What do you think?
Rate this book
Rational Choice and Security Studies: Stephen Walt and His Critics
Opposing views on the merits of formal rational choice approaches as they have been applied to international security studies.
Formal theories and rational choice methods have become increasingly prominent in most social sciences in the past few decades. Proponents of formal theoretical approaches argue that these methods are more scientific and sophisticated than other approaches, and that formal methods have already generated significant theoretical progress. As more and more social scientists adopt formal theoretical approaches, critics have argued that these methods are flawed and that they should not become dominant in most social-science disciplines. Rational Choice and Security Studies presents opposing views on the merits of formal rational choice approaches as they have been applied in the subfield of international security studies. This volume includes Stephen Walt's article Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies, critical replies from prominent political scientists, and Walt's rejoinder to his critics. Walt argues that formal approaches have not led to creative new theoretical explanations, that they lack empirical support, and that they have contributed little to the analysis of important contemporary security problems. In their replies, proponents of rational choice approaches emphasize that formal methods are essential for achieving theoretical consistency and precision.
Formal theories and rational choice methods have become increasingly prominent in most social sciences in the past few decades. Proponents of formal theoretical approaches argue that these methods are more scientific and sophisticated than other approaches, and that formal methods have already generated significant theoretical progress. As more and more social scientists adopt formal theoretical approaches, critics have argued that these methods are flawed and that they should not become dominant in most social-science disciplines. Rational Choice and Security Studies presents opposing views on the merits of formal rational choice approaches as they have been applied in the subfield of international security studies. This volume includes Stephen Walt's article Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies, critical replies from prominent political scientists, and Walt's rejoinder to his critics. Walt argues that formal approaches have not led to creative new theoretical explanations, that they lack empirical support, and that they have contributed little to the analysis of important contemporary security problems. In their replies, proponents of rational choice approaches emphasize that formal methods are essential for achieving theoretical consistency and precision.
- GenresPolitical Science
144 pages, Paperback
First published July 18, 2000
1 person is currently reading
27 people want to read
About the author
Michael E. Brown
52 books5 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Michael E. Brown is an American academic and Professor of International Affairs, Political Science, and Gender Studies at the George Washington University. He served as Dean of the Elliott School of International Affairs from 2005 to 2015. Brown holds a Ph.D. in Government from Cornell University and has held senior roles at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Harvard’s Belfer Center, and Georgetown University. His research focuses on international security. Known for his distinctive orange necktie, Brown has become a recognizable figure on campus—except during Halloween week, when he sets it aside.
Michael E. Brown is an American academic and Professor of International Affairs, Political Science, and Gender Studies at the George Washington University. He served as Dean of the Elliott School of International Affairs from 2005 to 2015. Brown holds a Ph.D. in Government from Cornell University and has held senior roles at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Harvard’s Belfer Center, and Georgetown University. His research focuses on international security. Known for his distinctive orange necktie, Brown has become a recognizable figure on campus—except during Halloween week, when he sets it aside.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Want to read
December 16, 2009sebagai ahli skimming saya memberikan sedikit catatan ttg buku yang ada di rak to read ini.
- hasil diskusi yang muncul pertama kali dalam jurnal International Security, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring 1999). Mulanya dari tulisan Stephen M. Walt, “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies”. Isinya kurang lebih mengkritik pendekatan formal dalam studi keamanan (grounded researchnya termasuk kongkow bareng satpam bow :p).
Kutipan dari preface buku ini menceritakan muasal debat itu,
"Walt argues that three criteria should be used to judge rational choice theories—and all social science theories: (1) logical consistency and precision; (2) originality; and (3) empirical validity. Of these three, the latter two are especially important, because logical, consistent, and precise theories may still be trivial or false. Walt places special emphasis on the need to develop theories that “produce accurate and relevant knowledge about the human condition.” He then assesses how rational choice models satisfy these three criteria."
trus lanjutannya
"Walt argues that recent formal rational choice scholarship in security studies often has failed to satisfy the second criterion for evaluating theories: it has not been creative or original. Recent formal work in security studies has not generated many new theories or hypotheses. Citing numerous examples of recent rational choice scholarship to support his arguments, Walt contends that this body of scholarship has exhibited a lack of originality (penebalan oleh saya, maksudnya dalem bow komennya :D) in two ways. First, rational choice approaches have displayed “methodological overkill.”...Second, formal models often produce “old wine in new bottles” (dalem lagi, tapi ini ide bagus kok, anggur isi ulang belum ada kan yah? nyaingin air mineral neh :p) by offering familiar arguments in a slightly new guise."
nah terusnya rame deh tuh perdebatannya. ampe gak kelar kayaknya. soalnya di ujung prefacenya disebutin tuh...
