Chap 11

What is the primary concern of the author regarding the development of International Studies?

What is the primary dichotomy mentioned in the text that relates to the level of analysis?

What is the paradigmatic dichotomy mentioned in the text that is considered the most sweeping?

What is the primary methodological dichotomy mentioned in the text?

What is the author's stance on parsimony in research?

What is the primary focus of the author's critique of International Studies?

What is the primary epistemological dichotomy mentioned in the text?

What is the author's opinion on single-factor explanations for complex issues in world politics?

What is the author's view on the relevance of Positivism in modern research?

What is the primary goal of IR-IS-WP research, according to the author?

What is the author's attitude towards the critique of Post-Modernism?

What is the author's perspective on the relationship between ethnicity and nationalism?

What is a major consequence of the intellectual intolerance and closed-mind mentality in International Studies?

What is a criticism of the recent trends in International Studies, according to the text?

What is a result of the retreat from science in International Studies, according to the text?

What are the three objectives of a fully developed social science discipline, according to the text?

What is a characteristic of the debates generated by the topic changes in International Studies, according to the text?

What is a consequence of the shortcomings in International Studies, according to the text?

Neorealism is a valid basis for creating and accumulating knowledge about state behavior and international system change.

Critical Theory is primarily concerned with explaining the complexity of world politics with single-factor explanations.

Feminist International Relations is a prominent paradigm in the text.

Constructivism is focused on accuracy in both the description and explanation of reality.

Neofunctionalism is a relevant theory in understanding the history of Europe after the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.

Parsimony is a high scientific value in the field of International Studies.

Neofunctionalism is a dominant approach in International Studies.

Constructivist critique is an example of a scientific approach in International Relations.

Critical Theory is a major focus of the author's critique of International Studies.

Feminist International Relations is a topic that has contributed to the cumulation of knowledge in the field.

Neorealism is mentioned as an approach that has led to intellectual progress in International Studies.

The author argues that the field of International Studies has made significant progress in achieving the objectives of accurate description, convincing explanation, and high probability prediction.

The author argues that the dichotomy between Realism and Institutionalism is a prominent division in International Studies.

The author suggests that Constructivist approaches are more tolerant of opposing views.

Feminist International Relations is mentioned as a dominant paradigm in International Studies.

The author advocates for a more critical approach to International Studies, incorporating Critical Theory perspectives.

The author sees Neofunctionalism as a viable alternative to Realism in International Studies.

The author argues that the dichotomies in International Studies hinder the development of the field.

What geographical regions were affected by the anti-colonial Revolution that swept the world from the mid-nineteenth to the late-twentieth centuries?

What historical event shaped the history of Europe in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars?

What is the primary focus of IR-IS-WP research, according to the author, in the context of world politics?

What is the author's perspective on the complexity of world politics, particularly in relation to crisis, conflict, and war?

What is the author's view on the role of ethnicity in the context of nationalism?

What is the author's stance on the validity of Positivism as a basis for creating and accumulating knowledge about state behavior and international system change?

What are the two fundamental sources of the malaise in IR, IS, and WP, according to the author?

What is a major consequence of the intellectual intolerance and closed-mind mentality in International Studies, according to the author?

What is an example of a methodological dichotomy mentioned in the text?

What is a key paradigmatic dichotomy mentioned in the text?

What is a consequence of the flaws in International Studies, according to the author?

What is an example of an epistemological dichotomy mentioned in the text?

What is a consequence of the intellectual shortcomings in International Studies, according to the text?

What is the author's view on the current state of International Studies, particularly in relation to its objectives?

What is the author's critique of the debates generated by the topic changes in International Studies?

What is the author's view on the value placed by IR scholars on cumulation of knowledge?

What is the author's critique of the recent trends in International Studies, particularly in relation to the constructivist critique?

What are the three objectives of a fully developed social science discipline, according to the text?