2002 IR Metatheory

8/13/2019 2002 IR Metatheory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2002-ir-metatheory 1/11

On Different Types of International Relations ScholarshipAuthor(s): Steve ChanSource: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 39, No. 6 (Nov., 2002), pp. 747-756Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1555257 .

Accessed: 05/06/2013 05:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Peace

Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.28 on Wed, 5 Jun 2013 05:21:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1555257?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1555257?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd



RE ? A R C i~~~~1f

? 2002 Journal fPeaceResearch,vol.39, no.6, 2002,pp. 747-756

SagePublicationsLondon,ThousandOaks,

CAand NewDelhi)

[0022-3433(200211)39:6,747-756; 030086]

On DifferentTypesof InternationalRelations

Scholarship*

STEVE CHAN

Departmentof Political Science, Universityof Colorado

Internationalrelations eaturesdifferenttypesof scholarship.These typesaremetaphor,history,theory,

engineering,and patternrecognition.This essaydiscussesthe natureand contribution of each type as

research haracteristic f these differentundertakings hows substantialovertimecontinuity in attract-

ing varying attention from identifiable communities. It also raises severalconcerns about the extant

literature.These concerns addressthe problems of endogeneity, selection effects, concept stretching,over-determination and indeterminacy,multiple conjunctural causality,and falsifiableproposition.

Althoughhardlyrepresentingnoveldiscoveries, hey presentgenericandseemingly persistentchallengesto valid inference.While not irrelevant o the conduct of social inquiryin general,this reviewaddresses

specifically nternationalrelationsscholarship.

ScholarshipTypes

Internationalelations s a pluralisticield.

Itsvariety

ofscholarship

attests to its

vibrancy nd its pre-paradigmatictate(asdistinctrom hepractice f 'normal'cience

describedby Kuhn, 1962). Colleaguescontinue o argueabout ts historiography,

epistemology, nd methodology.Not sur-

prisingly,ummaries f the field'spastand

present are often subject to objection.Reviews f internationalelations avebeen

alternativelyresentedn the formof 'greatdebates', battleof paradigms',methodo-

logical contests, and scholarlytraditionswith distinctivenationalorigins (e.g. the

'EnglishSchool','continental' R theory).These characterizationseflect deliberatechoicesbyindividual eviewersoemphasize

* This essayaddresses everalrecentsurveysof the disci-

pline. Geller & Singer (1998), Midlarsky 2000), and

Vasquez 2000a) attendto the warphenomenon,whereas

Carlsnaes,Risse & Simmons(2002) offer a moregeneralfield review.The author can be reachedat [email protected].

certainscholarlydivisionsandde-emphasizeothers.

Fielddescriptions an becontroversial. or

instance,how accuratewould it be to depictthe field'shistoricaldevelopmentasa seriesof

ostensibledebatessuch as that between 'ide-

alism' and 'realism'(Schmidt, 2002), and

would it be warranted o draw a sharpdis-

tinction betweenquantitativeand qualitative

methodologiesthat overlooks heir common

logic of inquiry (King, Keohane & Verba,

1994)?Do rationalistand constructivistper-spectivesrepresenta validdichotomyimply-

ing mutuallyexclusiveexplanations(Fearon& Wendt, 2002)? And, to what extent have

representations f the field been dominated

by the views and worksof US academics o

the relativeneglectof contributionsby Euro-

pean colleagues (Jorgensen,2000), not to

mention those fromthe non-Westernworld?

The propagationof research gendasand the

training of successorgenerationshave not

been unaffected by career incentives, aca-

demic structures,and government funding

747

REVIEW

ESSAY







748 journal ofPEACE RESEARCH

priorities hatvaryacrossnationalsettings.A

field reviewcould just as reasonably eek to

accountfor the traditionof 'peacestudies' n

Scandinavia,he continuedcentralityof sov-

ereignty n Chinesediscourse,andthe role of

the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency in shapingresearchundertakingsn

the United States.There is surelymore than

one way to present he field,and none seems

entirelyunproblematic.Instead of relying on some well-known

perspectives uch as realism, iberalism,and

constructivismas a basis for this review,I

choose to emphasize the different analyticpurposes hatmotivate research.With minor

modification, this essay follows Bobrow's

(1972) classificationof different types of

internationalrelationsscholarship.The per-

tinent categories are metaphor, history,

theory,engineering,andpatternrecognition.

Eachtype makes a worthwhilecontribution

to knowledgeand/orpractice n its own way.

'None is betteror worse than another;they

are differentand a good job on one is verydifferent from a good job on another.

Different criteria are appropriateto each'

(Bobrow, 1972: 204-205). These consider-

ations areappliedto severalrecent antholo-

gies of the field or of partsof it (Carlsnaes,

Risse & Simmons, 2002; Geller & Singer,

1998; Midlarsky,2000; Vasquez, 2000a).

Selectiveexamplesare drawnfor illustration;

space limitation does not permit extensive

citationsor full discussion of all the relevant

studies.

Metaphorsare invitations to reason by

analogy.An imaginaryconstruct is used to

accentuatecertain aspects of reality.Thus,

one may use the prisoners' dilemma to

illuminatethe logic of interstate ompetition

(e.g. Axelrod, 1984). Alternatively, ne may

treat governments as if they are rational

unitaryactors,bureaucraciesollowingstan-

dardoperatingprocedures, r an analogueof

the human nervous system (e.g. Allison,

1971; Deutsch, 1966), and one may warn

about an impending ecological disasterby

conjuringup imagesof collapsingcommons

and survival on a lifeboat (Hardin, 1968,

1974). The powerof metaphors ies in their

ability to orient, evoke, and even provoke

and mobilize. Metaphors are suggestive

rather hanpredictive.Because heirpurposeis to offer a perspective, hey arejudged by

the extent to which they illuminate a situ-

ation orproblem.The perspectivetself is not

subjectto falsification.

Historyis concerned with the study of

eventsor charactersn a particular ime and

place. Its subjectmatter can in principlebein the futureas well as the past,althoughin

practice historical scholarship typicallyinvolves retrospective analysis. Historians

customarily eekto reconstructa sequenceof

events or a setting in order to account for

some known outcome. This reconstruction

yieldsa richtapestrywith a plot line. It does

not, however,rule out other plausibleplots

(thatis, alternative ausalchainswhich could

havealsoled to the sameoutcome). Nor is itusuallyclear in distinguishingamong neces-

sary,sufficient, or irrelevantconditions. Its

practitioners renot interested n generaliza-tion beyond the particularepisode or per-

sonality on hand. Not all case studies or

analyses using information from the past

constitutehistory in the sense definedhere.

A studyofWorldWarI maybehistory n one

case (e.g. Tuchman, 1962) but not so in

another case(e.g.

Choucri&North, 1975).What mattersis the differentanalyticpur-

poses motivatingthe research suchas when

a past episode is used to test or construct a

theory),and not the resortto evidencefrom

the past. Contemporary interpretativist

scholarship represents an example of

historicalwork as it eschewsgeneralizationsin favorof a contextualunderstandingof a

particular ituation and the relevantagent'sconstructionof meaning (e.g. Geertz,1973).

Historical analyses can be persuasive or

unpersuasive.However, as for metaphors,

volume 9 / number / november002







Steve Chan INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SCHOLARSHIP

their conclusionsare not subjectto falsifica-

tion.

Theorys ahistorical,as it pursuesgeneral-

izationsgermane

to entire classes of entities

or phenomena.It is uninterested n the par-

ticulars;propernouns of people, places, or

time periodsmatteronly to the extent that

they represent pecificinstancesor members

of a relevantcategory.Theory consists of a

system of statements from which one can

deduce observable,verifiable implications.

Its core elements are concepts, axioms,

assumptions, and scope conditions. Parsi-

mony and'consilience' revirtues hat enable

theorists to account for a varietyof occur-

rences,includingnon-obvious and unantici-

patedones, on the basisof a few abstractions.

Workon collectiveaction (e.g. Olson, 1965,

1982) is suggestiveof this type of scholarly

enterprise. Some rationalist explanations,

suchasthose basedon the theoryof expected

utility (e.g.Buenode Mesquita,1981;Bueno

de Mesquita & Lalman, 1992), are also

exemplary.The explicitness of theoretical

formulationsoffers a huge advantage n thedetectionof possible logical inconsistency n

inferring testable hypotheses from the

original premise,in assessing he correspon-

dence betweenconceptsand indicators,and

in determiningwhether the test subjectsfall

within the realmof the theory'sscope con-

ditions (e.g. Simowitz & Price, 1990).

Whether nomothetic, deductive theory is

realistic or appropriate for international

relationsis subjectto debate (e.g. Bernsteinet al., 2000).

Engineering s about policy design and

intervention. It seeks to inform policy by

monitoring the relevant environment and

projectingits future course. It also seeks to

specifyactions or conditions that are neces-

saryand/orsufficient o bringaboutadesired

end. It belongs to what Simon (1969)

describedas the sciencesof the artificial.To

the extent that they made people (not justgovernment officials, but also informed

citizens)awareof the currentstatesof global

resourcesand demographicsand their likely

future evolution if the underlyingdynamics

is allowedto continue,thepioneering

studies

of the Club of Rome servedone 'engineering'

purpose(Meadowset al., 1974;Mesarovic&

Pestel, 1974). Engineering is further

advancedwhen one is promptedto ask 'what

if' questions and to engage in sensitivity

analysisfor determininghow much of X is

requiredto achieve a stipulated level of Y

within Z amount of time. Simulations of

alternativeecological futurescome to mind

as an example (e.g. Hughes, 1999). Engi-

neering, or studies with explicit policy

relevance, does not depend on fancy

methodologyor statisticalaggregation. anis

(1982) and George, Hall & Simons (1971)

undertook houghtfulcasestudies n order o

understand, respectively, past instances of

'groupthink' nd coercivediplomacy,and on

the basisof theseanalyses,proposeheuristics

intended to avert future mistakes. Paren-

thetically,a theoreticalunderstandings pre-

ferredthough not essentialfor engineeringsinceprescriptions ften relyupon intuition,

experience,and unsystematic rial and error.

