Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre

Choose your answers from a-d by clicking the radio button next to each choice and then press 'Submit' to get your score.

Question 1

What is distinguishable about security studies theory?

a) Security studies theory refers to the historical systematic distinction between strategic studies and security studies and the interrelation between general International Relations (IR) theory, security studies, and security theory.

b) The centre of security studies debate has been to give form to policy questions - strategy, economy of defense, decision making - and to the systematic division of labor that have governed those distinctions.

c) Security theory is a specific sub-set of security studies and one whose development has gone through distinctive phases and divided more strongly than comparable fields, often without mutual recognition.

d) Security debates structured scholarship centered on offensive versus defensive realism, the relative importance of ideational variables and the role of power and institutions in orders and empires

Question 2

What factors facilitated the institutional innovation of security studies?

a) The need for civilian expertise, a need driven by technological developments, resulted in a shift from targeted development of fast-changing technologies to deployment of a given technology.

b) Theory was necessary because nuclear technology was inherently more empirical, seen as what would be controlled by the bottom line of probable occurrences in a given conflict situation - the game of deterrence.

c) Broader political considerations about the potential implications of long term mobilization resulted in a shift from tactical operations to long-term strategy.

d) The combination of nuclear weapons and Cold War political considerations required a highly cohesive, strong military leadership to coordinate economic, political and military planning.

Question 3

In what ways did game theory and deterrence theory mark an intellectual development in security studies' 'golden age'?

a) Deterrence theory and game theory became highly influential within the academic world and gained centrality politically because the nature of the object allowed for a high degree of normative theorization which was accompanied by a mood of technological pessimism that fostered an ethos of critique.

b) The progressive research programs produced theories that actually formed their own reality of abstractions, the world of, 'secure second strike capability,' extended deterrence' and escalation dominance'

c) Game theory and deterrence theory as an intellectual development resulted in the trade off between policy relevance/utility and theoretical abstraction/sophistication.

d) None of the above. The influence of deterrence theory was illusory. The build up of nuclear weapons and first strike orientated policy was driven by the internal logic of maximizing firepower. Theory served as the smokescreen that belied the intent.

Question 4

What potential problem for policy in the institutionalization of academe-policy interaction emerged?

a) The main disciplinary context for security studies theorizing was a move away from the disciplinary domination of political science toward multi-academe interaction from sociology, mathematics, psychology, natural and political sciences, and economics.

b) Policy-academe developments have resulted in the modification of the role of think tanks away from policy towards politicization resistant theory.

c) Security studies have been marked by the gradual "IR-ification" of the discipline. Security studies became one of International Relations (IR) two pillars, the second being International Political Economy. Henceforth IR became the main disciplinary context in which security studies was deliberated.

d) Think tanks and policy makers are increasingly interrelated. The institutional blurring between universities, think tank, and policy has resulted in policy mergers at every level.

Question 5

How might the period of academic institutionalization be assessed?

a) The distinct phenomenon of strategic studies emerged as an imported American specialty. It emerged in the US and was exported to Europe. European security studies was "theory has already been done" kind of work

b) The think tanks became routine producers of narrow technical problem solving succumbing to 'hectic empiricism' (Buzan: 2000): the internal logic of its key contribution (deterrence) broke down.

c) Peace research developed on a parallel but separate track, and particularly the distinct critical branch was seen neither by its representatives nor by security studies as part of the latter.

d) All of the above.

Question 6

What differences emerged with regard to theorizing on both sides of the Atlantic?

a) From a US perspective it is common to regard the main voice of security to be an external. The question of what should or what should not count as security issues and how to conceptualize security.

b) The European school is based on a hegemonic form of knowledge. Knowledge is conceived as the understanding of causal mechanisms in relation to the material on which they act.

c) The different forms of knowledge relate to a conflicting conception of the relationship to policy: the problem solving tradition in US political science vs. the critical studies in Europe.

d) Theorizing has parallel theoretical forms of knowledge based on empirically substantiated cause-and-effect relationships

Question 7

In what ways can the different relationship between US and European security studies be explained?

a) The different relationship to the concept of security: in Europe the debate has stayed as part of politico-self-reflection of the scholar who 'does security;' whereas in the US, the question of the concept of security is seen at the most a necessary 'define your' terms' operation.

b) The different relationship to the exact form of knowledge that is valued. The US is more rationalist, Europe the more reflectivist. In the US security studies debate hypothesis is typically examined as cause-effect relationships, tied into general debates and with measurement of ideational variables.

c) In the US major competing explanations emphasized, on the one hand, the US's liberal hegemony, and, on the other hand, the purely power based stability of presumed unipolarity in which balancing becomes impossible .

d) All of the above.

Question 8

What was the importance of peace research during the 1980s?

a) Peace research was inter-disciplinary and politically orientated with immediate policy responsibility accountable to the major powers of the political system.

b) Peace research in contrast to university IR was under a great deal of pressure to deal with relevant issues with a high expectation of immediate delivery of policy answers.

c) There was a distance from policy responsibility but European security studies gained political relevance due to the politicization of security issues during the period defined by the peace movement.

d) The setting was simultaneously informed by political theory as the dominant discipline and isolated from developments in theory in the different disciplines.

Question 9

What has been the importance of the new critical schools of security studies for the development of security studies? Have they simply become IR and lost their position that defines them as security studies?

a) The next generation is likely to develop their arguments in engagements with policy questions and in direct interaction with policy makers and think tanks.

b) Policy knowledge reflected in terms of theories, when an interaction emerges between the US and European thinkers, the theoretical context will be the same.

c) The set up continues to be one in which security studies continues to be located between the IR discipline and technical experts and practitioners.

d) European security studies will be treated as a form of (policy) knowledge, whereas security theory in the US will treat this as the main empirical source for critical analysis.

Question 10

What are the challenges for the future of security studies?

a) The most likely key issue area of convergence will be terror and order. It is potentially broad enough to become a prism through which the importance of other issues likes the environment and gender show.

b) The fate of security studies depends on its ability to prevail in the general debates in the discipline of IR. It is very unlikely that the internal dynamics of the theory debate will be decided by a general prevalence of one of the current debates.

c) Both the US and European analysts will be working on the role and nature of technology, globalization, risk society and the international economic order. This picture shows that there will be a lot of points of contact between the currently disconnected fields of theory.

d) All of the above.

Oxford University Press, Online Resource Centre, Chapter 21.

Chapter 21

Instructions

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Question 8

Question 9

Question 10