Zuiver, dan wel doelgericht wetenschappelijk onderzoek in internationale betrekkingen?

Abstract

It is argued that the forthcoming formation of a ’National Institute for Peace Problems’ in the Netherlands necessitates research which will undoubtedly be applied research since it has a clear relation to a particular value of worldwide significance; the value of peace. However, the author fears that the prevailing method of teaching international relations at Dutch universities concerns itself predominantly, if not exclusively, with the teaching of so-called pure science. In this context the recent public lecture of Dr. P. R. Baehr at the University of Amsterdam, on ’Teaching and Research in International Relations’ is discussed. The new institute will inevitably suffer from the above-mentioned contradictory situation, as it obviously needs the support of the universities. With a view to avoiding the isolation of the institute, the author makes a plea for the reconsideration of the present situation. In criticizing the position taken by Dr. Baehr the author emphasizes the need for the effectuation of research and teaching on an applied basis. In the opinion of the author, research and teaching on an applied basis would be of multiple utility as compared with the pure basis. Finally, the author advocates the convocation of a — preferably international — conference in the Netherlands in order to discuss certain items, some of which have already been put forward by the Norwegian peace-researcher, Dr. J. Galtung; 1) Is peace-research to be considered a value-oriented field of inquiry built around the value of peace? 2) Is this field of inquiry an applied field of research, and is its task then to present what will generally seem like ’policy implication’? 3) Will the science of international relations on the one hand, and peace-research on the other, converge into one science that could presumably best be called ’irenology’ ? 4) If the preceding question must be answered negatively, what will be the position allotted to these branches of science in research and teaching at the universities? In a rejoinder Dr. Baehr defends his earlier standpoint and rejects the proposed international conference, as he feels that there should be scope for both methods of scientific approach.