I think your argument is seriously flawed. If I understand you correctly, you argue in part that managers and policymakers should not study theory because they will take it too literally. You fear that, having internalized (one of) the theoretical understanding(s) of the world your field expounds, they will then go out and seek to impose that understanding on the world by force. Should I,then, as a policymaker, remain intentionally ignorant of Plato, the Bible, John Locke, etc., etc., lest I take one of them to heart and start running roughshod over everyone in sight? From your post, I gather that you would describe IR theory as a somewhat valid, though imperfect, means of understanding the world. If you really do create somewhat valid knowledge, isn't it better to provide decision makers with that knowledge while emphasizing its limitations, than to keep it from them altogether? My point is that any means of understanding the world is subject to a fundamentalist interpretation, and if you fear that IR theory will be interpreted in such a way, you should stress that in your classes and remind everyone not to get carried away - I don't think it would be as difficult as you fear. By keeping theory separate as an esoteric discipline and merely presenting your results to policymakers, I suspect that you would in fact be more likely to create an impression of "the experts say this so it must be true" than you would if the policymakers had had first-hand exposure to the theory and its limitations.
Tim | 11.16.07 - 11:01 am | #