The question of epistemic fallacy in practical research: the case of IR

References

• Acharya, A. 2016. “Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions.” International Studies Review 18 (1): 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viv016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Amoudi, I., and H. Willmott. 2011. “Where Constructionism and Critical Realism Converge: Interrogating the Domain of Epistemological Relativism.” Organization Studies 32 (1): 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610394293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderl, F., and A. Witt. 2020. “Problematising the Global in Global IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 49 (1): 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829820971708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashley, R. K. 1984. “The Poverty of Neorealism.” International Organization 38 (2): 225–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300026709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacchi, C. 2012. “Why Study Problematizations? Making Politics Visible.” Open Journal of Political Science 02 (01): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2012.21001.
   Google Scholar
• Bain, W., and T. Nardin. 2017. “International Relations and Intellectual History.” International Relations 31 (3): 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117817723069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, D., and R. B. Pedersen. 2013. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, A. 2013. “Causal Mechanisms and Typological Theories in the Study of Civil Conflict.” In Transnational Dynamics of Civil War, edited by J. T. Checkel, 205–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berenskötter, F. 2018. “Deep Theorizing in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 24 (4): 814–840. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117739096.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergene, A. 2007. “Towards A Critical Realist Comparative Methodology.” Journal of Critical Realism 6 (1): 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1558/jocr.v6i1.5.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R. 1991. Philosophy and the Idea of Freedom. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R. 1998a. “Societies.” In Critical Realism: Essential Readings, edited by R. Bhaskar et al., 206–257. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R. 1998b. “The Logic of Scientific Discovery.” In Critical Realism: Essential Readings, edited by R. Bhaskar et al., 48–103. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R. 2005. The Possibility of Naturalism. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R. 2007. “Theorising Ontology.” In Contributions to Social Ontology, edited by C. Lawson, J. Latsis, and N. Martins, 192–204. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R. 2008. A Realist Theory of Science. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R., and T. Lawson. 1998. “Introduction: Basic Texts and Developments.” In Critical Realism: Essential Readings, edited by R. Bhaskar et al., 3–16. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, B., and C. New. 2004. Making Realism Work: Realist Social Theory and Empirical Research. Edited by B. Carter and C. New. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chiasson, P. 2005. “Abduction as an Aspect of Retroduction.” Semiotica 153 (1/4): 223–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiasson, P. 2014. “On the Nature of Rare Minds & Useless Things.” In Charles Sanders Peirce in His Own Words: 100 Years of Semiotics, Communication and Cognition, edited by T. Thellefsen and B. Sørensen, 177–186. Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Collier, A. 1994. Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy. London: VERSO.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R. W. 1981. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Journal of International Studies 10 (2): 126–155.
   Google Scholar
• Cruickshank, J. 2004. “A Tale of two Ontologies: An Immanent Critique of Critical Realism.” The Sociological Review 52 (4): 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00496.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danermark, B. et al. 2002. Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dunne, T., M. Kurki, and S. Smith. 2013. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 3rd ed. Edited by T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elder-Vass, D. 2010. The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farasoo, A. 2021. “Rethinking Proxy War Theory in IR: A Critical Analysis of Principal–Agent Theory.” International Studies Review 23 (4): 1835–1858. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1985. The Use of Pleasure. Translated by R. Hurley. New York: Dandom House.
   Google Scholar
• Freyberg-Inan, A. 2017. “The Role of Theory for Knowledge Creation in IR: A Sociable Pluralist Discussion.” In Evaluating Progress in International Relations: How Do You Know?, edited by A. Freyberg-Inan, E. Harrison, and P. James, 74–85. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Groff, R. 2004. Critical Realism, Post-positivism and the Possibility of Knowledge. http://3s7hhfqkh7.pdfcloud.org/dl2.php?id = 157041795&h = 3c543ed20d48886c3b575f159f8acc97&u = cache&ext = pdf&n = Criticalrealismpost-.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, I. 2017. “The History of International Thought and International Relations Theory: From Context to Interpretation.” International Relations 31 (3): 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117817723061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M. 2007. Dictionary of Critical Realism. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Höglund, K., and M. Öberg. 2011. “Doing Empirical Peace Research.” In Understanding Peace Research: Methods and Challenges, edited by K. Höglund and M. Öberg, 3–14. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ibrahimi, N., and A. Farasoo. 2022. “Understanding Shifts in US Policies Towards the Taliban: A Critical Analysis.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 50 (3): 810–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298221130114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, P. T. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, P. T., and D. H. Nexon. 2009. “Paradigmatic Faults in International-Relations Theory.” International Studies Quarterly 53 (4): 907–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00562.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, P. T., and D. H. Nexon. 2013. “International Theory in a Post-Paradigmatic era: From Substantive Wagers to Scientific Ontologies.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 543–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaidesoja, T. 2007. “Exploring the Concept of Causal Power in a Critical Realist Tradition.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 37 (1): 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2007.00324.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kratochwil, F. 2000. “Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt’s “Social Theory of International Politics” and the Constructivist Challenge.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29 (1): 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298000290010901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurki, M. 2007. “Critical Realism and Causal Analysis in International Relations.” Millennium - Journal of International Studies 35 (2): 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298070350021501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurki, M. 2008. Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. 1997. Economics & Reality. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, G. 2012. “The Eternal Divide? History and International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 18 (2): 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110373561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legg, C. 2001. “Naturalism and Wonder: Peirce on the Logic of Hume’s Argument Against Miracles.” Philosophia 28 (1-4): 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379782.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, D. J. 2012. Recovering International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mearsheimer, J. J., and S. M. Walt. 2013. “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is bad for International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 427–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukumbang, F. C., D. E. De Souza, and J. G. Eastwood. 2023. “The Contributions of Scientific Realism and Critical Realism to Realist Evaluation.” Journal of Critical Realism 22 (3): 504–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2023.2217052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palik, J. et al. 2020. Conflict Trends in the Middle East, 1989 - 2019. Oslo: Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Palik%2CRustad%2C Harpviken%2C Methi-Conflict Trends in the Middle East%2C 1989–2019%2C PRIO Paper 2020.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Patomäki, H. 2002. After International Relations: Critical Realism and the (re)Construction of World Politics. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Patomäki, H., and C. Wight. 2000. “After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism.” International Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petterson, T. 2020. UCDP Battle-Related Deaths Dataset Codebook v 19.1. Oslo: Department of Peace and Conflict Research Uppsala University. https://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/.
   Google Scholar
• Reykers, Y., and D. Beach. 2017. “Process-Tracing as a Tool to Analyse Discretion.” In The Principal Agent Model and the European Union, edited by T. Delreux and J. Adriaensen, 255–282. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Rutzou, T. 2017. “Finding Bhaskar in all the Wrong Places? Causation, Process, and Structure in Bhaskar and Deleuze.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 47 (4): 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayer, A. 1992. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. Second. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, D. 2000. Realism and Educational Research: New Perspectives and Possibilities. London: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Spruyt, H. 2020. The World Imagined. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stengers, I. 2019. “Putting Problematization to the Test of Our Present.” Theory, Culture and Society 38 (2): 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276419848061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, M. 2016. Social Emergence in International Relations: Institutional Dynamics in East Asia. AG Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, K. N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. California: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Wendt, A. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wight, C. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wight, C. 2017. “Maps, Models, and Theories: A Scientific Realist Approach to Validity.” In Evaluating Progress in International Relations: How do you Know?, edited by A. Freyberg-Inan, E. Harrison, and P. James, 31–50. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wight, C. 2019. “Bringing the Outside in: The Limits of Theoretical Fragmentation and Pluralism in IR Theory.” Politics 39 (1): 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395718815784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wight, C., and J. Joseph. 2010. “Scientific Realism and International Relations.” In Scientific Realism and International Relations, edited by J. Joseph and C. Wight, 1–30. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wonka, A. 2007. “Concept Specification in Political Science Research.” In Research Design in Political Science, edited by T. Gschwend and F. Schimmelfennig, 41–61. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wuisman, J. 2005. “The Logic of Scientific Discovery in Critical Realist Social Scientific Research.” Journal of Critical Realism 4 (2): 366–394. https://doi.org/10.1558/jocr.v4i2.366.
   Google Scholar
• Yeung, H. W. C. 1997. “Critical Realism and Realist Research in Human Geography: A Method or a Philosophy in Search of a Method?” Progress in Human Geography 21 (1): 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913297668207944.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar