001387390 000__ 03066cam\a2200481Ia\4500
001387390 001__ 1387390
001387390 003__ MaCbMITP
001387390 005__ 20240325105112.0
001387390 006__ m\\\\\o\\d\\\\\\\\
001387390 007__ cr\cn\nnnunnun
001387390 008__ 040117s2003\\\\mau\\\\\ob\\\\001\0\eng\d
001387390 020__ $$a9780262272285$$q(electronic bk.)
001387390 020__ $$a0262272288$$q(electronic bk.)
001387390 020__ $$a0585490279$$q(electronic bk.)
001387390 020__ $$a9780585490274$$q(electronic bk.)
001387390 035__ $$a(OCoLC)54042238$$z(OCoLC)793542151$$z(OCoLC)880335591$$z(OCoLC)961695418$$z(OCoLC)962709845
001387390 035__ $$a(OCoLC-P)54042238
001387390 040__ $$aOCoLC-P$$beng$$epn$$cOCoLC-P
001387390 050_4 $$aJZ1242$$b.P76 2003eb
001387390 072_7 $$aPOL$$x033000$$2bisacsh
001387390 08204 $$a327.1/01$$222
001387390 24500 $$aProgress in international relations theory :$$bappraising the field /$$cColin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, editors.
001387390 260__ $$aCambridge, Mass. :$$bMIT Press,$$c©2003.
001387390 300__ $$a1 online resource (xiv, 503 pages).
001387390 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
001387390 337__ $$acomputer$$bc$$2rdamedia
001387390 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier
001387390 4901_ $$aBCSIA studies in international security
001387390 506__ $$aAccess limited to authorized users.
001387390 520__ $$aAll academic disciplines periodically appraise their effectiveness, evaluating the progress of previous scholarship and judging which approaches are useful and which are not. Although no field could survive if it did nothing but appraise its progress, occasional appraisals are important and if done well can help advance the field. This book investigates how international relations theorists can better equip themselves to determine the state of scholarly work in their field. It takes as its starting point Imre Lakatos's influential theory of scientific change, and in particular his methodology of scientific research programs (MSRP). It uses MSRP to organize its analysis of major research programs over the last several decades and uses MSRP's criteria for theoretical progress to evaluate these programs. The contributors appraise the progress of institutional theory, varieties of realist and liberal theory, operational code analysis, and other research programs in international relations. Their analyses reveal the strengths and limits of Lakatosian criteria and the need for metatheoretical metrics for evaluating scientific progress.
001387390 588__ $$aOCLC-licensed vendor bibliographic record.
001387390 650_0 $$aInternational relations$$xMethodology.
001387390 653__ $$aSOCIAL SCIENCES/Political Science/International Relations & Security
001387390 653__ $$aSOCIAL SCIENCES/Political Science/General
001387390 655_0 $$aElectronic books
001387390 7001_ $$aElman, Colin.
001387390 7001_ $$aElman, Miriam Fendius.
001387390 852__ $$bebk
001387390 85640 $$3MIT Press$$uhttps://univsouthin.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5627.001.0001?locatt=mode:legacy$$zOnline Access through The MIT Press Direct
001387390 85642 $$3OCLC metadata license agreement$$uhttp://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/forms/terms/vbrl-201703.pdf
001387390 909CO $$ooai:library.usi.edu:1387390$$pGLOBAL_SET
001387390 980__ $$aBIB
001387390 980__ $$aEBOOK
001387390 982__ $$aEbook
001387390 983__ $$aOnline