"The essays collected here do not offer a complete picture of the debate between formal rational choice theorists and their critics. Similar arguments exist in ªelds other than international security studies, and in disciplines other than political science. A sampling of the relevant literature that criticizes and defends formal models appears in the “Suggestions for Further Reading” at the end of this volume."
Uncle Walt kayaknya sih dikit pundung, abisannya di penutup yang dikasih judul "A Model Disagreement", dia sempet nulis di footnote, "45. Lest I again be accused of a double standard, I offer the following data. During my ten years as a tenured faculty member at the University of Chicago, there were eleven occasions where my department voted to hire, renew, or promote a formal modeler. I voted in favor nine times and voted to oppose twice, a percentage similar to my record on nonformal candidates."
Biar kata di preface dibilangnya, "Walt concludes that the field of security studies should retain a healthy intellectual diversity. The field will suffer if any one approach dominates," Tapi kalo ampe curhat segala soal masalah di kampus, pastinya isi perdebatannya rame tuh.
yang jelas semuanya masih dalam koridor debat akademis kali ye..
Gitu deh, kupi dah siap, pentungan dah dipegang. Lanjut keliling ke folder yang lain di my doc dulu... nyari donlodan jaman kapan yang kelupaan diintip. :D
- hasil diskusi yang muncul pertama kali dalam jurnal International Security, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring 1999). Mulanya dari tulisan Stephen M. Walt, “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies”. Isinya kurang lebih mengkritik pendekatan formal dalam studi keamanan (grounded researchnya termasuk kongkow bareng satpam bow :p).
Kutipan dari preface buku ini menceritakan muasal debat itu,
"Walt argues that three criteria should be used to judge rational choice theories—and all social science theories: (1) logical consistency and precision; (2) originality; and (3) empirical validity. Of these three, the latter two are especially important, because logical, consistent, and precise theories may still be trivial or false. Walt places special emphasis on the need to develop theories that “produce accurate and relevant knowledge about the human condition.” He then assesses how rational choice models satisfy these three criteria."
trus lanjutannya
"Walt argues that recent formal rational choice scholarship in security studies often has failed to satisfy the second criterion for evaluating theories: it has not been creative or original. Recent formal work in security studies has not generated many new theories or hypotheses. Citing numerous examples of recent rational choice scholarship to support his arguments, Walt contends that this body of scholarship has exhibited a lack of originality (penebalan oleh saya, maksudnya dalem bow komennya :D) in two ways. First, rational choice approaches have displayed “methodological overkill.”...Second, formal models often produce “old wine in new bottles” (dalem lagi, tapi ini ide bagus kok, anggur isi ulang belum ada kan yah? nyaingin air mineral neh :p) by offering familiar arguments in a slightly new guise."
nah terusnya rame deh tuh perdebatannya. ampe gak kelar kayaknya. soalnya di ujung prefacenya disebutin tuh...
"The essays collected here do not offer a complete picture of the debate between formal rational choice theorists and their critics. Similar arguments exist in ªelds other than international security studies, and in disciplines other than political science. A sampling of the relevant literature that criticizes and defends formal models appears in the “Suggestions for Further Reading” at the end of this volume."
Uncle Walt kayaknya sih dikit pundung, abisannya di penutup yang dikasih judul "A Model Disagreement", dia sempet nulis di footnote, "45. Lest I again be accused of a double standard, I offer the following data. During my ten years as a tenured faculty member at the University of Chicago, there were eleven occasions where my department voted to hire, renew, or promote a formal modeler. I voted in favor nine times and voted to oppose twice, a percentage similar to my record on nonformal candidates."
Biar kata di preface dibilangnya, "Walt concludes that the field of security studies should retain a healthy intellectual diversity. The field will suffer if any one approach dominates," Tapi kalo ampe curhat segala soal masalah di kampus, pastinya isi perdebatannya rame tuh.
yang jelas semuanya masih dalam koridor debat akademis kali ye..
Gitu deh, kupi dah siap, pentungan dah dipegang. Lanjut keliling ke folder yang lain di my doc dulu... nyari donlodan jaman kapan yang kelupaan diintip. :D
Displaying 1 of 1 review