Citation

Smith S. J. Peace Res. 1997; 34(3): 330-336.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022343397034003009

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In a recent article in this journal, Oyvind Osterud attacks postmodern interventions in international relations theory. He claims that postmodernism is not a serious academic approach, indeed that it threatens the very basis of scholarship. In this reply the epistemological claims of Osterud are examined. His main claims are examined and found to be superficial and misleading. Postmodernist accounts simply do not appeal to the same criteria for 'good' theory as do traditional accounts, but it is nonetheless possible to distinguish between strong and weak postmodernist accounts. The article then summarizes some of the main areas for postmodern contributions to international theory. The main conclusion is that the epistemological waters are far deeper and muddier than Osterud claims, and that there are no secure epistemological foundations for the kind of research agenda that he desires. Indeed, postmodernism seems to offer much to readers of this journal precisely because it opens up to scrutiny questions of identity and points to a much wider agenda for international theory than that which has traditionally dominated the discipline.