattern of International Relations debate – even in the classics, we find these three types of thinking (Kauppi and Viotti, 1992; Viotti and Kauppi 1993 [1987]). Others will be more restrictive and say the discipline became like this at some point, e.g. in the 1970s (Holsti, 1985). Not everyone, however, cherishes this categorisation. Is it vague and arbitrary? (Why these three? Why three? Where do you place the Neo-realism/Neo-liberalism debate?) No, all typologies are problematic – this no more than others. Such will not be my main line of criticism. A fairly coherent construction can be made (and will be presented in section 1). But ‘the debate’ is a misleading map and a bad guide to introduce students to. This is not the pattern of debate today. The story about an ‘inter-paradigm debate’ does not give a grip on the ongoing controversies in the discipline.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Wæver argues that the “inter-paradigm debate” was a 1970s–early 1980s self-image of IR as three incommensurable paradigms—realism, pluralism/liberalism, and Marxism/radicalism—but it no longer described the discipline by the mid-to-late 1980s. He proposes instead a four-debate sequence, with the 1980s dominated by a neo-neo synthesis and a rationalist–reflectivist fourth debate, and calls for new metaphors for IR self-reflection.
Key findings
- The inter-paradigm debate was mainly a 1970s phenomenon, labelled around 1980–85; it presented realism, pluralism/interdependence, and Marxism/radicalism as incommensurable paradigms, though Wæver says it was “de facto mainly a debate along one side of the triangle” rather than an equal three-way debate.
- In the mid-to-late 1980s, realism became neo-realism and liberalism became neoliberal institutionalism; they formed a “neo-neo synthesis” sharing a rationalist research programme, anarchy premise, and questions about cooperation and institutions. Wæver cites Keohane’s “We agree on 90 per cent” and says realists and liberalists agree “more than 90 per cent.”
- The main 1980s axis shifted to rationalists versus reflectivists (the fourth debate), with post-modernists replacing Marxists as the radical contender. Table 7.3 contrasts the third debate (incommensurability, world view, three paradigms) with 4a (war, philosophy, neo-neo synthesis vs post-modernists) and 4b (differences within a research programme, empirical question, neo-realists vs neo-liberal institutionalists).
- In the 1990s, Wæver sees rapprochement and a middle ground between rationalists and reflectivists, marginalisation of extreme rational choice and deconstructivists, and an English School revival; he argues incommensurability should be rejected through a post-structuralist critique of commensurability, and IR needs new images beyond the triangle.
Methods
- Theoretical, conceptual, and historical essay rather than an empirical study; no sample or dataset is used.
- Analyzes IR self-images and debates from the first to the fourth debate, drawing on textbooks, key works (Kuhn, Lapid, Keohane, Waltz, Ruggie, and others), and tables (7.1–7.4) comparing paradigms and debates.
- Main analysis is interpretive mapping and critique of “incommensurability” and the three-paradigm triangle, proposing four debates and a constructivist/post-structuralist alternative.
Limitations
- The paper does not include a formal limitations section; it acknowledges that its four-debate argument is unconventional and contrary to established wisdom that there is no fourth debate.
- Evident from the text: no systematic empirical data or case selection; it relies on secondary literature and the author’s interpretive periodisation, so claims about debate timing and disciplinary consensus are not empirically tested.
