Historians and International Relations scholars have long had a relationship that allows for interworking, while distinct differences still remain separating the two. In studying the past, a historian and an international relations scholar would take into account the past as a force that generates the questions and theories of both parties. On the other hand, there lies a difference in the way that the historian would place more emphasis on recounting history and international events for their own sake. The IR scholars would contrastingly use historical events as ways to additionally supporting or discrediting a theoretical hypothesis they have proposed. In this way, their differences in methodology and objectives can be highlighted.
The historian …show more content…
The historian would ask specific, ideographic questions, while the IR scholars would ask general, nomothetic questions. For example, the historian could ask, ‘Did Russia’s desire to regain Crimea as part of the Motherland, drive their decision to annex Crimea?’, while the IR scholar would ask a much broader question, such as, ‘Does the a state’s desire to regain land that once was once part of a state, drive a state’s decision to annex the land?’. By knowing the distinction between the questions a historian and an IR scholar might ask, you are able to see clear differentiation between the …show more content…
The historian should be able to incorporate international relations theories into their narratives of history. With the incorporation of theories into the narratives, it allows for the development of understanding of the results of patterns that are repeated in history, and how these patters may affect outcomes. The international relations scholar would be unable to make a comprehensive theory without using historical references and narratives to develop his theory. In this mutually beneficial relationship between the historian and international relations scholar, both are able to advance their individual studies of world politics by incorporating aspects of each other’s into their own
The historian …show more content…
The historian would ask specific, ideographic questions, while the IR scholars would ask general, nomothetic questions. For example, the historian could ask, ‘Did Russia’s desire to regain Crimea as part of the Motherland, drive their decision to annex Crimea?’, while the IR scholar would ask a much broader question, such as, ‘Does the a state’s desire to regain land that once was once part of a state, drive a state’s decision to annex the land?’. By knowing the distinction between the questions a historian and an IR scholar might ask, you are able to see clear differentiation between the …show more content…
The historian should be able to incorporate international relations theories into their narratives of history. With the incorporation of theories into the narratives, it allows for the development of understanding of the results of patterns that are repeated in history, and how these patters may affect outcomes. The international relations scholar would be unable to make a comprehensive theory without using historical references and narratives to develop his theory. In this mutually beneficial relationship between the historian and international relations scholar, both are able to advance their individual studies of world politics by incorporating aspects of each other’s into their own