Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T02:25:27.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A response: why epistemology matters in international theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1996

Martin Hollis  and
Steve Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their rejoinder to our recent article, Vivienne Jabri and Stephen Chan argue that we have privileged epistemology at the expense of ontology. We welcome this engagement with our continuing discussion of the relationship between epistemology and ontology in international relations theory, and will confine our response to three main points: their interpretation of our argument, their use of the work of Giddens, and their arguments about the nature of epistemology in International Relations.

Type
Comment and Response
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 111 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vivienne Jabri and Stephen Chan. ‘The Ontologist Always Rings Twice: Two More Stories About Structure And Agency in Reply to Hollis and Smith’, above.

2 Ibid., p. 107.

3 Ibid., p. 109.

4 Martin Hollis and Smith, Steve, ‘Two Stories About Structure and Agency’, Review of International Studies, 20, no. 3 (1994), pp. 250–251Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., p. 251.

6 Ibid.

7 Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve, ‘Beware of Gurus: Structure and Action in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17 no. 4 (1991), pp. 405–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Jabri and Chan, ‘Ontologist’, p. 108.

9 Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society (Cambridge, 1984), p. xxGoogle Scholar.

10 Jabri and Chan, ‘Ontologist’, p. 108.

11 Ibid., p. 108.

12 Giddens, Constitution of Society, pp. 16-28.

13 Jabri and Chan, ‘Ontologist’, p. 109.

14 Feyerabend, Paul, Against Method (London, 1975)Google Scholar.

15 Hollis and Smith, ‘Beware of Gurus’, p. 409.

16 Jabri and Chan, ‘Ontologist’, p. 110.

17 Ibid., p. 110.