- Evident: the argument is normative/prescriptive in aiming to reshape disciplinary self-reflection, and some claims are hedged (“probably,” “I would suggest”), limiting falsifiability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
82 Own interpretation · 23 Sources not found · 11 No basis given · 4 Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“they each sorted the world according to different concepts and thus got different empirical material.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is not the pattern of debate today.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The challengers not only formulated a criticism of realism but tried to present alternative conceptions of the international system. These went in terms of regional integration, transnationalism, interdependence, and a pluralist system of numerous sub-state and trans-state actors who made up a much more complicated image than the usual state-to-state one.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, there was increasing criticism of the dominant realist paradigm, not primarily its methodology, but its image of the world, its alleged state-centrism, preoccupation with power and its blindness to various kinds of processes domestically, transnationally and beyond the political-military sphere.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, a third paradigm had arisen: Marxism.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the 1970s, however, Marxism was increasingly seen as an alternative theory of international relations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this sense the shift from realism to neo-realism can be seen as a delayed and displaced victory for the 'scientific' side of the second debate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Formulations like these miss the sociology of science and history of science argument by Kuhn (who is admittedly ambiguous on this; Masterman 1970), that paradigms are intrinsic to the social functioning of a scientific community.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhn
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Masterman 1970 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A dominant neo-neo synthesis became the research programme of the 1980s (Figure 7.2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Thus, the main explanation for this peculiar form for a discipline to take is to be found in a weakening of the centre (cf. Holsti, 1985, 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Holsti, 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Holsti, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 66
- It may state two separate claims as one. 50
- The quote only partly states this claim. 7
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the image of 'incommensurable' paradigms is a block to scientific progress”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kauppi and Viotti, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Viotti and Kauppi 1993 [1987]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Holsti, 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The debate has moved on; self-referential story-telling in the discipline ought to move with it.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a general understanding, that an alternative image of international politics had materialised, but also that realism did not easily give in.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The story about an inter-paradigm debate' does not give a grip on the ongoing controversies in the discipline.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rothstein 1972
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Realism and its pluralist challenger appeared to be such incommensurable paradigms.³”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhn
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Paradigms are incommensurable, because they each generate their criteria of judgement and their own language'.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhn
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“theories cannot be judged in any over-arching, neutral language.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhn
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the discipline flapped towards the 1970s when it definitely became triangular.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Waltz, 1979
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gilpin, 1981 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The debate is the discipline.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“You can keep travelling around in the triangle – it does not stabilise into a simple dichotomy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhn
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The metaphor of paradigms was useful for reconstructing a more decentralised but stabilised image of the discipline in a time of troubles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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'.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main issue of contention was the nature of international relations' (with ensuing political consequences) and the secondary one methodology'.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § How did it end? · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jarvis, 1970
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Jarvis, 1976
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Snyder and Diesing, 1977
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guzzini, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Guzzini, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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'.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhn
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Keohane, 1993a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That this rationalist-reflectivist axis was the main line of struggle was to be registered in many ways in the 1980s.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The image of the triangle, however, has been the one to be used most often as a guiding metaphor for the discipline.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Keohane, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Without paradigms, there would be no scientific questions (Kuhn, 1970b, p. 9).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhn, 1970b, p. 9
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(Neo-)Realism is no longer an ethico-philosophical position. Sweeping statements on the nature of life and politics are replaced by precise statements.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Keohane, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The inter-paradigm debate is the accord on seeing international relations theories as competing and incommensurable perceptional filters.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Progress can only appear in science within paradigms.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhn
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wæver, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The discipline was thus in some sense richer for having all three voices, but also potentially in danger of fragmenting.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Holsti
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Rosenau
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Banks
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Academic work is always guided by a picture of the discipline itself as the immediate social context.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Popper, 1970 source
- Not matchedcites Davidson, 1974
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, there are dangerous effects of counting wrongly.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Luhmann, 1990a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Luhmann, 1990b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Wæver, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and now I even claim that we are leaving the fourth.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But more importantly these debates and the ideas about the debates are part of the self-reflection and thus selfmanagement of the discipline.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All theories are ultimately talking about the same reality out there.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Krasner, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Little and Smith, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Probably, 'the inter-paradigm debate'should be retained as a very informative metaphor for telling discipline history about the 1970s-early 1980s.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: The inter-paradigm debate was a debate of the 1970s-early 1980s.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Buzan's chapter in this volume
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Wæver, 1992, ch. 3
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, images of the internal battlelines do exist and they have effects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The debates' operate as a dialectic between implicit pictures and articulate selfrepresentations of the discipline.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The discipline seems to organise itself through a constant oscillation between grand debates and periods in-between where the previous contestants meet.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of these debates lasts forever.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One of these debates was the inter-paradigm debate.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In academic debates, there always have to be three positions, three options, three scenarios.22”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Arendt (1972, p. 12)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Scientific progress is a relevant goal for International Relations and is blocked by incommensurable paradigms.
“the image of 'incommensurable' paradigms is a block to scientific progress”
The paper relies on this without support.
The discipline's debates can be periodized into four great debates.
“The first great debate in IR was that of idealism versus realism in the 1940s and the second was behaviouralism versus traditionalism in the 1950s-1960s.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The standard textbook presentation of IR as three paradigms is a sufficiently dominant target for critique.
“A standard textbook presentation of International Relations (IR) has it that there are three paradigms, three dominant schools.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
All theories are ultimately talking about the same reality out there.
“Based on realist premises (i.e. that all theories are ultimately talking about the same reality out there)”
The paper relies on this without support.
Communication takes place all the time, so human beings experience that it makes sufficient sense for us (or most of us) to go on.
“But communication takes place all the time, so obviously human beings experience that it makes sufficient sense for us (or most of us) to go on.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The fourth debate is between rationalists and reflectivists.
“contestants of the fourth debate (rationalists and reflectivists)”
The paper relies on this without support.
The inter-paradigm debate was a debate of the 1970s-early 1980s.
“the inter-paradigm debate'should be retained as a very informative metaphor for telling discipline history about the 1970s-early 1980s.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ NOTES
“This complementarist approach was not easily absorbed by the academic world (Suhr, 1995)”
§ REFERENCES
“Suhr, Michael (1996), 'Robert Keohane – a Contemporary Classic'”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ NOTES
“Keohane and Nye, for instance, in the most famous book of the period, Power and Independence”
§ REFERENCES
“Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, J. (1977), Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ What was the inter-paradigm debate?
“Sources: Rosenau, 1982; Viotti and Kauppi, 1987; Keohane and Nye, 1977; Wilde, 1989.”
§ REFERENCES
“Wilde, Jaap de (1991), Saved From Oblivion: Interdependence Theory in the First Half of the 20th Century.”
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 50
- Ashley, Richard (1984), 'The Poverty of Neo-realism', International Organization, 38 (2), pp. 225–86.
- Baldwin, David (ed.) (1993), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press).
- Banks, Michael (1984), The Evolution of International Relations Theory', in Michael Banks (ed.), Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations (Harvester), pp. 1–21.
- (1985), 'The Inter-Paradigm Debate', in M. Light and A. J. R. Groom (eds.), International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory (London: Pinter), pp. 7–26.
- (1986), The International Relations Discipline: Asset or Liability for Conflict Resolution', in E. A. Azar and J. W. Burton (eds.), International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (Sussex: Wheatsheaf), pp. 5-27.
- Bernstein, Richard J. (1991), The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity (Cambridge: Polity Press).
- Buzan, Barry, Little, Richard and Jones, Charles (1993), The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism (New York: Columbia University Press).
- Der Derian, James (1987), On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford: Blackwell).
- Derrida, Jacques (1977 [1972]), Signature Event Context', Glyph, 1, pp. 172–97. (1978 [1967]), Writing and Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
- (1987), The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
- (1990), Cooperation among Nations: Europe, America, and Non-tariff Barriers to Trade (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press).
- Guzzini, Stefano (1988), T. S. Kuhn and International Relations: International Political Economy and the Inter-Paradigm Debate, London School of Economics and Political Science: unpublished MA thesis.
- (1992), The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold: Realism in International Relations/International Political Economy (Florence: European University Institute Working Paper SPS 92/20; revised version forthcoming at Routledge).
- Guzzini, Stefano, Patomäki, Heikki and Walker, R. B. J. (1995), A Concluding Trialogue', in Patomäki (ed.), Peaceful Changes in World Politics (Tampere: TAPRI).
- Hermann, Charles F. and Peacock, Gregory (1987), 'The Evolution and Future of Theoretical Research in the Comparative Study of Foreign Policy', in Charles F. Hermann, Charles W. Kegley and James N. Rosenau (eds.), New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy (Boston: Allen & Unwin), pp. 13–32.
- Hoffmann, Stanley (1977), An American School Science: International Relations', Dædalus, 106 (3), pp. 41–60.
- (1986), 'The Horsemen of the Apocalypse: At the Gate, Detoured, or Retreating?', International Studies Quarterly, 30 (4), pp. 355–71.
- (1988 [1967]), International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, 5th edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
- (1993), 'International Relations at the End of the Millennium', Review of International Studies, 19 (4), pp. 401–8.
- Janis, Irving and Mann, Leon (1977), Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment (New York: Free Press).
- Jervis, Robert (1970), The Logic of Images in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
- (1976), Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
- Keohane, Robert (1989), International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
- (1993a), 'Institutionalist Theory and the Realist Challenge: After the Cold War', in David Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press).
- (1993b), Hobbes's Dilemma and Institutional Change in World Politics: Sovereignty in International Society, Paper presented at the Conference on Economic and Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific: Agendas for the 1990s, Canberra, 28–30 July.
- Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James N. (eds.) (1969), Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
- Knudsen, Tonny Brems (1994), Det Nye Europa: Orden eller Kaos?, University of Aarhus: MA thesis.
- Krasner, Stephen D. (1989), Fortune, Virtue, and Systematic versus Scientific Inquiry', in Joseph Mruzel and James N. Rosenau (eds.), Fourneys through World Politics: Autobiographical Reflections of Thirty-four Academic Travellers (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books), pp. 417–27.
- Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970a [1962]), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition enlarged (Chicago:University of Chicago Press).
- (1970b), 'Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research', in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 1–23.
- (1970c), 'Reflections on my Critics', in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
- (1993), 'Foreword' to Paul Hoyningen-Huene, Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's Philosophy of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
- Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan (eds.) (1970), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
- Little, Richard and Smith, Michael (1991), Perspectives on World Politics, 2nd edition (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
- Maghrori, Ray and Ramberg (eds.) (1982), Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations' Third Debate? (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
- (1989), 'Incommensurability, International Theory and the Fragmentation of Western Political Culture', in John R. Gibbins (ed.), Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Postmodern Age (London: Sage/ECPR), pp. 237–50.
- (1992), 'A City which Sustains all Things? Communitarianism and the Foundations of International Society', Millennium, 21 (3), pp. 353–69.
- Ringmar, Erik (1995), 'Alexander Wendt – a Scientist Struggling with History', in Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wæver (eds.), The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
- Rosenau, James N. (1982), The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, revised and enlarged edition (London/New York: Frances Pinter/Nichols).
- (1993), 'Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations', International Organization, 47 (1), pp. 139–74.
- Schaber, Thomas and Ulbert, Cornelia (1994), 'Reflexivität in den Internationalen Beziehungen: Literaturbericht zum Beitrag kognitiver, reflexiver und interpretativer Ansätze zur dritten Theoriedebatte', Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1 (1), pp. 139–69.
- Snyder, G. H. and Diesing, P. (1977), Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decisionmaking and System Structure in International Crisis (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
- Suhr, Michael (1996), 'Robert Keohane – a Contemporary Classic', in Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wæver (eds.), Masters in the Making: Eleven International Relations Theorists Assessed (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
- Waltz, Kenneth (1959), Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University Press).
- (1986), 'Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics', in Robert Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press).
- (1990), 'Realist Thought and Neo-Realist Theory', Fournal of International Affairs, 44 (1), pp. 21–37.
- Wendt, Alexander and Duvall, Raymond (1989), Institutions and International Order', in Ernst-Otto Cziempel and James N. Rosenau (eds.), Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s (Lexington: Lexington Books), pp. 51–76.
- Wæver, Ole (1991), Territory, Authority and Identity: The Late 20th Century Emergence of Neo-medieval Political Structures in Europe', paper presented at the inaugural EUPRA conference in Florence, November 1991.
- (forthcoming a), 'Transformation and Institutionalization: With Ruggie across IR Paradigms', in Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wæver (eds.), The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
- (forthcoming b), Europe's Three Empires: A Watsonian Interpretation of Post-wall European Security', forthcoming in Fawn, Larkins and Newman (eds.), International Society After the Cold War (Millennium and Macmillan).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 341
International Relations Scholarship at 100: Publicism, Truth-Pluralism and the Usefulness Problem
Michelsen, N. (2018) · New Perspectives · doi:10.1177/2336825x1802600306 · Cited by 13
Guzzini, S. (2020) · International Studies Review · doi:10.1093/isr/viaa013 · Cited by 13
Eun, Y.-S. (2016) · International Political Science Review · doi:10.1177/0192512116642222 · Cited by 13
Norms and transboundary co-operation in Africa : the cases of the Orange-Senqu and Nile rivers
Jacobs, I. M. (2010) · St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) · Cited by 12
“Vision of Itself” in Foreign Policy Analysis: From the Role of Ideas to Identity and Recognition
Guzzini, S. (2022) · Teoria Polityki · doi:10.4467/25440845tp.22.001.16001 · Cited by 12
“Hence, Stephen Krasner had no real choice but to admit the place of regimes as not only intervening but also as autonomous variables in structural explanations (see, respectively, Krasner, 1982a; 1982b), the “neo-neo synthesis” of neorealism and neoliberalism (Wæver, 1996).”
BackgroundEvolving Beyond Self-Interest? Some Experimental Findings From Simulated International Negotiations
Niv‐Solomon, A., Janik, L., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N. F., Urlacher, B., Brown, S. W., & Maneggia, D. (2009) · Simulation & Gaming · doi:10.1177/1046878109341764 · Cited by 11
Me and the Other in International Relations: An Alternative Pluralist International Relations 101
Lupovici, A. (2012) · International Studies Perspectives · doi:10.1111/j.1528-3585.2012.00473.x · Cited by 11
Rediscovering Asianness: the role of institutional discourses in APEC, 1989-1997
Oga, T. (2004) · International Relations of the Asia-Pacific · doi:10.1093/irap/4.2.287 · Cited by 10
“In short, regimes as social constructions that emerge through knowledge-constituting practices that are less amenable to empirical observation (Kratochwil and Ruggie, 1986; Kratochwil, 1988; Wæver, 1996). evolution of institutional discourses.”
