ABSTRACT
International Relations (IR) has failed to move beyond positivism despite our persistent calls for a pluralistic IR and "a considerable, in fact quite an overwhelming, literature" on post-positivist scholarship. Further confusion arises from the fact that there have long been welcoming statements on diversity and pluralism in the discipline. This chapter reviews the pertinent literature in order to identify the "shared answers" given to IR questions. It offers some complementary thoughts from a socio-epistemic perspective. The chapter addresses the question of why IR has failed to move beyond positivism by considering a common-sense response. Post-positivism began with a rejection of and dissatisfaction with positivist epistemological and methodological assumptions and their dominance in IR. "American dependency" and "Western-centrism" continue to dominate the "Korean-style" IR theory-building enterprise. The existing paradigm is reproduced and reinforced by the ways in which IR is researched, published, and taught.
