From Analytic Eclecticism to Structured Pluralism
From Analytic Eclecticism to Structured Pluralism
复制标题
从分析折衷主义到结构化多元主义
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Andrew Bennett
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Andrew Bennett
《超越范式》提供了一个清晰的愿景，即政治科学如何通过不再强调范式辩论和使用不同的理论来发展政策相关的研究来推进。这本书有两个重要贡献。首先，它借鉴了社会科学的哲学，以诊断与组织政治科学围绕自封的库恩范式或拉卡托斯的研究计划，如“主义”在国际关系子领域的问题和成本：（新）现实主义，（新）自由主义，建构主义。第二，它表明已经存在另一种经营方式，提出了许多分析折衷研究的例子，这些研究建立在但超越了范式框架，产生了理论上有趣的和与政策相关的结果。虽然本书侧重于国际关系子领域，但作者正确地指出，这些贡献可以促进与政治学其他子领域以及更广泛的社会科学（包括心理学，社会学，历史学和经济学）的更紧密联系（2010：36）。这些都是值得所有政治学家关注的重大成就。在这个简短的回顾中，我首先把这些成就放在政治科学和社会科学哲学发展的背景下。然后，我建议如何超越范式可以更清楚地在理论积累，进步的标准，以及如何定位折衷研究领域内的问题。特别是，我认为，创建一个分类的社会机制，构成分析折衷主义研究的基石的理论可以提供话语和教学的好处，范式所传达的，而不会产生与具体化这些范式相关的成本。
Beyond Paradigms provides a clear vision of how political science can advance by de-emphasizing paradigmatic debates and using diverse theories to develop policy-relevant research. The book makes two vital contributions. First, it draws on the philosophy of social science to diagnose the problems and costs associated with organizing political science around self-styled Kuhnian paradigms or Lakatosian research programs, such as the “isms” in the international relations subfield: (neo)realism, (neo)liberalism, constructivism. Second, it demonstrates that an alternative way of doing business already exists, presenting numerous examples of analytically eclectic research that builds upon but goes beyond paradigmatic frameworks to produce theoretically interesting and policy-relevant results. Although the book is focused on the international relations subfield, the authors rightly note that these contributions can promote closer connections to other subfields in political science and to the social sciences more generally, including psychology, sociology, history, and economics (2010: 36). These are major achievements that deserve the attention of all political scientists. In this brief review I first put these achievements in the context of developments in political science and the philosophy of social science. I then suggest ways in which Beyond Paradigms could be even clearer on the issues of theoretical cumulation, standards of progress, and ways to locate eclectic research within the field. In particular, I argue that creating a taxonomy of the theories about social mechanisms that constitute the building blocks of analytically eclectic research can provide the discursive and pedagogical benefits that paradigms have conveyed without incurring the costs associated with reifying these paradigms.