Research Methods in International Relations Week 5 19/03/2013 To search there are certain techniques: case study methods, qualitative

e method, formal models like game theory, the classical or historical methods. There is an object and it is needed to be understand in context like political, legal, historical, philosophical contexts. These techniques are necessary for producing knowledge. There are also some filters and angels. The researcher out there and observing, taking down some important facts to be able to work on them later. This person has been guiding in the first place theoretically. These angels and filters refer to the double layer for theory. There is one layer of theory formed by epistemological perspectives. Epistemelogy raughly responds to the question how do we know what we know. Since the researcher produce knowledge, the researcher need to have an idea about the knowledge as such what knowledge is. Second layer is formed by a theory which has been developed within a specific academic area such as International relations. These specific areas of studies have agenda, concepts, assumptions. Versions of political realism, liberal idealism, constructivism are some theories. These are specialized the theories which are developed within the specific area of studies. The first layer involves certain perspectives and those are valid not only in social sciences but also in natural sciences. First layer of knowledge, epistemelogy, is the engine room because it directs you to the certain area of study. In Turkey- EU relations we need to look at the values like religion,culture. There is knowledge and for knowledge we go to research and there are techniques, behind research resolves a theory. There seems to be that some filters and angels involve in research and knowledge seems to be limited. Why is that? Because there is a selective coverage there. Second, when you have more facts you are going to cover there is an issue of emphasis. There are different lists of phenomena because there are different people. We have to be selective and this selection is arbitrary. Assuming that we have 2

Page | 1

researchers and they work on same issue but because of emphasis issue they have different narratives. What is more, the object of research seems to be in many cases as much value as fact. In anarchical system all the actors are identical and they attain something to get stronger. In the absence of central authority they will destroy each other. Anarchy in itself doesnt really have any sort of dictate, anarchy is what you see it as anarchy, so the concept of anarchy is discussing. All performances,actions, mechanical forces which we attribute to anarchy are our all expectations. This explanation can be transformed to the fact and value issue. Because there is no such a thing as value. It is how we see it. The object of research is as much value as fact. What is being disputed in anarchy is that there is a conflict and when somebody says conflict is inevitable is this belief as such? Function of anarchy is depent on how we think of it. Think about Waltz and Wendt, there is a dog and they look at the dog and Waltz says he is going to bite, Wendt says he is not going to bite if you believe. only bite if there is an expectation. Anarchy is a thing if you expect to bite, it will bite. We have distinguish between belief and knowledge. We have a belief, conviction and this conviction has some consequences. These are attributed to the values. Belief and knowledge are two seperate areas of human existence. We discussed truth. Truth is a concept that descripes the relationship between knowledge in theories and realities. Truth means reality and reality means all that stuff we can see, touch, interact with, we can sense. We can test a thing whether it is true, we have 3 distinct view of truth: the correspondance view of truth, the coherent view of truth and the pragmatic view of truth. In social sciences knowledge is relative. Natural science is absolute. In some cases knowledge can be perfected. We know that Turkey and Greece has host issues and when we read or see the writings of Greece writer, we see that Greece is always right. If you consult the writings of Turkish scholars Turks are absolutely right and Greeks are wrong. This issue is about relativity. Relativity is not an issue in social sciences. In theoretical physics, the
Page | 2