Science, Empiricism, and Tolerance in the Study of Foreign Policymaking
Schafer, M. (2003) · International Studies Review · doi:10.1111/1521-9488.5020014 · Cited by 10
Inter-Organizational Relations: Five Theoretical Approaches
Franke, U. J. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.99 · Cited by 10
Forum: Thinking Theoretically in Unsettled Times: COVID-19 and Beyond
Sterling-Folker, J., Freyberg‐Inan, A., Wilcox, L., Ozguc, U., & Shinko, R. E. (2021) · International Studies Review · doi:10.1093/isr/viab018 · Cited by 10
“Here we see the limits of international cooperation emerging from coordination problems, conflicts of interest, and high short-term salience for national survival, fully in line with what the neo–neo synthesis in IR could have predicted (Waever 1996).”
Feminists and realists view autonomy and obligation in international relations
Sylvester, C. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491719.009 · Cited by 9
Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., & Peters, I. (2016) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-57410-7_1 · Cited by 9
Theorie(n) in der Lehre von den internationalen Beziehungen
Spindler, M., & Schieder, S. (2003) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-322-86686-8_1 · Cited by 9
Producing Food, Security, and the Geopolitical Subject
Zhou, J. (2022) · Linköping studies in arts and science · doi:10.3384/9789179292836 · Cited by 9
Paradiplomacia y relaciones internacionales: de la práctica hacia su curricularización en Argentina
Oddone, N., Rubiolo, M. F., & Calvento, M. (2020) · OASIS · doi:10.18601/16577558.n32.06 · Cited by 9
Western Theories and the non-Western World
Chatterjee, S. (2014) · South Asian Survey · doi:10.1177/0971523115592470 · Cited by 8
‘Hollow promises?’ Critical materialism and the contradictions of the Democratic Peace
MacMillan, J. (2012) · International Theory · doi:10.1017/s1752971912000139 · Cited by 8
“However, given that ‘the image of ‘‘incommensurable’’ paradigms is a block to scientific progress as well as to earnest, painful criticism’ (Wæver 1996, 149–50) there is a strong incentive to navigate a way through this conundrum.”
BackgroundSoğuk Savaş’ın barışçıl olarak sona ermesi ve uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri
Kolasi, K. (2013) · Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi · doi:10.1501/sbfder_0000002283 · Cited by 8
The Social Constructivist Sensibility and CSDP Research
Kurowska, X., & Kratochwil, F. V. (2012) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230355729_5 · Cited by 8
Challenging the U.S.-Led War on Drugs
Cutrona, S. A. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315212180 · Cited by 8
Um outro olhar: sobre a análise gramsciana das organizações internacionais
Cruz, S. C. V. E. (2000) · Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais · doi:10.1590/s0102-69092000000100003 · Cited by 7
Regionalism in theory and practice: The transformative potential of civil society in Southern Africa
Zajontz, A. T. (2013) · SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) · Cited by 7
Toward a Radical IR: Transformation, Praxis, and Critique in a (Neo)Liberal World Order
Tatum, D. S. (2021) · International Studies Review · doi:10.1093/isr/viab043 · Cited by 7
Schwellnus, G. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-19715-9_13 · Cited by 7
Theories of International Relations
(2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009315234.003 · Cited by 7
Critical and Problem-Solving Perspectives on Decentring EU External Action Studies
Lecocq, S., & Keukeleire, S. (2023) · Journal of Contemporary European Research · doi:10.30950/jcer.v19i2.1293 · Cited by 7
Paris İklim Anlaşmasına Teorik Yaklaşım: Neo-Neo Tartışması, Eko-Marksizm ve Yeşil Kapitalizm
Ünver, H. A. (2017) · Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi · doi:10.33458/uidergisi.513221 · Cited by 7
As Relações Internacionais e seus epistemicídios
Fernández, M. (2019) · Monções Revista de Relações Internacionais da UFGD · doi:10.30612/rmufgd.v8i15.11552 · Cited by 7
КОНЦЕПТУАЛЬНІ ПІДХОДИ ДО ВИЗНАЧЕННЯ ПОНЯТТЯ «МІЖНАРОДНА БЕЗПЕКА»
Трушкіна, Н. (2023) · Věda a perspektivy · doi:10.52058/2695-1592-2023-4(23)-37-51 · Cited by 7
Economía Política Internacional y Paradiplomacia: evolución, debates y convergencia
Trebucq, F. (2024) · Relaciones Internacionales · doi:10.24215/23142766e186 · Cited by 7
Evolution in International Relations
Garlick, J. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009464154 · Cited by 6
Yamato, R. V., & Hoffmann, F. (2018) · Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional · doi:10.1590/0034-7329201800113 · Cited by 6
Meaning-in-use: Zum Verhältnis von Normativität und Normalität in der Normenforschung
Gholiagha, S., Hansen-Magnusson, H., & Hofius, M. (2021) · Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG eBooks · doi:10.5771/9783748923312-221 · Cited by 6
Regional cooperation and conflict management: Lessons from the Pacific Rim
Swanström, N. L. P. (2002) · Cited by 6
Cheshier, D. M., & Dauber, C. E. (1998) · Security Studies · doi:10.1080/09636419808429374 · Cited by 6
Some dangers in merging feminist and peace projects
Sylvester, C. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491719.010 · Cited by 6
Grandi, M. (2020) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.644 · Cited by 6
‘Via Media’ vs. the Critical Path: Constructivism(s) and the Case of EU Identity
Arkan, Z. (2014) · All Azimuth A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace · doi:10.20991/allazimuth.167325 · Cited by 6
Deitelhoff, N., & Daase, C. (2016) · ZPTh – Zeitschrift für Politische Theorie · doi:10.3224/zpth.v6i2.22874 · Cited by 5
Oddone, N., & Pont, M. L. (2019) · Relaciones Internacionales · doi:10.15359/ri.92-2.4 · Cited by 5
Uzgel, İ., & Bedirhanoglu, N. (2015) · Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi · doi:10.33458/uidergisi.463030 · Cited by 5
Relaciones internacionales y América Latina: avances y desafíos en la disciplina
Serrano, L. O. (2020) · OASIS · doi:10.18601/16577558.n32.08 · Cited by 5
“Presentan importantes diferencias entre sí, por lo que resulta más fácil agruparlos en función de su rechazo a la posibilidad de formular verdades objetivas, refutando la elaboración de una ciencia neutral (Waever, 1996; Cox, 1994).”
BackgroundRealisme versus Liberalisme: Suatu Perbandingan Paradigmatis
Rosyidin, M. (2022) · Indonesian Perspective · doi:10.14710/ip.v7i2.50775 · Cited by 5
“Ole Wæver mengingatkan bahwa kedua paradigma (realisme dan liberalisme) yang lebih baik dibanding yang satu dalam beberapa hal, dan yang satu menjelaskan dengan baik beberapa hal lain (Wæver, 1996: 150).”
BackgroundUNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI FAKULTETA ZA DRUBENE VEDE
Logar, P., Oblak, T., & Pinter, A. (2009) · Cited by 4
International Relations and Military Sciences
Roennfeldt, C. F. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02866-4_39-1 · Cited by 4
What a Dilemma? Chinese Economics Growth Strategies Using IR Theories
Rashidin, M. S., Javed, S., & Liu, B. (2019) · Chinese Political Science Review · doi:10.1007/s41111-019-00140-2 · Cited by 4
Český diskurz o protiraketové obraně a národní zájem
Hynek, N., & Střítecký, V. (2010) · Mezinárodní vztahy · Cited by 4
Hans Morgenthau and the historical construction of Realism
Williams, M. C. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491771.004 · Cited by 4
Resende, E. S. A. (2009) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/t.8.2009.tde-28102009-094933 · Cited by 4
Pozitivizm ve Post-Pozitivizm Kıskacında Uluslararası İlişkiler
Avcı, Y., & Arslantaş, E. (2025) · Iğdır üniversitesi sosyal bilimler dergisi · doi:10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1494865 · Cited by 4
Decentring European Foreign Policy Analysis: Towards a Paradigmatic Shift
Keukeleire, S., & Lecocq, S. (2025) · JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies · doi:10.1111/jcms.13766 · Cited by 4
Güneylioğlu, M. (2022) · Siyasal Journal of Political Sciences · doi:10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1118613 · Cited by 4
International Relations and Political Sociology
Mateos, S., & Laiz, L. M. (2018) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781526416513.n11 · Cited by 4
Understanding the Failure of the Arab Maghreb Union: A Critical Constructivits Account
Dursun, H. R. (2021) · Journal of History Culture and Art Research · doi:10.7596/taksad.v10i2.3024 · Cited by 4
