Why This Question Matters
Brian Rathbun asks whether international relations (IR) scholars observe world politics as neutral analysts or whether their own political views shape the paradigms they adopt. This matters because paradigms—broad theoretical stances such as realism, liberalism, rationalism, constructivism, and differing epistemologies like positivism and post‑positivism—structure research questions, methods, and the interpretation of evidence in the field.
How the Study Works
Rathbun analyzes survey data collected from a sample of international relations scholars to test hypotheses about the relationship between scholars' self‑reported left‑right political identification and their preferred IR paradigms. The study treats paradigms as combinations of ontological commitments (e.g., realism vs. liberalism) and epistemological stances (positivist vs. nonpositivist/post‑positivist) and examines how these dimensions align with political ideology.
Key Findings
- IR scholars overall cluster toward the center of the political spectrum, but systematic differences appear across paradigms.
- Realists are the most conservative and right‑leaning group among IR scholars; liberals (theorists working in liberal paradigms) are more left‑leaning.
- Rationalism and constructivism—though not inherently ideological—show distinct profiles: rationalists tend to be more conservative than constructivists.
- Scholars who endorse post‑positivist epistemologies are disproportionately on the political left.
- Crucially, epistemology conditions the link between ideology and paradigm: positivist scholars show a weaker connection between their political values and paradigm choice, while nonpositivists display the strongest association between personal ideology and theoretical approach.
What This Means for IR Scholarship
These results suggest that neither paradigms nor epistemologies are ideologically neutral in practice. Rathbun argues this should encourage greater reflexivity: IR researchers need to be cautious about assuming paradigms are disentangled from scholars' political commitments and should account for how ideology might shape theory choice, interpretation, and debate within the discipline.