constant is the speed of light. If you try to challenge the speed of light, the nature will challenge you. If you move no matter how much, there would be a time dilation or time enlargement. That means time will slow down. Quantum physics is not about the vast areas of the universe, it is about what is in it in the nucleous of particule. In this context, it is not possible to know momentum and particular physics at the same time. The same thing is in social sciences. If you are an IR researcher and you travel to the northern Iraq and there are different people there, there is not much shared culturally. Your presence there is going to alter things. They feel your existence there. Consider a container, there is a particule in there and it is not able to get out there. According to experiment, each particule has a wave function. Schrodinger wave effect : particule does not have a location and it has a wave and could be anywhere within the wave. In this context we need to consider the concept of objectivity. It seems that it is the componant of the academic work. The word objective is rooted from obicere in Latin. It means to bring forth, present something. Knowledge occurs in the account of subject and object. Subject is researcher and object is reality out there. Subject develops an awareness and this is knowledge. In so doing the encounter between the object and subject is not unmediated, it is filtered, there is still and angel. The researcher as the subject should be able to present an awareness of the object without himself getting involved. The researcher make present the description of the object. In so doing, the researcher should obliterate itself, we should not be able to sense the presence of the researcher between the lines. We need to stay away from subjectivity. Consider the newspaper editor, he/she has to decide whether include or exclude a topic. Abroad, they dont know anything about the local people, culture, animals. Anachronism is the messing up of chronology. There is something else not the same thing but similar to it. There is an antropomorphism. It is an act of treating an entity as a human person. For example documentary film making. In these documentaries, when they describe the relations between
Page | 3

animals, you find those animals very much like animals. They have passion, friendship, they betray, love, fall in love, remember, forget, grateful. Documentary makers try to integrate something infamiliar into some familiar. In doing this, he has to carry out this integration by the tools provided by the familiar. Antropomorphism is one case and the second is Euro centrism. Consider an antropologist. He context the small community in distant part of the world. He was account of what they are doing. There must be something in common with Europeans but they are limited. There is in a fact, it is an act of translation and much is getting lost in translation. When you look at something unfamiliar, you have to look at it in terms of what you already know. You can only grasp what is allien to you in terms of what you already know because you are looking at it from what you already know and it is losing something in itself. You cant possibly see something unfamiliar without having to use some such bridge. This bridge is from your culture. For example, you dont see the firefly at night unless firefly emits a light. The moment you see the firefly, the firefly has already lost something in itself because by emiting light, it is using energy. In the language of English lacivert is not a color, it doesnt exist. But we have lacivert. For English speakers melon and watermelon. Also same situation is in cherry. We have kiraz and vine. The last topic of the discussion is language. Traditionally, language has been assumed to be descriptive.This means in language we have words and these words refer to either objects or situations or states of facts. There is a one one relationship between the words in a language and what is out there. Words in a language refer to compliance of reality. In this sense, words are labels like names. The idea is that there is word like name which functions as a label for an object out there. The classical understanding of language is that language is descriptive. The later understanding is that language is interpretive. This means words in language not necessarily refer to single object of situation. Words in language gained a meaning on the basis of certain
Page | 4

situations, certain contexts. When an infant grows up in an household, this infant often in front of tv and also conversing with grown-up, not yet able to speak language but this baby keeps hear in different context. Baby could not really associate a word with the object or a situation. Also, there is almost nothing in language to be descriptive. Common sense tells us that we should distinguish between what is literal and what is metaphorical. Literal means that there is one one relationship between the word and what it means. Metaphorical means that you named but there is something else. According to new understanding almost all words are metaphorical in this sense. The difference between these two views in terms of meaning is that when we have descriptive understanding of language you assume when you across passage in a book or somebody make a statement, we can put ordinary words used in a passage or a statement and we have meaning. Meaning is attached to the words. Meaning is stagnant. Stagnant means that if something is stagnant it is frozen, it does not move, always one and the same. When the language is interactive on the other hand, meaning is not behind the word, meaning comes from the context. As the context changes, so does the meaning. Therefore, language is always very dynamic. A statement which we make and use it in the language is always meaningful, conduct, make sense, communicate some idea because it operates not only through a grammatical ordering of words but also by assumptions, set of values. When we say the window is close, for this statement to make sense it is not enough that i have formed a gramatically correct sentence. It is not enough that you know the meaning of the words includes. It is not enough either. We also need to have a place where there is a window. In that place there is not only a window but the window is also close. Third, there must be a reason for me to say that. There are some supporting assumptions share the values, they are important. Also, if language is interactive rather than descriptive it means language is very very organic, keeps changing.

Page | 5

Je

i n i j g a k u D n o t