Document Type : Research Paper


1 Assistant Professor, Political Science, Faculty of Law and Theology, Shahid Bahonar University, Iran

2 Professor, Political Science Department, University of Tehran, Iran


The purpose of this study was to investigate the problems of methodological
research program in the history of political thought appearing valuation
methodologies. The claim is that the principles and methodology of the research
program evaluate the formation, expansion, and development of methodologies in
the area of knowledge. In contrast, this article argues that the research program is
not sufficient because the emphasis on the construction logic can provide
understanding and assessment of the methodology. Hence, it is in the realm of
theory and interpretation to meet numerous methodological problems: Problems
within the scope of that program to the issue of the formation of the methodology, as
well as during the formation of speech acts do not prescribe significantly. In the
realm of theory, political theory after normative ignored and only focused on the
causes. In the area of interpretation, it is not able to scale phenomenon as old as
innovation and the presence of artifacts and interpretation to distinguish. Because of
that, any innovation requires that the phenomena in terms of time in the past is not
testable, exploring the phenomenon can not be considered a new interpretation.
Therefore, the research program is lack of attention to the internal logic of thought
and methodology and involves three problems in methodology, theory and
application of that methodology, the interpretation, and to address these issues,
which have undergone a fundamental change, not mayhem and adjustments to be


1. Ball, Terence (1976), “From Paradigms To Research Programes: Toward a Post-Kuhnian Political Science”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 20, No. 1, PP. 151-177.
2. Chalmers, A. F. (1999), 3Edit, What is this thing called Sciense?. United kingdom:  Open University Press.
3. Hacking, Ian (1979), “Imre Lakatos’s Phliosophy of Science”, The British Journal for The Philosophy of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, PP. 381-402.
4. Lakatos, Imre (1963-4), Proofs and Refutations, eds. by J. Worrall & E. Zahar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.------------------- (1968a), “Changes in The Problem of Inductive Logic”. in The Problem of Inductive Logic. Vol 2, pp. 315-417. ed. By Imre Lakatos. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
6.------------------- (1968b), “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, Proceeding of The Aristotelian Society, New Series. Vol. 69.
7.------------------- (1968c), “Falsification and Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” in Criticism and The Growth Of Knowledge, eds. by I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave, New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.--------------- (1970), “Replies to Critics”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Pholosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1970, PP. 174-182.
9.---------------- & Zahar, Elie (1975), “Why Did Copernicus’ Research Program Supersede Ptolemy’s?”. in The Copernican Achivement. ed. by  R. Westman. The United States of America: University of California Press.
10.---------------- & Feyerabend, Paul (1999), For and Against: Including Lakatos’s Lectures On Scientific Method and The Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, ed and with an intro by Matteo Motterlini. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
11. Larvor, Brendan (1998), Lakatos: An Introduction, New York: Routledge press.
12. Losee, John (2004), Theories of Scientific Progress, An Introduction. New York and London: Routledge.
13. Musgrave, Alen (1974), “Logical Versus Historical Theories of Confirmation”, The British Journal for The Philosophy of Science, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1-23.
14. -------------------- (1976), “Method and Madness”, in Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. Eds. by R. S. Cohen, P. Feyerabend & M. W. Wartofsky. Dordrecht-Holland: Rcidel Publishing Company.
15. Nickles, Thomas (1987), “Lakatosian Heuristics and Epistemic Support”, The British Journal For The Philosophy of Science, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 181-205.
16. Vasquez, John (2003), “Kuhn Versus Lakatos? The case for Multiple Fames in Appraising Inyernational Relations Theory” in Progress In International Relations Theory, Appraising the Field, eds. by Colin Elman And Miriam Fendius Elman. Foreword By Kenneth Waltz, U. S. A: MIT Press.
17. Worrall, John (1978a), “The Ways in Which The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Improves On Popper’s Methodology”. in Progress and Rationality in Science, Vol. 58, pp. 45-70, eds. by G. Radnitzky and G. Andersoon. Dordrecht-Holland: Rcidel Publishing Company.
18.-------------- (1978b), “Research Programmes, Empirical Support, and Duhem Problem: Replies To Criticism”, in Progress and Rationality in Science, Vol. 58, eds. by G. Radnitzky and G. Andersoon. Dordrecht-Holland: Rcidel Publishing Company.
19. Zahar, Elie (1973), “Why Did Einstein’s Programme Supersede Lorentz’s?”, The British Journal for The Philosophy of Science, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 95-123.