Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-24T01:54:25.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2010

Thomas C. Walker
Thomas C. Walker
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A common theme in the Centennial Issue of the American Political Science Review was how subfields have grown more specialized and insulated from one another. In this essay I argue that this trend has been hastened by the inappropriate incorporation of paradigm mentalities, first presented by Thomas Kuhn and later developed by Imre Lakatos. I show how paradigm mentalities help justify rigid opposition to theoretical alternatives and limit critical insight. While paradigm mentalities may be fitting for disciplines that demonstrate Kuhn's concrete scientific achievements, they constrain the study of political science and international relations in particular. I begin with a primer that compares Kuhn and Lakatos to Karl Popper. Next, I point to harmful consequences resulting from applying paradigm mentalities to the study of international relations. Among these is the tendency to act as if realism has earned the status of a paradigm and then invoke criteria of incommensurability and “subsumption” to deflect criticism. I conclude by discussing how Popper's model of science provides a better platform for the study of politics by encouraging theoretical and methodological pluralism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 433 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almond, Gabriel. 1966. “Political Theory and Political Science.” American Political Science Review 60 (4): 869–879.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel. 1977. “Clouds, Clocks and the Study of Politics.” World Politics 29 (4): 489–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, Gabriel. 1990. A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ashley, Richard. 1986. “The Poverty of Neorealism.” In Neorealism and its Critics, ed. Keohane, Robert. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Babst, Dean. 1972. “A Force for Peace.” Industrial Research (April): 55–58.Google Scholar
Babst, Dean. 1996 [1964]. “Elective Governments—A Force for Peace.” The Wisconsin Sociologist 3 (1): 9–14. Reprinted in Classics of International Relations, ed. John Vasquez (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ball, Terrence. 1976. “From Paradigms to Research Programs: Toward a Post-Kuhnian Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 20 (1): 151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkin, J. Samuel. 2003. “Realist Constructivism.” International Studies Review 5 (3): 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew 2003. “A Lakatosian Reading of Lakatos: What Can We Salvage from the Hardcore.” In Progress and International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, eds. Elman, Colin and Elman, Miriam. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 1993. The New Philosophy of Science: Problems in Indeterminacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth. 1990 [1978]. “Future Directions in Conflict and Peace Studies.” In Conflict: Readings in Management and Resolution, eds. Burton, John and Dukes, Frank. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Chernoff, Fred. 2004. “The Study of the Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations.” International Studies Review 6 (1): 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernoff, Fred. 2005. The Power of International Theory: Reforging the link to foreign policy-making through scientific enquiry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
D'Amour, Gene. 1976. “Research Programmes, Rationality, and Ethics.” In Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, eds. Cohen, R.S., Feyerabend, P.K., and Wartofsky, M.W.. Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Dessler, David. 2003. “Explanation and Scientific Progress.” In Progress and International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, eds. Elman, Colin and Elman, Miriam. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
DiCicco, Jonathan, and Levy, Jack. 1999. “Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of the Power Transition Research Program.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 43 (6): 673–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Elman, Miriam Fendius. 1995. “History vs. Neo-realism: A Second Look.” International Security 20 (1): 182–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Elman, Miriam Fendius. 1997. “Lakatos and Neorealism: A Reply to Vasquez.” American Political Science Review 91 (4): 923–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Elman, Miriam Fendius. 2002. “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research.” International Studies Quarterly 46 (2): 231–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Elman, Miriam Fendius. 2003. Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, James. 1983. “Popper's Hermeneutics.” Philosophy of Social Science 13(2): 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. 1988. Against Method (Revised Edition). London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Fleck, Ludwik. 1979 [1935]. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Robin. 1996. “State of the Art/Science in Anthropology.” In The Flight from Science and Reason, eds. Gross, Paul, Levitt, Norman and Lewis, Martin. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
George, Alexander. 1993. Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
George, Alexander, and Bennett, Andrew. 2004. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnell, John. 1986. Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienation of Political Theory. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 2003. Indeterminacy and Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hellmann, Gunther, ed. 2003. “Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations?” International Studies Review 5 (1): 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, Albert. 1970. “The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to Understanding.” World Politics 22 (3): 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsti, Kalevi. 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1991 [1795]. Perpetual Peace. In Kant's Political Writings, ed. Reiss, Hans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter, and Sil, Rudra. 2008. “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert. 1986. “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond.” In Neorealism and Its Critics, ed. Keohane, Robert. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970a. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Second Edition, Revised). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970b. “Reflections on My Critics.