Search

Science walks on two legs. One leg consists of asking: How things are? This leads to observation, measurement, graphing, and statistical description. The other leg consists of asking: How things should be, on logical grounds? This leads to logical models that should become quantitatively predictive. Science largely consists of such models, tested with data. Developed science establishes not only connections among individual factors but also connections among these connections. As an illustration, I use laws about human activity I have found. But social sciences often take the lazy road of fitting raw data with a straight line or some fashionable format, unaware of the need to think and build models based on logic, as stressed by Karl Deutsch. As expounded in my Making Social Sciences More Scientific (2008) and Logical Models and Basic Numeracy in Social Sciences, www.psych.ut.ee/stk/Beginners_Logical_Models.pdf, I call for a major widening in social science methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article begins by asking why Karl Deutsch never directly intervened in what has come to be known in the field as the second debate. This point of departure is used to outline Deutsch’s views on the purpose of knowledge. It is apparent that Deutsch was unwilling to make the distinction between the traditional and scientific approaches, which stood at the heart of the debate started by Hedley Bull. Deutsch’s position tried to embrace both approaches, because they were necessary in order to answer the big and important questions he asked. Deutsch also rejected the notion that the scientific approach could be devoid of normative concerns. Finally, the article argues that Deutsch keenly adopted methods connected with the scientific approach because he believed they made it possible to spot new patterns which might hold novel answers to the profoundly normative question of humankind’s survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers first a brief commentary on Karl Deutsch and his collaborators’ development of the concept of security community, before moving to a critical review of constructivist attempts by Adler, Barnett and their colleagues at resurrecting it. The article makes the case that while the serious effort to give security community a new life is laudable, the appropriation also renders the concept at once theoretically complex and methodologically superficial. Drawing constructive lessons from the previous research, it seeks to demonstrate the potential of the security communities research provided that it (1) restores the Deutschian ethos of rigorous, transparent, collective and transdisciplinary research; (2) takes seriously the challenge to the realist paradigm by zooming in and out of the modern state when thinking about security community; and (3) in addition to processes of integration investigates more thoroughly also the processes of disintegration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I describe Karl Deutsch’s personal and political background and career and offer an assessment of him as a scholar, teacher, and mentor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introduction to this Special Issue of International Relations dedicated to Karl Deutsch makes the case that his scholarship was transformative in more ways than is typically recognized in the discipline. Besides being a theoretical and methodological innovator, Deutsch also envisaged that research must have transformative qualities for the future of human relations. The latter in particular deserves attention of International Relations (IR) students because it opens up possibilities for novel empirical and theoretical research of international politics. Deutsch clearly believed that social scientific research must be normatively grounded and serve normative purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides a reminiscence of Karl Deutsch as a teacher and scholar. I examine his scholarship and focus on its enduring qualities. In particular, I highlight how he was a passionate advocate of innovative approaches to enduring political problems. His comprehensive theoretical vision, with central concepts such as communication and learning, remains as inspiring as his methodological eclecticism. It offers a synthesis of traditional sociology of the Europe he had left behind with the rationalist empiricism that he encountered in America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]