Hendershot, Chris2008-08-122008-08-122005-05http://hdl.handle.net/10315/1350http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/documents/WP28-Hendershot.pdfThe purpose of the following paper is to critically engage Mark Neufeld’s claim, “it is only by exposing the limitations of positivism that a space can be created for alternative forms of theorizing about international politics.” My engagement of this statement involves three related assertions. Firstly, I contend that one can construct an effective argument that reaffirms – and indeed is inflected with – postpositivist assertions that exposing the ‘limitations of positivism’ will create the necessary space for ‘alternative forms of theorizing’. However, I also argue that Neufeld’s construction of theoretical reflexivity explicitly/implicitly works to (re)ontologize a dichotomous relationship between positivist and post-positivist approaches to International Relations. Hence, I challenge the potential to which Neufeld’s conceptions can work as space clearing exercises so long as such exercises proceed through a dichotomized framing process.enpositivismMark Neufeldtheoretical reflexivityWorking Paper