Can ideas be scientifically studied in international politics? This paper tackles the ongoing debate within the field of international relations regarding the role and study of ideas. It addresses the skepticism of 'positivists,' who find ideas difficult to measure objectively, and the counter-argument of 'post-positivists,' who believe ideas cannot be studied using the same methods as physical objects. The author proposes a 'via media,' a middle ground, arguing that while post-positivists raise important points about the limitations of purely positivist approaches, some have gone too far in dismissing any connection between their work and scientific inquiry. The paper analyzes how positivist epistemology shapes international ontology and offers a balanced perspective on the scientific study of ideas in international relations. Ultimately, the author suggests that it is possible to approach the study of ideas with scientific rigor, acknowledging the unique challenges involved and avoiding the pitfalls of both extreme positivism and extreme post-positivism. This approach would allow for a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of international politics. This research is relevant for understanding the complex interaction of political science and world issues.
This paper's focus on epistemological and methodological debates within international relations makes it a suitable contribution to the Review of International Studies. The journal seeks to publish high-quality original research that contributes to the understanding of international politics and its complex dynamics.