In their concluding chapter, G&B comment on the role and responsibilities of case studies and scholars towards creating policy-relevant theory. They are critical of the problem-oriented approach and focus on developing general theory in political science, arguing that such approaches often result in lack of “policy relevance or significance” due to their limited explanatory and predictive power vis-à-vis the prevalence of equifinality in international relations and the study of social phenomena (loc 6281-6296, 6568). G&B reference Campbell to differentiate between “scientific knowing” (or theory and knowledge that “fully meet scientific standards”) and “commonsense knowing” that is more relevant for the “sensible conduct of foreign policy” (loc 6513-6520). Instead, they emphasize the value of middle-range theories and “conditional generalizations” with deliberately limited scope that can explain various subclasses of general phenomena (loc 6448-6520). According to G&B, a theory is useful to policy-makers if it is “rich”, that is only if contents are plausible and the special conditions under which its propositions are valid are specified (loc 6547). While G&B highlight the advantages of middle-range theories over covering law, in their arguments they do not address the relative role of scholars versus policy analysts and the degree to which their responsibilities should overlap or complement each other. Do you agree with G&B’s position that scholars should prioritize contributions to real world problems over sound methodologies and contributions to theory development?
Write in 3 lines that smoothing that is difficult to understand from the reading that the professor need to talk more about it