Wyjaśniać czy interpretować : dylematy i wyzwania czwartej debaty interparadygmatycznej

• Autorzy: Teresa Łoś-Nowak

Warianty tytułu

To explain or to interpret : dilemmas and challenges of the fourth interparadigmatic debate

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Poczynając od pierwszej poważnej debaty interparadygmatycznej z przełomu lat 50. i 60. XX w., prowadzonej przez przedstawicieli nurtu realistycznego i behawioralnego, do ostatniej z przełomu lat 80. i 90. ubiegłego stulecia trwa dyskusja o ontologicznych i epistemologicznych problemach nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Nie zniechęca to jednak badaczy do kontynuowania uważnej i rozważnej refleksji nad kondycją dyscypliny i jej miejscem w panteonie Nauki, a już na pewno nie zniechęca do pogłębiania dyskursu teoretycznego o skuteczności eksplanacyjnej różnorodnych podejść teoretycznych i ich metodologicznej poprawności w procesie poznawania i wyjaśniania złożoności współczesnego świata oraz wyzwań, jakie niesie wiek XXI. (fragment tekstu)

EN

The author raises several questions which are important not just for the discussion concerning the identity of international relations as a discipline, but also for the credibility of research findings, and the capacity to interpret and predict. Among the most important of these are without doubt questions concerning research methods and tools, concerning the ability of researchers to extract from the international environment surrounding them, the central problems of the rapidly changing contemporary world, and symptoms of change in the international system, and in this connection, questions concerning the symbols and vehicles of the changes taking place in the field of international relations. Ontological and epistemological issues relating to the discipline of international relations have been the subject of discussion since the first serious interparadigmatic debate in the late 1950s and early 1960s engaged in by representatives of the realist school and the new behavioural approach, through to the most recent debate in the 1980s and 1990s. This lengthy discussion has not discouraged specialists in the field from continuing their careful and thoughtful reflection on the condition of the discipline and its place in the pantheon of learning. It should also certainly not be a discouragement to a deepening of the theoretical debate concerning the explanatory effectiveness of various theoretical approaches and their methodological correctness in the process of investigating and explaining the complexities of the modern world and the new challenges confronting us in the 21st century. Without doubt, the new theoretical approaches are breaking down the classic, "correct" analytical models, and introducing elements of an intersubjective interpretation of new phenomena and processes taking place in the international environment. As a result, these phenomena and processes are more difficult to understand, new risks are developing and opportunities are declining for the contemporary world to develop. This world is disoriented by the intellectual trap of post-modernism in which the "old" principles for explaining international processes and phenomena, such as the crisis of the state, derogation from international law, morality and other such values are turning out not to be fully effective, and either there are no new principles or where they are proposed, they fail to gain universal acceptance. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Stosunki międzynarodowe; Badania naukowe

EN

International relations; Scientific research

• Czasopismo: Stosunki Międzynarodowe
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: 39
• Numer: nr 1/2
• Strony: 29--47

Twórcy

autor

Teresa Łoś-Nowak

• Uniwersytet Wrocławski

Bibliografia

• K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline. Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, Boston 1965
• J.S. Nye, Jr., Studying World Politics, w: J. Krazel, J.N. Rosenau (red.), Journeys through World Politics. Autobiographical Reflections of Thirty-fourth Academic Travel, Lexington Books 1989
• E. Adler, Cognitive Evolution: A Dynamic Approach for the Study of International Relations and Their Progress, w: E. Adler, B. Crawford, Progression in Post-War International Relations, New York 1991
• M. Zalewski, C. Enloe, Questions about Identity in International Relations, w: K. Booth, S. Smith (red.), International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge 1995
• Y.H. Ferguson,W. Mansbach, The State, Conceptional Chaos and the Future of International Theory, Denver 1989
• J.A. Vasquez, Post-positivism and the Future of International Relations Theory, w: K. Booth, S. Smith (red.), International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge 1995
• Cz. Maj, International Stability: What Can We Learnfrom Systems Metaphors and Analogies, Working Papers / Center For Peace and Conflict Research, Copenhagen 1993, nr 3.
• P.R. Viotti, M.V. Kauppi, International Relations. Theory. Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, New York 1987.
• R. Cox, Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, "Millennium" 1981, vol. 10, nr 2
• R. Jackson, G. Sorensen, Wprowadzenie do teorii stosunków międzynarodowych. Teorie i kierunki badawcze, Kraków 2006
• J.A. Vasquez, The Post-Positive Debate. Reconstructing, w: P.R. Viotti, M.V. Kauppi, International Relations. Theory. Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, New York 1987.
• K.N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Berkeley 1979
• J. Kukułka, Problemy teorii stosunków międzynarodowych, Warszawa 1978, s. 57.
• Ch. Reus-Smith, Constructivism, w: S. Burchill i in. (red.), Theories of International Relations, New York, 2003
• T.N. Knutsen, A History of International Relations, New York 1992
• S. Smith, The Self-Image of Discipline: Genealogy of International Relations Theory, w: K. Booth, S. Smith (red.), International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge 1995
• J.E. Dougherty,L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr., Contending Theories of International Relations. A Comprehensive Survey, New York 2001
• L. Kołakowski, Horror Metapysicus, Warszawa 1990.
• T. Łoś-Nowak, Stosunki międzynarodowe. Teorie. Systemy. Uczestnicy, Wrocław 2008.
• E. Adler, Cognitive Evolution: A. Dynamic Approach for the Study of International Relations and Their Progress, w: E. Adler, B. Crawford, Progression in Post War International Relations, New York 1991.
• E. Adler, B. Crawford, J. Donnelly, Defining and Conceptualizing Progress in International Relations, w: E. Adler, B. Crawford, Progression in Post War International Relations, New York 1991.
• L. Szczegóła, Polityka, jako instytucjonalizacja idei, w: B. Kaczmarek (red.), Metafory polityki, Warszawa 2001
• R. Cox, Towards a Post-hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflection on Relevance of Ibn Khaldun, w: J.N. Rosenau, E.O. Czempiel, Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1992
• Z. Bauman, Życie na przemiał, Kraków 2004
• K.J. Holsti, The State, War and the State of War, Cambridge 1996.
• B. Kaczmarek, Metafory polityki, t. 2., Warszawa 2003
• J.P. Vasquez, The Post-positiv Debate. Reconstructing Scientific Enquiry and International Relations Theory Tooday, w: K. Booth, S. Smith (red.), International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge 1995
• R. Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, New York-Cambridge 1981
• T. Łoś-Nowak, Paradygmat realistyczny-projekt porządku międzynarodowego w XXI wieku, w: Kuźniar (red.), Porządek międzynarodowy u progu XXI wieku, Warszawa 20053
• A. Polus, Governance w stosunkach międzynarodowych, w: E. Stadtmuller (red.), Regionalizacja w stosunkach międzynarodowych. Aspekty polityczno-gospodarcze, Toruń 2008
• S. Rushdie o Kapuścińskim w: W. Bereś, K. Burnetko, Ryszard Kapuściński. Nie ogarniam świata, Warszawa 2007.
• P. Grudziński, Państwo inteligentne. Polska w poszukiwaniu międzynarodowej roli, Toruń 2008
• R.W. Cox, Towards a Post-hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on Relevance of Ibn Khaldun, w: J.N. Rosenau, E.O. Czempiel, Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1992