Evils of the Grand Theory - Essay Example

Evils of the Grand Theory al Affiliation) Political scientists should research and find ways to better the social lives of people, because they are advantaged by the knowledge of their study. However, they are not providing the society according to their profession, due to articulation of the Grand Theory. Therefore, the field of international relations should give little focus on the grand theory and rather focus on the dependency on the mid level theories (Lake, 2011). In this paper, the evils of the grand theory are discussed in relation to the other theories and the need to teach students this theory. The grand theory focuses on the theories rather than focusing on the real problems facing the society. These can be understood better by looking at the academic sects and the epistemology sections. The evils of the grand theory in the academic sects include the fact that the global studies being divided into several research traditions among which are realism, constructivism, feminism and many others. These research traditions have sets of the assumptions that evaluate different units in a specified manner. It can be the level of association, the economic status people, power and influence. The main point is that the research traditions contain a variety of views of the global politics (Parker, 2010). In that global politics can be full of conflicts, cooperative or free in a way that everybody does what they want. The following pathologies explain why the grand theory should not be used in international relations but rather use the theories of partiality. The first one is reifying the research traditions in which complex issues in the literature works are simplified into smaller topics such that it is easier to identify the ideas of the author. This also happens in the field where complex debates or books are set for the students to help them identify hub features for individual tradition. However, in the classification of such traits into different groups, the research traditions are constructed in a manner that leads to the loss of delicacy, giving weight to weak issues and simplifying the work of political science into easily recognizable topics. This forces the practice to be artificial; hence, the grand theory has a disadvantage. In addition, categorical work is self-imposed as there is always labeling of work, connecting it to the individual who did what kind of work. Political scientists, start to link others to a certain tradition and be blamed of any poor research on a certain tradition. Moreover, reward on extremist is made. Here the political scientists cite the same sources in all research traditions and allocate similar works in their courses. Such works are read as a representation of the assumptions of the examination traditions and convey their meaning and the information to junior scholars. These works serves the reason to orient debates in the field. The evil in this issue is that the research traditions developed may be different from what the author might have intended to say. This is because they loss delicacy and quality of the information the themes portray in certain books or writings (Pearlman, 2013). For the purposes of self-identification and the rise in the professional’s ability to be noticed, new incentives that are tilted to emerging approaches lead to formation of evils. This is because associations for scholars with common ground that is intended to bring a unified outcome, breeds a force for diversity of traditions and ideas. Even though, the existence of diverse traditions is not negative, as portrayed by the above pathologies, when joined to the next pathologies they hinder research for the political scientists. The third pathologist is that political scientists mistake traditions to actual theories. Traditions are defined by the sets of assumptions that are able to make a certain explanation while in the actual practice the assumptions are always incomplete. This makes it impossible to assess research traditions in a direct manner. Moreover, the researchers compare traditions in a way that brings competition. Since each tradition is always not complete and makes use of predictions there is always little success in attaining the research goals. In this case, it is hard to determine which idea is correct due to researchers supporting their own data. The other pathology is the researchers narrow the research matter into observations that portray the strength of their tradition. For example, the constructivist research about the norms and views their approach to be persuasive than others (Parker, 2010). Narrowing these focuses makes each tradition to affirm it and studying issues that bother it and neglecting other issues that are related to other groups. This leads to sects that lead to boost of their own strength and selective reading, which makes the issue to deviate from social science to theology. The last pathology involves researcher’s aspiration to make their approaches to be scientific. The researchers should not seek for intellectual domination rather than their favored tradition. Thus, every researcher aspires to dominate over the other to make them unable to conquer the field (Pearlman, 2013). In epistemology, the issues have become more politicized, as there are struggles over which epistemological religion is better or which profession is dominant over the other. Many talk and interact with fellow scholars in same tradition. Therefore, this leads to differences within institutions. Even though, grand theory has many negative issues in political science profession, it should still be taught in school because through it the students are able to know the different topics and traditions. However, they should be thought on the ways that should not lead to the evils of the ground theory. In conclusion the, since the reason for the political scientists is to better the lives of the people, they should not use the theories to studying different issues. This is because it leads to separation and deviation from the real issues that affect the society like political violence, gender imbalances, and other evils. The researchers should thus use the social settings in determining the course of their research. References Lake, D. (2011). Why "Isms are Evil" Theory, Epistemology and Academic sects as Impediments to Understanding and progress. International Studies Quality, 55, 465-480. Parker, J. (2010). Undergraduate Research-Methods Training in Political Science: A Comparative Perspective. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(01), 121. Pearlman, W. (2013). Emigration and Power: A Study of Sects in Lebanon, 1860-2010. Politics & Society, 41(1), 103-133. Read More