LEADER 04167nam 2200721 450 001 9910786624603321 005 20230516181757.0 010 $a0-8047-9229-1 024 7 $a10.1515/9780804792295 035 $a(CKB)3710000000199215 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001267608 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12525892 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001267608 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11264397 035 $a(PQKB)10341033 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1742618 035 $a(DE-B1597)564622 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780804792295 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1742618 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10895703 035 $a(OCoLC)923709169 035 $a(OCoLC)1178769672 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000199215 100 $a20140731h20142014 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcnu|||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aExplanation and progress in security studies$ebridging paradigm divides in international relations 210 1$aStanford, California$cStanford University Press$d2014 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (324 pages) 225 0 $aStanford Security Studies 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 311 1 $a0-8047-9095-7 311 1 $a0-8047-9226-7 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $tFront matter --$tContents --$tPreface --$tIntroduction --$t1. Traditions of Explanation and the Idea of Scientific Progress --$t2. Explanation in the Natural and Social Sciences --$t3. The Nuclear Proliferation Debate --$t4. The Balance-of-Power Debate --$t5. The Democratic Peace Debate --$t6. Analysis, Alternatives, Conclusion --$tNotes --$tReferences --$tIndex 330 $aExplanation 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. 606 $aInternational relations$xMethodology$2FBC 606 $aInternational relations$xPhilosophy$2FBC 606 $aSecurity, International$2FBC 606 $aInternationale relationer$2FBC 606 $aInternational sikkerhed$2FBC 606 $aExplanation 615 7$aInternational relations$xMethodology. 615 7$aInternational relations$xPhilosophy. 615 7$aSecurity, International. 615 7$aInternationale relationer 615 7$aInternational sikkerhed 615 0$aExplanation. 676 $a327.101 686 $2z 700 $aChernoff$b Fred, $4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut$01533107 701 $aChernoff$b Fred$01533107 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910786624603321 996 $aExplanation and progress in security studies$93779766 997 $aUNINA