This was the first lecture in the course, and also the first lecture many new students of political science attend, so there was quite a lot of generalities about political science — basic definitions, rough overviews of social scientific method, and more practical information. Most of it I already knew, as I’ve taken courses in political science before, but I’ll include it here none the less. Also, the lecture notes were formatted in bullet-point style, with very telegramme-like phrasing. (Lots of short, incomplete sentences.) To make it easier to read, I’ll attempt to write in a more narrative-ish way.
In addition, these notes were originally written in Norwegian, and is consequently translated (badly) by me. Although I’ve been forced to guess on the translations of some terms particular to the discourse of social and political science (like “supernational”, “participant”, and “international relations”), I hope that it’ll be possible to figure out what I’m trying to say…

What is political science?
Political science is the study of politics, which in turn can be defined as conflict and cooperation between different groups, on different levels of analysis. In other words, it can include the study of conflicts and cooperation in both private and public organizations, both nationally and internationally, both formally and informally, to mention a few examples of relevant dimensions.
International relations has traditionally had a strong focus on relationships between states, and the state as the central participant, and as dominant in relation to other international organizations. In later times, this focus has been spread, so that it now covers multinational corporations (e.g. Shell, Nike, Bechtel, etc.), supernational organizations (e.g. the UN, NATO, WTO, IMF, etc.), and non-governmental organizations (or “NGOs”, like the WWF, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, etc.) as well as the traditional state. One could perhaps say that the Diplomat and the Soldier, the traditional representatives of foreign policy, now is joined by the Businessman, and maybe also the Activist.
A definition of international relations that includes all of these international participants, is given by the Norwegian political scientist Øyvind Østerud: “International relations are the relations/politics that go on between governments/states, between participants in located in more than one country, and within supernational organizations.”
In other words, international relations as a discipline of political science, is studying, analyzing and explaining the relations between the participants in the international system.

Differences between international and national politics
There are many differences between international and national politics. The perhaps most striking difference is the lack of a “world government”, or another form of superior authority. This results in a state commonly referred to as anarchic — there’s no one to make laws for the international community, and no one to run the international system, the way national governments run national systems. The United Nations has been, and is a potential world government, but when the five permanent members of the Security Council holds veto powers, and when they very rarely agree, it’s almost impossible to forge a world government, or anything similar, from the United Nations. Also, the UN and several other international institutions, have severe problems with legimitizing themselves in large parts of the world, where they are considered to be the extended arm of the United States.
A difference that is related to this lack of an international executive and legislative power, is the absence of a judiciary power — or, if you will, a world police and an international system of courts. Another way to say this, is that even though the UN has the possibility to give both general and specific orders to member states of how to behave, it have no way of making sure that its orders are obeyed, and no real way to sanction those states that behaves in unacceptable ways. Of course, they have the possibility to apply sanctions, but those sanctions are seemingly arbitrary, as there is no clear and universal rule of law. So, in the end, most states follow their own interests, with little or no concern for international rules.
The final two main differences, is the few common norms of cooperation and the few basic values shared by all states in the world. This is a fundamental obstacle on the way to global, enforced laws, as it’s very hard, if not impossible, to find a set of laws that are built on a set of values everyone in the world can agree on. A relatively light example of problems like this one, is the critique made against the UN Declaration of Human Rights; that it’s basically an attempt to force a set of Western values onto the rest of the world.

Different goals of research - different requirements
There are four basic goals of research. First, it’s a possible goal to explain a phenomenon, e.g. the process of international trade, or how laws are made. This research goal requires clear and well defined concepts, or terms; relevant typologies (i.e. a systematic organization of artifacts into types on the basis of shared attributes); and finally data with a high level of reliability and validity. Second, there’s evaluation. Evaluation, too, requires data with a high level of reliability and validity, as well as secific criteria to measure the facts against. Third, we have the research goal that’s most common within political science, namely explaining. The requirements for explainations includes models and/or theories that tie one phenomenon to another, and data that either validate or falsify the theory. Fourth and final, there’re predictions. Predictions have the same requirements as explainations, but the focus is moved from past to future.

Requirements for explainations
To explain something, is to establish a relation of causes between to or more phenomena, through either induction or deduction. Induction is a method where you first examine the empirical data you have at your disposal, and then draw theoretical conclusions from these. On the other hand you have deduction (also known as the axiomatic-deductive method), where you first create a theory, and then test it empirically, to either validate or falsify it.
In order to establish a relation of causes, two factors need to be in place. First, we need to find an empirical connection between two phenomena. Then, we need to make an explaination of how casual factor X leads to effect Y. In other words, we need both a model, or a theory, and empirical data.
These criteria are required independently of wether the scientist aims at (a) explaining a single incident, (b) predict the future, (c) explain universal or general phenomena, or (d) evaluate questions of legitimacy.

Furthermore, there is an important difference between adequate/sufficient causes (a cause which is the only cause of an incident), neccessary causes (a cause which is important, but not the only one), and contributing causes (a cause that is but one of many). The first kind of cause is rare in the social sciences.
Additionally, it’s possible to separate general from case-specific causes. The latter is a cause that explains why something happened when and where it happened (e.g. the invasion of Poland, 1939), whereas the former is a term that includes the deeper causes, like why it happened at all (e.g. aggressive German nationalism). ((WARNING! Uncertainty on the definition of general causes!))

What are theories and models?
A model is a simplified description of a phenomenon. As an example of a model, we can take a look at the description of international relations as characterized by (i) a lack of superior authority, and by (ii) rational and (iii) consistent participants. According to the model, this leads to states being power-seeking and survival oriented.
A theory is construction where one uses a limited number of axiomatic assumptions and variables to explain or predict a phenomenon. A theory can also be said to be a representation of a certain perception of the world, or “the world within”. As an example of a theory, we can take the claim that the establishment of international norms and rules (despite of the lack of a superior authority) is a result of the hegemony of the Unites States.

What is empirical data?
Empirical data is scientific examinations of reality, or actual events of the phenomenon we want to study. One way to express the relationship between theory and empirical data, is that if theory is, as stated above, “the world within”, then empirical data represents “the world outside” — in other words, reality.

(The last part is slightly irrelevant, so I’ll just copy it directly from my hand-written notes.)

(Social) Scientific Method
-Clearification of terms and concepts, and application of theory
- Empirical data
- Scientific methods of gathering and analyzing the empirical material

A scientist is in search of systematical knowledge of a phenomenon, as well as generalizations.

Why study international relations?
- To learn facts
- To examine specific incidents
- To explain general phenomena in international relations
- To gain greater insight than that offered by the media

That’s it. First lecture done, in around 2,5 hours, which is obviously too much. But at least I did it, and maybe time will show that I benefited from it. (The gods must know that I certainly, and finally, learned the difference between induction and deduction. :P) The first lecture in history is postponed until next Tuesday.