Latest Articles

Specialists in the philosophy of social sciences preach simplicity in choosing variables during research design, the aim of which is to avoid the complexity of abundance, reducing the clarity and logical consistency of the thesis. The rule of using limited variables is based on the methodological rule called the "Principle of Parsimony" which means that the most acceptable explanation is the simplest and stipulates the use of the lowest possible number of variables in order to explain the maximum possible number of phenomena. This study introduces this principle and examines the reasons for its absence from political research by assuming that the reason for the lack of parsimony in political research, and the tendency of researchers to use multiple variables, is the widespread "methodologist" tendency, which emerges as a type of excessive confidence in the reliability of the method.

The study centers on a major problem related to rational choice theory and its applications in international relations and foreign policy. It asks whether the selection process is subject to the principle of maximizing benefit according to this theory, or is subject to other principles, psychological processes and cognitive biases. The study reached conclusions that confirm that the selection process is in fact subject to a non-standard process; that is, it is not subject to continuous choices to benefit maximization, but there are other factors that lead to the selection of risk over gain, and here the psychological aspects overlap with the rational aspects in influencing the choice. This reveals that it is not possible to separate the school that focuses on the psychological aspects of the decision maker and the school that focuses on rational calculations, but rather that the two can be combined together within the framework of alternative theories complementary to rational choice theory, such as the perception theory.

This text was fundamental to the crystallization of structuralist theory in international relations. It addresses one of the discipline’s major dilemmas: the dialectic of the relationship between actor and structure. It reveals the shortcomings of the interpretations offered by the prevailing structuralist theories (neorealism and world-system theory), which failed to grasp the mutually constitutive nature of human agents and system structures, reducing the international system either to constraints imposed on actors or to structures generating behavioral patterns. However, by employing the “structuration theory” borrowed from sociology, US political scientist Alexander Want offers an expanded perspective that avoids reducing system structures to state actors (as neorealism does) or their reification in world- system theory. The scientific realist/structuration approach thus investigates the properties and dispositions of state actors and the system structures in which they are embedded, contributing to the reformulation of theoretical debate in the field of international relations, opening up broad horizons for understanding international dynamics and establishing a new research agenda that combines philosophical-scientific analysis with political-historical analysis.

In this paper we develop a relational understanding of populism informed by urban political ecology. We argue that an urban political ecology of populism is necessary for a popular- democratic denunciation of the environmental claims of the far right. This article thereby aims to further develop a critique of liberal environmentalism and right-wing populism. We do so by first staging a dialogue between literatures in urban political ecology and Gramscian inflected readings of populism. Both have sought to interpret how spatial – and ecological – claim making becomes central to struggles over hegemony. The second half of the paper analyses these tensions in the Dutch farmers movement, which has become one of the most important political forces in the Netherlands since 2019. Abstracting "the local", "the rural" or "the farm" out of the broader processes of urbanisation is central to struggles over the representation of farmers. Right-wing movements thus seek to further a broader disillusionment with formal politics, while effectively deploying spatial and ecological abstractions that pit the "rural" against the "urban". We conclude by instead emphasising the crucial connections between populism and ecology, and call for a popular-democratic political ecology.

This article examines what analytical eclecticism can offer to qualify IR to overcome the Grand Theory crisis. It debates analytical eclecticism’s basic promises relying on its main characteristics which distinguish it from the dominant research traditions/paradigms: fostering research pragmatism; expanding the scope of the research issues and involving more aspects of social reality complexities in world politics; and producing complex causal statements. The article is divided into six parts. First, it provides an introduction to eclectic philosophy through Paul Feyerabend’s reflections on methodological/epistemological relativism. Second, it conceptualizes analytical eclecticism and examines its promises. Third, it explores an example of eclectic literature in the field of international studies. Fourth, it debates the relationship between the promises of eclecticism and the complexity of social causality. Finally, it seeks, in parts 5 and 6, to position analytical eclecticism epistemologically, through examining the main assumptions of Critical Relaism and its promises to move the dominant debate away from the positivist/postpositivist binary opposition.

​​​This study examines virtual public reactions on X regarding BRICS expansion to include three Arab countries: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. It uses a deep learning approach for sentiment analysis to understand reactions expressed by individuals in the 22 Arab League countries. The study aims to understand public opinion towards this expansion and assess how it was received at the bottom-internal level. Given the difficulty of measuring public opinion in non-democratic contexts, the study tracks public reaction to the expansion on X. Tweets from August 24, 2023, to January 7, 2024, are analyzed. The methodology involves collecting a large dataset of tweets, cleansing and tokenizing the data, and attributing sentiment scores using specialized Arabic text-processing tools. The results are presented through data visualization and machine learning models, ensuring a comprehensive analysis while addressing ethical considerations. The findings indicate that public sentiment is predominantly neutral (38.91%), compared to positive (31.72%) and negative (30.09%). This highlight concerns about education, political disengagement, and the technical limitations of applying a data science approach to political science research. It also suggests the inherent challenges of using this method to reflect internalization or engagement in the way surveys and referenda can.​

Case studies as a research method are drawing increasing interest from social sciences and humanities researchers, but they pose challenges regarding the ability to generalize and make conclusions that can be applied to other cases. Is it possible to generalize the results of one case, and to apply them in other cases that have not been studied? To answer this, several advocates of qualitative research have developed "in-case" analysis methods that enable inference and respond to critics of the case study method. One of the notable contributions from the evolution movement was what researchers called "Process Tracing." This study aims to consider the methodological contribution that this "tracing" has made to qualitative research related to the case study method in the social sciences. The paper is motivated by the new methodological contributions of the Process Tracing, which have taken qualitative research, especially the case study method, to new horizons.

This study explores epistemic violence afflicting the field of international relations and the way it relates to Eurocentrism. It probes the consequences this has had for international relations theories, revealing blind spots regarding states of the South. It challenges the Western narratives and perspectives that dominate international relations whilst demonstrating there are voices and theories in the South that have been historically silenced and marginalized in that discipline. The study poses the following key questions: What are the mechanisms by which epistemic violence is exercised against the Global South? What are its implications for positivist theories? How is epistemic violence to be overcome? In its analysis and response to these questions, the study employs the methodology of discourse analysis to clarify the position of countries of the South in the discourse of international relations and positivism. As well, it makes use of the concept of epistemic violence to understand the mechanisms of action of epistemic hegemony in this discipline, and the concept of epistemic disobedience to propose a method by which to disengage from this hegemony with focus on examples from the Arab world. The study concludes by highlighting the importance of epistemic disobedience for research methods as a basic instrument for crafting policies to make international relations global in terms of issues, substance, and knowledge.

Although the academic study of International Relations (IR) in the Arab world has been ongoing for almost seventy years, there remains a dearth of information regarding its origins that can be attributed, in part, to a lack of research on the state of the field. The present study seeks to address this gap by conducting an examination of the state of IR in the Arab World over the course of a century. Additionally, this study proposes a novel method for evaluating the current state of the field and assessing its scientific output. To achieve these objectives, the study applies sociological generational analysis to three generations of Arab IR scholars, then examines their contributions to four key aspects of the field: the scientific production cycle, the formation of the scientific community, the development of its institutional structure, and relative autonomy from political science.

The study presents the problems of structural politicization in political studies, and the danger of methodological debates transforming into political confrontations, a situation that has been repeated in the ongoing debate between the advocates and opponents of secularism. The study demonstrated that the necessity of the political dimension, and/or the political dependencies of every "scientific" approach to politics does not necessarily mean acceptance of unrestricted politicization. It is possible to acknowledge the political content of treatment without slipping into politicization. From this standpoint, criticism of underlying or structural politicization, as in Edward Said's criticism of Orientalism and Western Centralism, cannot be compared to the way that Israel's supporters crudely politicize US Middle East studies in their battle to hold it hostage to the interests of Israel and the extreme right. In the same vein, the study critically addresses the opinion that "area studies" in political science is marked by theoretical poverty and academic inferiority. The study itself leans towards the opinion that so called "theoretical studies" are in fact "area studies" that take western countries as the testing ground for political experiences and seek to generalize the results in the form of "theories" that enjoy universal validity.