Japan, Asian-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism

Abstract

Peter Katzenstein of Cornell Univerity and Nobuo Okawara of Kyushu University take international relations scholars to task for favoring "academic spectacles" over "disciplined analysis of empirical puzzles." The authors contend that not only are the intellectual returns from grand paradigmatic debates and the privileging of parsimony sharply diminishing, but that students of international relations are getting the wrong idea about what passes for good scholarship. Katzenstein and Okawara suggest that instead of engaging in approach-driven analysis, scholars should pursue problem-driven research, drawing selectively from a range of paradigms, to explain empirical puzzles.