Lakatos and neorealism: A reply

被引:20
作者
Elman, C
Elman, MF
机构
[1] Department of Political Science, Arizona State University, Tempe
关键词
D O I
10.2307/2952175
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
We disagree that our correspondence (Elman and Elman 1995) regarding Schroeder (1994) supports Vasquez's (1997) verdict that the neorealist scientific research program is degenerating We argue that Vasquez's conclusion is based on a misstatement of the Lakatosian criteria of appraisal and a mistaken conflation of the neorealist research program with the proposition that balancing is a common foreign policy. We do, however, welcome Vasquez's attempt to apply Lakatosian metatheory to international relations theory, and we hope that this conversation will encourage others to follow his lead.
引用
收藏
页码:923 / 926
页数:4
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], APPRAISING EC THEORI
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1991, APPRAISING EC THEORI
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1976, Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
[4]  
BLAUG M, 1992, METHODOLOGY EC OR HO
[5]  
BLAUG M, 1976, METHOD APPRAISAL EC
[6]  
Carrier M, 1988, Z ALLG WISSENSCHAFTS, V19, P205
[7]   A CRITIQUE OF A CRITIQUE OF THE-WAR-TRAP [J].
DEMESQUITA, BB .
JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION, 1984, 28 (02) :341-360
[8]   TOWARD A SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT - A PERSONAL VIEW [J].
DEMESQUITA, BB .
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES QUARTERLY, 1985, 29 (02) :121-136
[9]  
ELMAN C, 1995, INT SECURITY, V20, P182, DOI 10.2307/2539222
[10]   Horses for courses: Why not neorealist theories of foreign policy? [J].
Elman, C .
SECURITY STUDIES, 1996, 6 (01) :7-53