Agonismo y genealogía: hacia una analítica de las Relaciones Internacionales
Rodrigues, T. M. (2013) · Relaciones Internacionales · doi:10.15366/relacionesinternacionales2013.24.004 · Cited by 4
Astrov, A. (2005) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230508033 · Cited by 4
Przestrzeń badawcza nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych
Pietraś, M. (2018) · Politeja · doi:10.12797/politeja.12.2015.36.05 · Cited by 3
The International Geostructure of Power: A Trans-Structural Approach
RUVALCABA, D. E. M., & Valencia, A. R. (2024) · Contributions to international relations · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-1180-2_4 · Cited by 3
Towards Engaged Pluralism in the Study of European Trade Politics
Kerremans, B., & Orbie, J. (2013) · Journal of Contemporary European Research · doi:10.30950/jcer.v9i4.598 · Cited by 3
Konstruktivismus a energetická bezpečnost v mezinárodních vztazích
Ocelík, P., & Černoch, F. (2014) · Masarykova univerzita eBooks · doi:10.5817/cz.muni.m210-6671-2014 · Cited by 4
Černy, H. (2014) · Ethnopolitics · doi:10.1080/17449057.2014.888213 · Cited by 3
“The convergence of key positions of these two schools of thought in the 1980s, such as on the state as unitary actor, has been termed the ‘neo-neo synthesis’ and is discussed exemplarily in Wæver (1997).”
BackgroundTeoria das relações internacionais: a pluralidade absoluta e a pluralidade relativa da disciplina
Gomes, D. C. (2017) · Conjuntura Internacional · doi:10.5752/p.1809-6182.2016v13n3p196 · Cited by 3
Where Has the Old Debate Gone? Realism, Institutionalism and IR TheoryPreprint
Grasa, R., & Costa, O. (2007) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.965758 · Cited by 3
The Water War Debate: Swimming Upstream or Downstream in the Okavango and the Nile?
Jacobs, I. M. (2006) · SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) · Cited by 3
CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Williams, M. C. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491771.008 · Cited by 3
Descentrar las Relaciones Internacionales: mitos, centros múltiples y producción de conocimiento
Lagar, F. J., & Porcelli, E. (2022) · Relaciones Internacionales · doi:10.15366/relacionesinternacionales2022.50.001 · Cited by 3
“Como resultado, cada enfoque se concentró en un aspecto particular del objeto de estudio y generó sus propias explicaciones, autoconfirmando, así, sus hipótesis (Wæver, 1996).”
BackgroundVázquez, A. L. (2016) · Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública · doi:10.15174/remap.v5i1.163 · Cited by 3
Jiménez-Peña, G. (2020) · Desafíos · doi:10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/desafios/a.7861 · Cited by 3
Neoconservatism, Neoclassical Realism, and the Narcissism of Small Differences
Caverley, J. D. (2013) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137303769_9 · Cited by 3
Islam and the Trajectory of Globalization
Safi, L. M. (2021) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003203360 · Cited by 3
Lo personal es global: el feminismo en las relaciones internacionales
Sánchez, G. C. (2017) · Fòrum de Recerca · doi:10.6035/forumrecerca.2017.22.11 · Cited by 3
The History of International Studies
Schmidt, B. C. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.22 · Cited by 3
International Relations as a Social System: From Sociocybernetics to the Sociology of IR
Peña, A. M. (2019) · International Political Sociology · doi:10.1093/ips/olz008 · Cited by 3
Silva, A. P. M., Linhares, M. D. M., & de Melo, R. E. L. L. F. (2017) · Monções Revista de Relações Internacionais da UFGD · doi:10.30612/rmufgd.v6i11.6904 · Cited by 3
Devine, K. M. (2012) · International Politics · doi:10.1057/ip.2012.21 · Cited by 2
Visualität und Internationale Beziehungen
Heck, A., & Schlag, G. (2020) · Horizonte der Internationalen Beziehungen · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-29971-2_1 · Cited by 2
Ganchev, I. (2022) · International Studies · doi:10.1177/00208817221102050 · Cited by 2
“Over time, the TGD subsided as MIRTs became dominant (Wæver, 1996), while various iterations of CIRTs developed in parallel but this time around comprehensive frameworks for understanding international politics.”
BackgroundHerbut, M., & Polus, A. (2022) · Politeja · doi:10.12797/politeja.19.2022.76.11 · Cited by 2
Teaching Theory as a Transformative Praxis in International Studies
Shahi, D. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197544891.013.20 · Cited by 2
Díaz, M. L. (2024) · Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales · doi:10.22201/fcpys.2448492xe.2024.252.88772 · Cited by 2
Thall, S. S., & Hjelm, Y. H. (2012) · Cited by 2
The Realist of Distances: Reinhold Niebuhr and the “Great Debates” in IR
Castellin, L. G. (2014) · Open Journal of Political Science · doi:10.4236/ojps.2014.41005 · Cited by 2
“8On these debates see Wæver (1996), Lapid (1989), Kurki and Wight (2006), Brown (1997), and Smith, Booth and Zalewski (1996).”
BackgroundPost Scriptum on Relative and Absolute Gains
Halás, M. (2009) · Cited by 2
Challenging the U.S.-led war on drugs Argentina in comparative perspective
Cutrona, S. A. (2017) · Cited by 2
Critical, Restless, and Relevant: Realism as Normative Thought
Rynning, S. (2022) · Governance, Security and Development · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-05505-8_8 · Cited by 2
Neo-Weberian Reading of Violent Non-State Actors: The Case of Hezbollah
Yetim, M. (2023) · All Azimuth A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace · doi:10.20991/allazimuth.1310477 · Cited by 2
Constitutionalism Unbound: A Practice Approach to NormativityPreprint
Wiener, A. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2103049 · Cited by 2
The emperors' theories and transformations: looking at the field through feminist lenses
Sylvester, C. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491719.008 · Cited by 2
International Relations and Comparative Politics
Nadkarni, V., & Williams, J. M. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.408 · Cited by 2
CRISIS AND CRITIQUE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY
de Souza, N. M. F. (2017) · doi:10.17771/pucrio.acad.36376 · Cited by 2
Hans J. Morgenthau, the "marginal man" in international relations : a "Weltanschauungsanalyse"
Rösch, F. (2011) · OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) · Cited by 2
Stosunki międzynarodowe : między pozytywizmem a postpozytywizmem
Kozub-Karkut, M. (2016) · Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) · doi:10.7366/020909612201603 · Cited by 2
Conceito de Estado e o Cânone Tradicional das Relações Internacionais:
Babo, T., & Coronato, D. R. (2022) · Monções Revista de Relações Internacionais da UFGD · doi:10.30612/rmufgd.v11i21.15612 · Cited by 2
Conversations in and on IR: Labeling, Framing and Delimiting IR Discipline
Grenier, F. (2012) · Bridges Conversations in Global Politics and Public Policy · doi:10.15173/bcgppp.v1i1.1193 · Cited by 2
Social Constructivism as Forecasting Matrix. Collective Habitus in International Relations
Chwedczuk-Szulc, K., & Polus, A. (2020) · Polish Political Science Review · doi:10.2478/ppsr-2020-0001 · Cited by 2
Bloco no poder e política externa nos governos FHC e Lula
Berringer, T. (2014) · doi:10.47749/t/unicamp.2014.925287 · Cited by 2
Kontestation in verknüpften Diskursräumen
Wiener, A. (2014) · Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen · doi:10.5771/0946-7165-2014-2-147 · Cited by 1
“5 Siehe dazu vor allem die teils beißende Kritik in der Beobachtung durch Ole Waever, der in der Debatte zwischen Neoliberalen und Neorealisten der englischsprachigen IB die »boundary of boredom« überschritten sah (Waever 1996: 23)”
Uluslararası İlişkilerin 100 Yıl Krizi: Carr, Bull ve Ontolojik Açmazlar
Avcı, Y. (2026) · Cankiri Karatekin Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi · doi:10.18074/ckuiibfd.1652632 · Cited by 1
Brittingham, M. A. (2006) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Wæver, O.
- Corresponding author
- Wæver, Ole
- ORCID
- Wæver, Ole
- Venue
- International Theory
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1996-06-13
- Pages
- 149-185
- OpenAlex
- W1547679982
- Semantic Scholar
- 141f17284fe1dcd61c77f6e1003c94f37d6498d2
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 21.26
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
- Keywords
- realism, liberalism, Marxism, radicalism, structuralism, globalism, neorealism, neoliberalism, international relations theory, individual versus group, Kuhn
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
