Progress in the Study of International Conflict
A Methodological Critique
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3918329 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Roslyn Simowitz (Texas Tech University), Roslyn L Simowitz (Texas Tech University, Angelo State University), Barry L Price (Texas Tech University, Angelo State University) |
| Year | 1986 |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 29-40 |
| Publication date | 1986-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Peace Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-3433 • E-ISSN: 1460-3578 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/002234338602300103 |
| OpenAlex | W2085727900 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 42 |
This paper is a philosophy of science critique of behavioralist studies on international conflict. We find that the vast majority of studies on conflict fall into one of two categories: hypothesis testing and model building. A number of hypothesis-testing studies involve hypotheses which are believed to be the conse quences of some theory. We argue that these studies will not generate scientific progress because they fail to appraise more than one theory at a time. There are also many studies where the hypotheses tested are not purported to be the consequences of some theory. We argue that these studies too are unable to generate real progress because they are incapable of yielding novel information and are therefore in capable of being severely tested. The model-building activities of others do not offer much hope for sci entific progress either. This is primarily due to the fact that model builders focus on what is essentially a problem for the mathematician, not the scientist. In addition, we find that model builders, even when subjecting their models to empirical analyses, actually fail to test any theories or universal generaliza tions. In the hope of furthering our understanding about the causes of international conflict, we suggest that hypothesis testers reformulate their hypotheses so that they can be subjected to severe tests. We also suggest a change in focus for model builders which hopefully will enable them to progress to better, more comprehensive theories of international conflict
Economics · Empirical research · Epistemology · Focus (optics) · International conflict · Management science · Philosophy of science · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Test (biology) · Economic Sanctions and International Relations · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Philosophy · Psychology
Conjectures and Refutations
Strong Inference
The structure of scientific revolutions
Constructing social theories
Arms, Alliances and Stability
Contending Approaches to International Politics
Econometrics and Arms Races
Strategic Considerations in the Richardson Model of Arms Races
Religious vs. Linguistic vs. Class Voting
Arms Races, Arms Control, and Disarmament
Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation
Journal of Peace Research
U.S. Assistance, Israeli Allocation, and the Arms Race in the Middle East
Alliance Formation and War Behavior
Systemic Polarization and the Occurrence and Duration of War
Evaluating Alternative Foreign Policy Decision-Making Models
Dimensions of conflict behavior within and between nations, 1958-60
Arms Race Modeling
Bipolarity, multipolarity, and the future
Industrialization in the Periphery
Richardson's Model of Arms Races
Alliances and Wars Revisited
Alliance Norms and War
Risk, Power Distributions, and the Likelihood of War
Three Dependency Explanations of Economic Growth
A Preliminary Test of the Theory of Dependency
The Relationship Between Size and Stability in the Major Power International System
Richardson's N-Nation Model and the Balance of Power
Centres and Peripheries
Accounting for International War
The Classical Balance of Power Theory
Domestic and Foreign Conflict Behavior of Nations
A Structural Theory of Imperialism
The Equilibrium Theory of Arms Races
Non-linear Arms Race Models
Deconstructing Methodological Falsificationism in International Relations
Prerequisites Versus Diffusion
Accounting for International War
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,09 |
| Citation span | 1992 - 1998 (7) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |