Politics and Paradigm Preferences: The Implicit Ideology of International Relations Scholars
Are international relations scholars objective observers of political events, or do our political preferences influence the way in which we see the world? This article explores that question using data from a survey of international relations scholars. It develops and tests hypotheses about how we might expect adherents of particular paradigms to identify themselves politically on a left-right scale based on the resonance between the content of ideology and the key propositions of different schools of thought in IR. Although they are relatively centrist, I find that realists are the most conservative and right-leaning of international relations scholars, while Liberals are more liberal and left-leaning. Although neither approach has any intrinsic ontological content, rationalism and constructivism also have a distinct ideological profile, the former being more conservative than the latter. Post-positivist epistemological commitments are associated with the political left. More importantly, there is an interaction between ontology and epistemology. Positivism plays a role in breaking the link between political values and paradigm choice. Nonpositivists demonstrate the strongest connection between ideology and international relations approach. I consider the implications of these findings for the use of paradigms in international relations theorizing, arguing that they should make us more circumspect about the use of paradigms in our discipline. Do the political beliefs of those who study international relations affect their beliefs about international relations and the way they study them? Is there an association between the values that guide us in the voting booth and the approaches we adopt in our professional lives? Are we drawn to particular paradigms and epistemologies based on our underlying political opinions? In other words, is our research orientation to some degree ideological, part of an underlying structure of attitudes? Does our prescriptive and normative sense of politics at home influence our positive and empirical understandings about politics abroad? Survey data have indicated that the domestic and foreign policy beliefs at both the mass and elite levels are indeed related (Holsti and Rosenau 1988; Wittkopf 1990; Murray 1996). Is this true of international relations scholars as well? Many in the field would not be surprised to learn that our politics are connected to our political science. Critical theorists and postmodernists reject the notion of the ‘‘subject‐object distinction,’’ that is that international relations scholars can objectively observe and theorize about international politics independent of their values. Political orientation is likely one of those influences. These scholars typically employ post-positivist epistemologies in keeping with this belief. There is some evidence for the contention. In a remarkable book, Oren (2003) traces how the trends in political science and international relations scholarship in the United States are informed and affected by the historical context. Positivistically inclined scholars of international relations, however, would most likely object to this accusation. Although a contentious term, all notions of positivism imply a detached and objective analysis of our phenomena of interest. If there were such an influence, what would it be?