Revisiting the Theory and Practice Debate in International Relations and Foreign Policy and an Idea for a Joint Venture

Yıl 2014, , 65 - 76, 31.01.2014

Yönet Can Tezel

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.167322

Öz

Revisiting the Theory and Practice Debate in International Relations and Foreign Policy and an Idea for a Joint Venture

Öz

The relationship between theory and practice in international relations and foreign policy has been addressed by many on both sides. Despite helpful observations, the exploration has not produced much in the way of conclusive outcomes. This result is not surprising given the fact the theory-practice debate in foreign affairs is inevitably associated with the broader debate about how to properly study organized political/social life when focusing on the role of culture, structure, and choice in international relations. Although juxtaposing the theoretical study of international relations and foreign policy against the practice of foreign/international policy has its discipline-specific traits, it cannot be divorced from the larger ontological and epistemological debates. This essay reminds the reader of several facets of the narrower debate as it relates to the broader one and offers a perspective and ensuing observations from a ‘part taker’ in foreign policy. The essay also includes an idea for a research project that could be used to help overcome some of the putative shortcomings of the field. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

theory and practice, international relations, foreign policy making

Kaynakça

• Almond, Gabriel and Stephen J. Genco, “Clouds, Clocks, and the Study of Politics.” World Politics 29 (1977): 489-522.
• Bernstein, Steven, Richard Ned Lebow, Janice Stein and Steven Weber. “Social Science as Case-Based Diagnostics.” In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, edited by Richard Ned Lebow and Mark Irving Lichbach, 229-260. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
• Booth, Ken. “Discussion: A Reply to Wallace.” Review of International Studies 23 (1997): 371-377.
• Cable, James. “Foreign Policy Making: Planning of Reflex?” In Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners, and the Trade in Ideas, edited by Christopher Hill and Pamela Beshoff. 93-117. London: Routledge, 1994.
• Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years’s Crisis: 1919-1939. Wiltshire: Palgrave, [1939] 2001.
• George, Alexander L. Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1993.
• George, Alexander L. “The Two Cultures of Academia and Policy-Making: Bridging the Gap.” Political Psychology (Special Issue: Political Psychology and the Work of Alexander L. George) 15 (1994): 143-172.
• Hill, Christopher and Pamela Beshoff, eds., Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners, and the Trade in Ideas. London: Routledge, 1994.
• Hill, Christopher. “Academic International Relations: The Siren Song of Policy Relevance.” In Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners, and the Trade in Ideas, edited by Christopher Hill and Pamela Beshoff, 3-25. London: Routledge, 1994.
• Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed., Perestroika : The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.
• Lebow, Richard Ned. “What Can We Know? How Do We Know?” In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, edited by R. N. Lebow and M. I. Lichbach, 1-22. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
• Milner, Helen V. “Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis of International, American and Comparative Politics.” International Organization 52 (1998): 759-786.
• Mitchell, Timothy. “Society, Economy, and the State Effect.” In State/Culture: State-Formation after the Cultural Turn, edited by G. Steinmetz, 76-97. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.
• Murray, Louis. “What is Practitioner Based Enquiry?” British Journal of In-Service Education 18 (1992): 191-196.
• Murray, Louis and Brenda Lawrence. Practitioner-Based Enquiry: Principles for Post-Graduate Research. London: Falmer Press, 2000.
• Neumann, Iver B. “To be a Diplomat.” International Studies Perspectives 6 (2005): 72-93.
• Neumann, Iver B. “‘A Speech That the Entire Ministry May Stand For,’ or: Why Diplomats Never Produce Anything New.” International Political Sociology 1 (2007): 183-200.
• Onuf, Nicholas. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Caroline Press, 1989.
• Pettman, Ralph. “Commonsense Constructivism and Foreign Policy: A Critique of Rule-Oriented Constructivism.” In Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, edited by Vendulka Kubálková, 249-265. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2001.
• Remmer, K. “New Theoretical Perspectives on Democratization.” Comparative Politics 28 (1995): 103-122.
• Smith, Steve. “International Relations and international relations: The Links Between Theory and Practice in World Politics.” Journal of International Relations and Development 6 (2003): 233-239.
• Smith, Steve. “Power and Truth: A Reply to William Wallace.” Review of International Studies 23 (1997): 507-516.
• Tickner, J. Ann. “Feminism Meets International Relations: Some Methodological Issues.” In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, edited by B. Ackerly, M. Stern and J. True, 19-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Uluslararası İlişkiler [International Relations, Special Issue on International Relations and Education in Turkey] 2 (2005).
• Wallace, William. “Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations.” Review of International Studies, 22 (1996): 301-321.
• Wight, Colin. Agents, Structures and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.