FORECASTING PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC IR: METHODOLOGICAL MAINSTREAM AND UNSOLVED PROBLEMS

The article is devoted to the analysis of research tools that are dominant in international relations forecasting. The study is based on quantitative description of 160 prognostic articles from leading journals on international relations for the period from 2006 to 2015. An innovative typology of pr...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	I. V. Fomin, K. P. Kokarev, B. I. Ananyev, N. Yu. Silaev, A. A. Sushentsov, A. D. Chekov
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN RU
Publicado:	MGIMO University Press 2019
Materias:	forecasting methodology methods approaches paradigms theory of international relations trip strong and weak prognosis International relations JZ2-6530
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/594a0e8a984f48159564d1677014f8a7
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:594a0e8a984f48159564d1677014f8a7
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:594a0e8a984f48159564d1677014f8a72021-11-23T14:50:41ZFORECASTING PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC IR: METHODOLOGICAL MAINSTREAM AND UNSOLVED PROBLEMS2071-81602541-909910.24833/2071-8160-2018-6-63-159-193https://doaj.org/article/594a0e8a984f48159564d1677014f8a72019-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.vestnik.mgimo.ru/jour/article/view/822https://doaj.org/toc/2071-8160https://doaj.org/toc/2541-9099The article is devoted to the analysis of research tools that are dominant in international relations forecasting. The study is based on quantitative description of 160 prognostic articles from leading journals on international relations for the period from 2006 to 2015. An innovative typology of prognostic studies is proposed and tested. The typology introduces a distinction between «weak prognoses» (probabilistic predictive statements that appear as extrapolations of deductive nomothetical theories) and «strong prognoses» («ideographic» predictions that are formulated as scenarios of possible future developments in specific situations and with specific sets of actors). The study shows that it is the weak prognoses that are the dominant type of forecasts in contemporary international studies. The dominance of the weak approach to forecasting remains total, despite the fact that it is almost two decades ago that its fundamental limitations were demonstrated and a “forward reasoning” approach suggested as an alternative. The methodology of Teaching, Research, and International Policy project was applied for a more detailed epistemological profiling of the field. It showed that academic forecasting in international relations is dominated by quantitative methods and positivist non-paradigmatic approaches. As to the traditional paradigms, it is liberalism that is the most common with Marxism being completely neglected. The described profile of the field follows the trends that are inherent in the discipline of international relations in general. The findings of the study can be interpreted from the perspective of possible tracks for the development of forecasting methods in the Russian school of international relations.I. V. FominK. P. KokarevB. I. AnanyevN. Yu. SilaevA. A. SushentsovA. D. ChekovMGIMO University Pressarticleforecastingmethodologymethodsapproachesparadigmstheory of international relationstripstrong and weak prognosisInternational relationsJZ2-6530ENRUVestnik MGIMO-Universiteta, Vol 0, Iss 6(63), Pp 159-193 (2019)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN RU
topic	forecasting methodology methods approaches paradigms theory of international relations trip strong and weak prognosis International relations JZ2-6530
spellingShingle	forecasting methodology methods approaches paradigms theory of international relations trip strong and weak prognosis International relations JZ2-6530 I. V. Fomin K. P. Kokarev B. I. Ananyev N. Yu. Silaev A. A. Sushentsov A. D. Chekov FORECASTING PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC IR: METHODOLOGICAL MAINSTREAM AND UNSOLVED PROBLEMS
description	The article is devoted to the analysis of research tools that are dominant in international relations forecasting. The study is based on quantitative description of 160 prognostic articles from leading journals on international relations for the period from 2006 to 2015. An innovative typology of prognostic studies is proposed and tested. The typology introduces a distinction between «weak prognoses» (probabilistic predictive statements that appear as extrapolations of deductive nomothetical theories) and «strong prognoses» («ideographic» predictions that are formulated as scenarios of possible future developments in specific situations and with specific sets of actors). The study shows that it is the weak prognoses that are the dominant type of forecasts in contemporary international studies. The dominance of the weak approach to forecasting remains total, despite the fact that it is almost two decades ago that its fundamental limitations were demonstrated and a “forward reasoning” approach suggested as an alternative. The methodology of Teaching, Research, and International Policy project was applied for a more detailed epistemological profiling of the field. It showed that academic forecasting in international relations is dominated by quantitative methods and positivist non-paradigmatic approaches. As to the traditional paradigms, it is liberalism that is the most common with Marxism being completely neglected. The described profile of the field follows the trends that are inherent in the discipline of international relations in general. The findings of the study can be interpreted from the perspective of possible tracks for the development of forecasting methods in the Russian school of international relations.
format	article
author	I. V. Fomin K. P. Kokarev B. I. Ananyev N. Yu. Silaev A. A. Sushentsov A. D. Chekov
author_facet	I. V. Fomin K. P. Kokarev B. I. Ananyev N. Yu. Silaev A. A. Sushentsov A. D. Chekov
author_sort	I. V. Fomin
title	FORECASTING PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC IR: METHODOLOGICAL MAINSTREAM AND UNSOLVED PROBLEMS
title_short	FORECASTING PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC IR: METHODOLOGICAL MAINSTREAM AND UNSOLVED PROBLEMS
title_full	FORECASTING PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC IR: METHODOLOGICAL MAINSTREAM AND UNSOLVED PROBLEMS
title_fullStr	FORECASTING PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC IR: METHODOLOGICAL MAINSTREAM AND UNSOLVED PROBLEMS
title_full_unstemmed	FORECASTING PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC IR: METHODOLOGICAL MAINSTREAM AND UNSOLVED PROBLEMS
title_sort	forecasting practices in academic ir: methodological mainstream and unsolved problems
publisher	MGIMO University Press
publishDate	2019
url	https://doaj.org/article/594a0e8a984f48159564d1677014f8a7
work_keys_str_mv	AT ivfomin forecastingpracticesinacademicirmethodologicalmainstreamandunsolvedproblems AT kpkokarev forecastingpracticesinacademicirmethodologicalmainstreamandunsolvedproblems AT biananyev forecastingpracticesinacademicirmethodologicalmainstreamandunsolvedproblems AT nyusilaev forecastingpracticesinacademicirmethodologicalmainstreamandunsolvedproblems AT aasushentsov forecastingpracticesinacademicirmethodologicalmainstreamandunsolvedproblems AT adchekov forecastingpracticesinacademicirmethodologicalmainstreamandunsolvedproblems
_version_	1718416646941442048

FORECASTING PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC IR: METHODOLOGICAL MAINSTREAM AND UNSOLVED PROBLEMS

Ejemplares similares