| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article considers three factual observations about the history of the study of International Relations and examines how well several different metatheories of IR can account for them. The three facts are, first, that there has been persisting disagreement between supporters of contending theoretical approaches; second, that there have been occasional cases in which opposing scholars have converged on certain conclusions; and third, that the field of IR was intended by its founders to have some bearing on policy and some capacity to help change the world. The article contrasts several well-known philosophical principles on which metatheories have been based. The article concludes that all three challenges can be met by only one such metatheory, which I term `causal conventionalism', based in part on principles developed a century ago by Pierre Duhem.
|