The Kuhnian Notion of Paradigm in the Third International Relations Debate

The paper reviews some of the major IR scholars and how they view the applicability of Kuhn’s notion of paradigm in the case of the third IR debate. The starting point is Laipd’s idea of positivism versus post-positivism. I argue that pessimism and optimism are interrelated in the debate. Also, for the future, if the IR scientific community wants to contribute to real problem solution, it should not restrict to the narrow notion of Kuhn’s paradigm. However, there should be some loose sense of a paradigm as a cumulation of lessons learned. The grand theorizing or bridge-building should be replaced by the idea of lots of “doors” or many mediators linking only certain issues in different approaches. If there is only one bridge, this will not adequately reflect the emerging stage of proliferation of pluralism in the field. The pragmatic tendency is towards eclecticism of the approaches. Elements are interrelated and the border between positivism and relativism is moving.