Theory and Explanation in International Relations (Honours Component) - Essay Example

Smith believes that the distinction between explanatory and constitutive theories is basic ontological difference that emerges out of the differing ways in which IR theorists see the social world. (p27) If one examines what this argument is saying, one could very well use the science/antiscience scheme wherein scholars are divided in the way they see the social world with one favoring the concept of a natural social world – something that is outside of our theories; while the other, stressing that such world is what we actually make it.

Explanatory theorists explain the end of the Cold War in the context of the chain of events that that have transpired over time. Types of this theory such the positivists and the realists offer additional details to the fundamental position on the subject which include the attempt to locate the causal roles that are played by particular elements in the chosen object domain for future use or to predict future events and trends. What this means is that explanatory theory is all about making sense of what is given, based on the facts and about attempting to understand their modes of operation.

(Cox 1981) A number of authors use this dimension to the theory to explain how they seem to solve problems. The idea is that explanatory theories are concerned with making the world work better “within clearly defined, and limited parameters.” (Dunne, Kurki & Smith 2007, p26) Otherwise, Morgenthau (1978) maintained that when theories are divorced from facts they became informed by prejudice and mere wishful thinking. (p4-29) On the other hand, constitutive theories follow an entirely different track in theorizing about the end of the Cold War.

It does not dwell on the causal theories or the questions that ask the whys and hows. Instead, it is concerned with the “properties of things by reference to the structures in virtue of which they exist.” (Wendt 1998, p105) Because of this, theories that