Same Difference: Exploring the Divide between Critical and Conventional Constructivism
This paper explores the similarities and differences between the conventional and critical strands of constructivism within International Relation. It concludes that there is a serious cleavage between the two, even though they might appear to be similar.
The first paragraph of this paper tries to define some of the concepts used in this paper, particularly the terms ‘conventional constructivism’, ‘critical constructivism’, ‘research paradigm’ and ‘methodology’. The first part of the paragraph explains the importance of setting definitional parameters, in addition to suggesting an analogy to gain more appreciation for the cleavage, and particular the type of cleavage between critical and conventional strands that this paper will reveal. Then, using taxonomies put forward by a number of academics, the classification for both strands are given, in addition to identifying their most prominent academics. Definitions regarding methodology and research paradigm are examined through Kuhn’s interpretation of paradigms.
The second paragraph starts by giving an overview of similarities different academics have observed within the constructivist tradition. It focuses on the critique of positivism, interpretative methodology and the importance of socially constructed ideas.
The third paragraph highlights the cleavage between critical and conventional constructivism. It argues that, although the position this paper classifies critical constructivists in a certain way which is rejected by some of those scholars, it is legitimised through Kuhn’s interpretation of paradigms. Both differences in methodology and research paradigm are then exposed, and the main argument made is that critical constructivism is so radical that it not only alienates itself from other theories in IR but also conventional constructivism, using the aforementioned analogy to exemplify this.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONAL PARAMETERS
SIMILARITIES
DIFFERENCES
CONCLUSION
Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to explore the perceived similarities and the underlying structural cleavage between conventional and critical strands of constructivism within the field of International Relations, arguing that their differences are more profound than they appear.
- Critique of positivism and empiricism in International Relations
- The application of Kuhn’s interpretation of paradigms to constructivism
- Distinctions between conventional (modernist) and critical (post-modernist) constructivist approaches
- Epistemological and ontological differences regarding truth and causal accounts
- The influence of linguistic approaches and social construction on constructivist research
Excerpt from the Book
Definitional Parameters
In order to present the reader with a good analysis of the differences between conventional and critical constructivism by focussing on the research paradigm and methodology, a number of definitional parameters must be set. This paragraph will attempt to categorise the two aforementioned strands and give definitions for the terms ‘research paradigm’ and ‘methodology’. This proves to be a difficult enough task in itself, as critics of constructivism such as Østerud (1996) attest to. The different strands are hard to label, appearing under a multitude of names, in part because constructivists (especially critical ones) avoid labelling themselves (in both senses of the word). Obviously, no two academics are the same and no two pieces of scholarly work are the same. Within the discipline of International Relations each scholar and their publications will be more or less ontological or epistemological in nature, this goes for all traditions (Sørenson 1998). The analogy of the pregnant woman often used in democracy studies is quite useful on this subject. Depending where on the ontological/epistemological or positive/post-positive scale two academics are, their works might seem quite similar, yet on closer examination differences can be discovered and their position more accurately pinpointed. The same goes for pregnancies, it is hard to tell whether a woman is eight or nine months pregnant, yet on closer examination a doctor would be able to tell you the exact number of days. This paper will look at the differences and similarities between conventional and critical constructivism in the same way: first the superficial similarities, after which a closer look will reveal the differences between the two. This paper will conclude that, returning to the analogy, the differences between conventional and critical constructivism, are more comparable to a one month pregnant woman and a non-pregnant woman than them being at different stages of pregnancy.
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: The chapter sets the stage by defining the core concepts and research focus, noting the intent to highlight the significant cleavage between conventional and critical constructivism.
DEFINITIONAL PARAMETERS: This section establishes the theoretical framework, defining methodology and research paradigms through a Kuhnian lens, and introduces an analogy to compare the two constructivist strands.
SIMILARITIES: An analysis of the common ground shared by both strands, specifically their mutual critique of positivist and empirical dominance in International Relations.
DIFFERENCES: This chapter contrasts the two strands, arguing that critical constructivism represents an anti-foundational approach that is incompatible with the causal-analytical goals of conventional constructivism.
CONCLUSION: The paper summarizes its findings, re-emphasizing that the tension between the two strands is rooted in fundamental epistemological disagreements rather than minor methodological preferences.
Keywords
International Relations, Constructivism, Conventional Constructivism, Critical Constructivism, Research Paradigm, Methodology, Positivism, Post-Positivism, Epistemology, Ontology, Social Construction, Kuhn, Causal Accounts, Linguistic Approaches, IR Theory
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the theoretical and methodological differences between the conventional and critical strands of constructivism within the academic field of International Relations.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The central themes include the critique of positivism, the role of paradigms in social science, the importance of socially constructed identities, and the epistemological divide between modernist and post-modernist approaches.
What is the primary research goal?
The primary goal is to demonstrate that despite superficial similarities, there is a serious, deep-seated cleavage between critical and conventional constructivism regarding their objectives and epistemological foundations.
Which scientific method is employed?
The author uses a comparative approach, applying Thomas Kuhn’s interpretation of paradigms to categorize scholarly work and evaluate the compatibility of different constructivist traditions.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body focuses on defining research parameters, exploring similarities through a critique of rationalism, and analyzing the "radical" nature of critical constructivism compared to conventional methods.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include Constructivism, International Relations, Epistemology, Positivism, Paradigm, and Social Construction.
How does the author use the "pregnant woman" analogy?
The analogy is used to illustrate that while two positions may appear similar at first glance (like different stages of pregnancy), a deeper investigation reveals they are fundamentally different categories (like pregnancy versus non-pregnancy).
Why does the author classify critical constructivists as "anti-foundational"?
The author argues that critical constructivists reject the development of causal accounts and objective truth, distancing themselves from the foundational requirements of traditional scientific inquiry.
What is the author's stance on labelling?
The author acknowledges the difficulty and criticism surrounding the use of labels but justifies their use as a necessary tool, supported by authoritative academics, to define shared boundaries within a scientific community.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Bachelor International Relations (Hons) Ralph Myers (Autor:in), 2009, Same Difference, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/159119
