scholarly journals Western Centric Research Methods?

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Jones
Keyword(s):  
Initial Data ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Area Studies ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
New Research ◽  
Weapons Systems

Data curated by humans reflects the biases and imperfections of humans (2017; 2016). For example, in autonomous weapons systems, the initial data entered produces algorithms from which weapons systems learn, and, as a result, the systems mirror and amplify existing biases in the data sets (O’Neil, 2017). In political science and international relations, biases are also both inherent and amplified through the research approaches and methods adopted. They, too, are frequently hidden. A stark example of this is in the debate between area and disciplinary studies. Although there is a growing recognition that area studies can make valuable contributions to the study of international relations and that there is a need to ‘decolonise’ the discipline (Suzuki, 2021), the debate so far has not recognized the gulf of differences in research methods between these two approaches. This article argues that in the study of international relations and particularly regarding institutions, area studies approaches should be more frequently adopted. The limited use of these approaches not only hampers new research but also hides a colonial hangover.

scholarly journals Autonomous weapons systems and changing norms in international relations

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingvild Bode ◽  
Hendrik Huelss
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Constructivist Approaches ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Norm Emergence ◽  
Weapons Systems

AbstractAutonomous weapons systems (AWS) are emerging as key technologies of future warfare. So far, academic debate concentrates on the legal-ethical implications of AWS but these do not capture how AWS may shape norms through defining diverging standards of appropriateness in practice. In discussing AWS, the article formulates two critiques on constructivist models of norm emergence: first, constructivist approaches privilege the deliberative over the practical emergence of norms; and second, they overemphasise fundamental norms rather than also accounting for procedural norms, which we introduce in this article. Elaborating on these critiques allows us to respond to a significant gap in research: we examine how standards of procedural appropriateness emerging in the development and usage of AWS often contradict fundamental norms and public legitimacy expectations. Normative content may therefore be shaped procedurally, challenging conventional understandings of how norms are constructed and considered as relevant in International Relations. In this, we outline the contours of a research programme on the relationship of norms and AWS, arguing that AWS can have fundamental normative consequences by setting novel standards of appropriate action in international security policy.

Historical Institutionalism in International Relations

2011 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orfeo Fioretos
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Development ◽  
International System ◽  
Historical Institutionalism ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Research Agendas ◽  
New Research ◽  
State Preferences

AbstractThis article reviews recent contributions to International Relations (IR) that engage the substantive concerns of historical institutionalism and explicitly and implicitly employ that tradition's analytical features to address fundamental questions in the study of international affairs. It explores the promise of this tradition for new research agendas in the study of international political development, including the origin of state preferences, the nature of governance gaps, and the nature of change and continuity in the international system. The article concludes that the analytical and substantive profiles of historical institutionalism can further disciplinary maturation in IR, and it proposes that the field be more open to the tripartite division of institutional theories found in other subfields of Political Science.

Ethics, Drones, and Killer Robots

2018 ◽  
pp. 246-258
Author(s):  
Christopher Coker
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Machine Ethics ◽  
Moral Competence ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
Weapons Systems

The debate about “killer robots” is rarely out of the news. Autonomous Weapons Systems may soon replace drones. Drone strikes, however, are also likely to increase in number. For the International Relations community the main debate is an ethical one: is the direction in which we are taking war likely to increase or decrease our moral competence to wage it? This chapter argues that we are not best placed to ask these questions, because we have an incomplete understanding of the extent to which our humanity is changing and what it means to be human. The latest contribution towards self-understanding made by Actor Network Theory (ANT), machine ethics, and socio-biology suggest we need to urgently reframe the questions we are asking.

scholarly journals The debates of methodology and methods: reflections on the development of the study of international relations

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amira Abou Samra
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Content Type ◽  
New Methodologies ◽  
New Research ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose This paper aims to explore the interplay between methods and methodologies in the field of international relations (IR) over the 100 years of its lifetime reflecting on the relationship between the rise of new research methods and the rise of new methodologies. Design/methodology/approach This paper looks in retrospect into the field’s great debates using a historiography approach. It maps chronologically the interplay of methods and methodology throughout the stages of the development of the study of IR. Findings This paper argues that inspite of narratives of triumph being common in the field, the coexistence of competing research methods and methodologies is the defining feature of the field. All theories, all methods and all methodologies have undergone a process of criticism, self-criticism and change. New methodologies have not necessarily accompanied the rise of new research methods in the field. Originality/value Drawing a map of the field’s methodologies and methods reveals necessarily its dynamism and its plurality. An honest map of the field is one that highlights not only theoretical differences but also ontological, epistemological and methodological differences embedded in the field’s debates.

scholarly journals Bad World: The Negativity Bias in International Politics

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 96-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic D.P. Johnson ◽  
Dominic Tierney
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Negative Information ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Negativity Bias ◽  
Positive Information ◽  
Psychological Phenomena ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
New Research

A major puzzle in international relations is why states privilege negative over positive information. States tend to inflate threats, exhibit loss aversion, and learn more from failures than from successes. Rationalist accounts fail to explain this phenomenon, because systematically overweighting bad over good may in fact undermine state interests. New research in psychology, however, offers an explanation. The “negativity bias” has emerged as a fundamental principle of the human mind, in which people's response to positive and negative information is asymmetric. Negative factors have greater effects than positive factors across a wide range of psychological phenomena, including cognition, motivation, emotion, information processing, decision-making, learning, and memory. Put simply, bad is stronger than good. Scholars have long pointed to the role of positive biases, such as overconfidence, in causing war, but negative biases are actually more pervasive and may represent a core explanation for patterns of conflict. Positive and negative dispositions apply in different contexts. People privilege negative information about the external environment and other actors, but positive information about themselves. The coexistence of biases can increase the potential for conflict. Decisionmakers simultaneously exaggerate the severity of threats and exhibit overconfidence about their capacity to deal with them. Overall, the negativity bias is a potent force in human judgment and decisionmaking, with important implications for international relations theory and practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document