04167nam 2200721 450 991078662460332120230516181757.00-8047-9229-110.1515/9780804792295(CKB)3710000000199215(SSID)ssj0001267608(PQKBManifestationID)12525892(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001267608(PQKBWorkID)11264397(PQKB)10341033(MiAaPQ)EBC1742618(DE-B1597)564622(DE-B1597)9780804792295(Au-PeEL)EBL1742618(CaPaEBR)ebr10895703(OCoLC)923709169(OCoLC)1178769672(EXLCZ)99371000000019921520140731h20142014 uy 0engurcnu||||||||txtccrExplanation and progress in security studiesbridging paradigm divides in international relationsStanford, CaliforniaStanford University Press2014©20141 online resource (324 pages)Stanford Security StudiesBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph0-8047-9095-7 0-8047-9226-7 Includes bibliographical references and index.Front matter --Contents --Preface --Introduction --1. Traditions of Explanation and the Idea of Scientific Progress --2. Explanation in the Natural and Social Sciences --3. The Nuclear Proliferation Debate --4. The Balance-of-Power Debate --5. The Democratic Peace Debate --6. Analysis, Alternatives, Conclusion --Notes --References --IndexExplanation and Progress in Security Studies asks why Security Studies, as a central area of International Relations, has not experienced scientific progress in the way natural sciences have—and answers by arguing that the underlying reason is that scholars in Security Studies have advanced a range of different notions of "explanation" or different criteria of "explanatory superiority" to show that their positions are better than rival positions. To demonstrate this, the author engages in in-depth content analysis of the generally recognized exemplars of explanation and explanatory superiority in three of the core debates in the disciplines: Why do states pursue policies of nuclear proliferation? Why do states choose to form the alliances they do? And why do liberal democratic states behave the way they do toward other liberal democracies? The book reveals that authors in the debates that have shown the most progress use similar criteria in arguing for and against the key explanations. In the nuclear proliferation debate, there is wide divergence in the criteria the most visible authors use, and there is wide divergence in the explanations offered. In the alliance formation/balance-of-power debate, there is some overlap of criteria the most important authors use, and there has been some limited movement toward consensus. In the democratic peace debate there has been much more overlap of criteria the most prominent authors use, and there is agreement on both some positive and negative conclusions.International relationsMethodologyFBCInternational relationsPhilosophyFBCSecurity, InternationalFBCInternationale relationerFBCInternational sikkerhedFBCExplanationInternational relationsMethodology.International relationsPhilosophy.Security, International.Internationale relationerInternational sikkerhedExplanation.327.101zChernoff Fred, authttp://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut1533107Chernoff Fred1533107MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910786624603321Explanation and progress in security studies3779766UNINA