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970c. “Notes on Lakatos”. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Princeton University. 137–146.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1979. “Preface.” In Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, eds. Fleck, Ludwik, Trenn, T. and Merton, R.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1990. “Dubbing and Redubbing: The Vulnerability of Rigid Designation.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Savage, C.Wade, 14: 298–318. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1978a. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers, eds. Worrall, John and Currie, Gregory. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1978b. Mathmatics, Science and Epistemology: Philosophical Papers, eds. Worrall, John and Currie, Gregory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack. 1988. Domestic Politics and War. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (3): 653–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack. 1994. “The Theoretical Foundations of Paul W. Schroeder's International System.” The International History Review 26 (4): 715–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arendt. 1974. “The Structure of the Theoretical Revolution in International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 18 (1): 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masterman, Margaret. 1970. “The Nature of a Paradigm.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McKeown, Timothy. 2004. “Case Studies and the Limits of the Quantitative Worldview.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, eds. Brady, Henry and Collier, David. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Monroe, Kristen. 2005. “Introduction.” In Perestroika: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans. 1948. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson. 1998. Social Science and Scientific Change: A Note on Thomas S. Kuhn's Contribution. Annual Review of Political Science 1: 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1992 [1934]. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 2005 [1945]. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1988 [1956]. The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1964 [1957]. The Poverty of Historicism. New York: Harper Torch Books.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1970. “Normal Science and Its Dangers.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1974. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Biography. London: Open Court.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1994. The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality, ed. Notturno, M.A.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1990 [1756]. “The State of War.” In Reading Rousseau in the Nuclear Age, ed. Roosevelt, Grace. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Schram, Sanford. 2005. “A Return to Politics: Perestroika, Phronesis, and Postparadigmatic Political Science.” In Perestroika: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Paul. 1994a. Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory. International Security 19 (1): 108–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Paul. 1994b. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Paul. 1995. “Reply to the Elmans.” International Security 20 (1): 193–95.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1964. “How to Derive ‘Ought’ from ‘Is’.” The Philosophical Review 73 (1): 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee. 2005. “The APSR in the Perestroika Era.” In Perestroika: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra. 2000. “The Questionable Status of Boundaries: The Need for Integration.” In Beyond Boundaries? Disciplines, Paradigms, and Theoretical Integration of International Studies, eds. Sil, Rudra and Doherty, Eileen M.. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart, and Stuckey, John. 1972. “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965.” In Peace War and Numbers, ed. Russett, Bruce. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Small, Melvin, and Singer, J. David. 1976. “The War-Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816–1965.” The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1 (1): 50–69.Google Scholar
Truman, David. 1965. “Disillusion and Regeneration: The Quest of a Discipline.” American Political Science Review 59 (4): 865–873.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John. 1997. “The Realist Paradigm as a Degenerating Research Program.” American Political Science Review 91 (4): 899–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasquez, John. 1998. The Power of Power Politics: From Neoclassical Realism to Neotraditional. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John. 2003. “Kuhn vs. Lakatos? The Case for Multiple Frames in Appraising International Relations Theory.” In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, eds. Elman, Colin and Elman, Miriam. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Stephen. 2003. “Operational Code Analysis as a Scientific Research Program: A Cautionary Tale.” In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, eds. Elman, Colin and Elman, Miriam. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Thomas, and Morton, Jeffrey. 2005. “Re-Assessing the ‘Power of Power Politics’ Thesis: Is Realism Still Dominant?” International Studies Review 7 (2): 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Thomas. 2008. “Two Faces of Liberalism: Kant, Paine, and the Question of Intervention.” International Studies Quarterly 52 (3): 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1990. “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory.” In The Origins and Prevention of Major Wars, eds. Rotberg, Robert and Rabb, Theodore. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1997. “Evaluating Theories.” American Political Science Review 91 (4): 913–917.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1998. “Interview with Ken Waltz.” Review of International Studies 24: 371–386.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 2003. “Thoughts about Assaying Theories.” In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, eds. Elman, Colin and Elman, Miriam. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Webb, Keith. 1995. An Introduction to Problems in the Philosophy of Social Sciences. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.” International Organization 41(3): 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon. 1969. “Political Theory as a Vocation.” American Political Science Review 72 (4): 1062–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar