the-evolution-of-international-security-studies

a post-kuhnian sociology of science 43paradigms based on a shared understanding of general laws, metaphysicalassumptions of how ‘reality’ is structured, epistemological beliefs inwhat constitutes good science, and respectable works and procedures.The work that goes on inside a paradigm never fundamentally questionskey assumptions, research focus, epistemologies or world view; it is whatKuhn described as ‘normal science’. Scientific revolutions – rather thandiscoveries within existing paradigms – thus come when new paradigmsare launched in opposition to older ones, usually by a new generation ofscholars whose personal and professional investment is less than in thecase of more senior ones, or by researchers coming to a discipline froma different field, hence also with less investment in a given paradigm. Acentral point is that new and old paradigms differ on such fundamentalpoints that they are held to be incommensurable: there is no way of testingone’s way out of disagreement since what is at stake is the entire framingof the research topic, the question of what should be studied/tested andhow to interpret the results (Schmidt, 1998: 6–7). The important pointfor ISS from a sociology of science perspective is that it may be difficult topin down exactly when paradigms are incommensurable. As Wæver notes(1998: 716), having a debate – which may range from polite and constructivedialogue to war – itself indicates a certain modicum of cohesion and‘expresses a less than totally fragmented discipline’.The key sociological point for our present exercise is that if knowledgedoes not progress solely as a result of scientific evidence, then it is necessaryto try to take into account the other forces that play into the evolution ofany field of study. Kuhn made room for ‘progress’ within paradigms, butstressed that what constituted scientific advances could only be judged bya paradigm’s own standards, not by extra-paradigmatic ones. But if thereis no given scientific standard that theories should strive to maintain, howis it possible to make judgements about the relative merits of competingparadigms? This question points to a key feature of academic debates as adriving force: that in the absence of absolute, objective standards scholarswill try to establish their own ones as hegemonic. Academics, politicians,the media and a number of other societal actors make constant claimsabout which role science should play in society based on a set of deeperpolitical and normative judgements, and influenced by the issues, ideasand power structures around them. ISS is a highly politicised subjectin which questions about both what should be studied and the role ofscholars vis-à-vis the security apparatus of the state have been an ongoingsource of tension and debate. To understand its evolution we need to takeon board not just the peculiar dynamics of academic debates, but also the