The relation of academic study of IR and practice (policy making) should be one of tension (p. 734).
Halliday's piece "International Relations and Its Discontents" gave me a lot to think about. The quotation above especially struck me, because all semester I have been struggling to apply IR theory to actual events, and I have found it to be a difficult task.
Because I have struggled with how to apply IR theory to policy and current events, I enjoyed Halliday's discussion of the roles of IR as a social science in education. It allowed me to see a bigger picture (one that I already knew) of why we study IR and why we should study IR. He feels that International Relations must be judged by the following criteria: 1) formation of the mind (thinking, writing in a rigorous manner; think clearly and conceptually, formulate ideas, think independently), 2) transmission of theory (to put the facts and "givens" of the world in a conceptual framework, place issues of contemporary life in context), 3) training for area of professional expertise, 4) provide knowledge that will help solve contemporary issues (in the creation of foreign policy. Halliday believes that universities are failing to adequately "train the mind" due to a preoccupation with contemporary issues and events. He would say there are too many courses on current events and not enough on things like methodology (which shouldn't be in the IR department anyway according to him), writing and research skills or perhaps even courses that force students to debate and discuss (seminars). However, I do not feel as though I am necessarily missing any of those four requirements. I feel now as though I could apply what I've learned at Lehigh in a more policy oriented environment. I certainly feel as though I know how to think (something that I have been developing even more with the process of writing my thesis).
In application to my thesis, I found Halliday's discussion on scientism to be interesting. "Scientism" is one of his biggest complaints- the application of quantitative analysis to IR. He calls it a "distraction" Uh-oh, let's hope Halliday does not read my thesis. Halliday would have me believe that I have fallen into a trap of trying to "predict" civil war. He does not believe social science has the obligation to predict anything, but instead social science should explain. Beware of merely "understanding" and "interpreting" the situation, as these exercises become too subjective and lose any quality of objectivity. Fortunately, I think I've recognized that I have not lost sight of how IR theory should work. The reason I've struggled so much with my thesis is because I'm trying to fit theory and quantitative analysis together, something that I feel the contemporary literature on the economic causes of civil war fails to do. Also, I am not using quantitative analysis to predict civil war: I am using it to explain civil war and what causes it. Through a quantitative analysis I hope to prove the connection between poverty and civil war in order that we may address the underlying conditions that may lead to conflict.
I also found his lament over the disconnect between IR theory and actual policy making to be interesting. He points out that most in the "outside" world believe that IR is irrelevant to policy debate and is merely a "commentary on the news" (p. 739). Halliday feels that there are important debates in the academic world of IR that could contribute substantially to formation of policy, thereby grounding policy in theory, which I suppose he believes would make the policies stronger. I think that in order for IR theory to cross over into the mainstream of economics and law, scholars need to continue applying IR theory to contemporary issues, but also need to make those applications more accessible to policy makers and the general public. Sometimes I read academic articles on IR theory and I am completely lost, and I am an IR student! I can only imagine how policy makers feel when trying to de-construct theories and apply them to real life on their own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment