Interpretive social science is well established institutionally at universities and research centres. It benefits from this institutional context in terms of prestige, credibility and grants. In comparison with non-interpretive disciplines however, its scientific status is questionable. What elements of it are really scientific and what elements are threats to this scientific character? This problem has been discussed in the past but unfortunately the discussion has gradually dried up without a successful resolution. In my thesis I am revitalising it. I take a systematic rather than historical approach: instead of picking up the discussion where it has been abandoned, I begin with a working definition of science, and analyse to what extent interpretive inquiry meets the requirements of this definition. The structure of my thesis follows this definition in that what is discussed is the three substantial elements of it - theory, research method, and professional quality control. In relation to theory, I pose questions on a range of topics, such as whether interpretive social science is explanatory, and whether it generates new knowledge. In relation to method, I explore, amongst other things, whether qualitative method permits the production of valid and reliable findings. The discussion of professional quality control considers issues around the reporting of findings and the assessment of these findings by others. I complement my analysis by considering three interpretive case studies, exploring both whether they produce theoretical knowledge and reflecting on their methodological strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, I explore the border between interpretive inquiry and non-fiction arts, such as literary reportage and documentary filmmaking, arguing that this border is more blurred than it may first appear.

One of the most important aspects of the American field of International Relations (IR) is the deeply-rooted and broadly shared commitment to a “scientist” understanding of scholarly work. Scientism can be described as an indubitable belief in our ability to produce value-free and non-normative knowledge and in the power of such knowledge to resolve societal problems. Since the mid-20th century, this scientist commitment prevailed in the main approaches and standards guiding the practice of IR scholarship in the United States. One problem with the dominance of scientism is that it reproduces a restrictive view of American IR scholarship. More precisely, the dominance of scientism has not only limited the diversity of methodological and theoretical approaches but, this thesis argues, also restricted American IR scholars’ ability to further different understandings of the legitimate purposes of scholarly work. Following this idea, this thesis endeavors to challenge the dominance of scientism and legitimize alternative forms of scholarship in American IR. More precisely, this thesis advances that American IR scholars’ work is guided by three categories of objectives, that is, the production of scientific knowledge, the application of knowledge and the advancement of critical thinking. To clarify how these three objectives are concretely formulated, the thesis also specifies nine categories of epistemic approaches (e.g. forms of methods and theories) that are associated with scientific, applied and critical objectives. This categorization is conceived as a useful thinking tool for understanding how and why scholarship is generated in American IR. After detailing this categorization, the thesis underlines the specific value and purpose associated with each category of objectives by examining a series of graduate education programs in American IR. This empirical examination concentrates on ten professional M.A. and ten PhD programs offered in elite American universities. Using a discursive analysis of the curriculum and the syllabus of one core course in each program, the thesis discusses how and why scientific, applied and critical objectives are furthered in American IR. It particularly underscores why applied and critical objectives are marginalized across the selected graduate education programs and the benefits associated with these alternative orientations for American IR. In doing so, this thesis helps challenge the dominance of scientism and legitimize other forms of scholarship in American IR.