| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
142775
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The shooting ended forty years ago but American scholars still fight over how to interpret the Vietnam War. Historians, especially, continue to debate the meaning, significance, and experience of the Second Indochina War. Skirmishes in 2011 over a college textbook pitted conventional US-centric narratives emphasising American actors against Vietnam-centric narratives stressing the other side.1 In 2014, critical portrayals of US military conduct in Vietnam stirred old battle lines arraying hawks versus doves, many of whom have one eye trained on ongoing interventions in the Middle East.2 Such polarised debates often reproduce simplistic, binary representations of what was, in fact, a complex Cold War conflict unfolding through a hot civil war. They do so to the neglect of the everyday experience of people who lived through it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
092335
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
American scholars routinely characterize the study of international relations as divided between various Kuhnian "paradigms" or Lakatosian "research programmes." Although most international relations scholars have abandoned Kuhn's account of scientific continuity and change, many utilize Lakatosian criteria to assess the "progressive" or "degenerative" character of various theories and approaches in the field. We argue that neither specific areas of inquiry (such as the "democratic peace") nor broader approaches to world politics (such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism) deserve the label of "paradigms" or "research programmes." As an alternative, we propose mapping the field through Weberian techniques of ideal-typification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|