After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism
Abstract
This article argues that the current self-understanding of IR theory is misconceived and that it is time to move beyond the stagnant positivism/postpositivism debate. We argue that the attempt to occupy a middle ground compromise position between positivism and postpositivism is untenable because these two positions share much in common. In this sense a middle ground position between two problematic positions does not produce a less problematic position. What is needed is a metatheoretical analysis of the two extreme positions. We attempt to show how both positivism and postpositivism are embedded in a discourse of philosophical anti-realism. This anti-realism occurs as a result of what we call the post-Kantian-Humean “problem-field” of international relations from which most contemporary positivist, constructivist, and post-structuralist IR approaches stem. We then try to overcome this “problem-field” by means of radically reclaiming reality through a critical realist philosophy. Once outlined we try to show how this critical realist philosophy can help transcend some of the antinomies currently faced by IR scholars.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The epistemological pillar and its related epistemological stances are developing into the cornerstone of all contemporary relational and systemic therapies.
“We would argue that the epistemological pillar and its related epistemological stances (e.g., pragmatism [Maarouf, 2019] and critical realism [Patomäki & Wight, 2000]) are in fact developing into the cornerstone of all contemporary relational and systemic therapies.”
From Researching what we practice—The paradigm of systemic family research: Part 2 (2023) · cites this paper as Patomäki & Wight, 2000
The epistemological pillar is similar to the epistemological stances underlying pragmatism and critical realism, which allow for the application of a range of methods to collect and analyze data.
“As such, the epistemological pillar is similar to the epistemological stance underlying the paradigms of pragmatism (Maarouf, 2019) and critical realism (Patomäki & Wight, 2000), as these allow for the application of a range of methods to collect and analyze data.”
From Researching what we practice—The paradigm of systemic family research: Part 2 (2023) · cites this paper as Patomäki & Wight, 2000
Cites
Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics
Enloe, C. (2014) · doi:10.1525/9780520957282 · Cited by 2,165 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Researching what we practice—The paradigm of systemic family research: Part 2
Whittaker, K., Stokkebekk, J., Lorås, L., & Tilden, T. (2023) · Family Process · doi:10.1111/famp.12921 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Patomaki, H., & Wight, C.
- Affiliations
- Aberystwyth University (GB)
- ORCID
- Wight, Colin
- Venue
- International Studies Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 213-237
- ISSN
- 0020-8833 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2478
- OpenAlex
- W2121710886
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 27.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Studies Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Realism in Sociology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Keywords
- critical realism, positivism, post-positivism, anti-realism, metatheory, international relations theory, constructivism, poststructuralism, problem field, philosophy of social science
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.
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