Studiesthatofferthoroughchecksof efficacy

claims also perform a valuableengineering

function (e.g. Schrodt, 1990).

Works of pattern recognitionseek to

identify persistent regularities.Many 'styl-

ized facts' about international relations

derivefrom such large-N researchbasedon

systematically ollecteddata. We learnfromthis research hat strong tendenciessuch as

geographic contiguity, territorial disputes,

competitive armament, and alliance for-

mation increase he dangerof war (Geller&

Singer, 1998). These tendencies sometimes

challengereceivedwisdom, as in the case of

a positive association between balance of

power and occurrenceof war, a discovery

that contradictsrealism.Sometimes a recog-

nition of strong patterns provides theimpetusto search or theirexplanations.The

749







750 journal of PEACE RESEARCH

discovery hat democraciesrarely, f ever,goto waragainsteach otherencourages cholars

to look for the causesof this phenomenon

(e.g. Maoz & Russett, 1993). Thus, patternanalysescan be used to test or inform an

existingtheoryor to stimulate the construc-

tion of a new one. They are interestedin

making generic statements rather than

describing ndividualnuances. Their results

acquiremeaning in reference o substantive

expectations imported from other types of

scholarship.That stateswith a largenumber

of memberships of international organiz-

ations are more peaceful, that incomeequality is related curvilinearlywith econ-

omic development,and that formerBritish

colonies are more successfulin establishing

democratic governance are generalizations

which gain significance n the light of some

causal ogic external o the statisticalroutines

applied. In the absence of guidance from

such logic, the dataexercisesdegenerate nto

mindlessfishingexpeditionsand are vulner-

ableto spurious nterpretations.

Recent surveys of the field leave little

doubt about the distribution of interestsin

and activitiesrelatedto these differenttypesof scholarship.Studies fitting our descrip-

tions of metaphor, history, and pattern

recognitionare much more numerousthan

those characteristic f theory and engineer-

ing. Collective attention tends to go to the

formulation of alternativeperspectives,to

the demonstrationof the plausibility n prin-

ciple of particular hypotheses, and to the

multivariateanalysisof the relativestrengthof statistical associations between several

explanatoryvariables and an outcome of

interest. With the major exception of gametheoreticstudies (e.g. Morrow,2000), there

is a relative paucity of efforts to develop

simplified logical formulations that offer

testable deductions about international

relations.The difficultiesof workingout the

rules of macro-micro translation,rules thatenable one to infer social phenomenafrom

attributions o individuals,hamperthis line

of work (Coleman, 1991). Although one

often encounters a professed interest in

policyrelevance, ngineering tudiesare rela-tively rare. Among other reasons, policy

relevancesufferswhen the variables tudied

by international relationsscholars,such as

territory, national capability, and regime

characteristic,are not (at least in the short

term) manipulable by officials. These

remarks uggestthat the pursuitof different

typesof scholarshiphascontinuedalong the

lines observedby Bobrow30 yearsago.

One may speculate about the reasonsbehind this continuity. Perhapsmany col-

leagues are skeptical about the simplistic

assumptions of deductive theory which

abstractaway many importantdetails about

their subject matter (although some may

arguethat assumptionsshould be judgedby

their usefulness, not their correspondence

with observations;Friedman,1953). Others

are more inclined to engagein an inductive

approach,preferring o search for empirical

patternsin aggregateanalyses.These latter

studies haveundoubtedlybeen facilitatedby

the collection of largedatasets,such as the

Correlatesof War Project and the Polity

Project. It is therefore not surprisingthat

certaintopics (suchas those addressing tate

attributes, war/dispute involvement, event

interactions)have been more associatedwith

quantitative scholarship aimed at pattern

recognition.Qualitativeapproaches uch as

those emphasizing the construction of

meaning,the importanceof context-specific

understanding,and the role of social and

politicaldiscoursehave beenmorepopular n

the studyof othertopics.They have received

widerapplicationamong colleagues tudyinginternational aw and regimes,transnational

actorsand issues,and feminist and cultural

perspectives on international relations.

Scholarly orientation appears moreover

to be associated with the national contextof professional training and socialization.

volume 9 / number 1 november002








Methodological positivism is more widely

practicedin the USA than Europe (except

perhaps in Scandinavia),especially among

students of conflict behavior,as shown byGeller & Singer (1998), Midlarsky(2000),

andVasquez(2000a).

Ongoing Concerns

Thoughtful debate, critical introspection,

and systematic documentation characterize

the volumes just mentioned as well as the

handbook on international relations co-

editedby Carlsnaes,

Risse & Simmons

(2002). They demonstrate he contributions

to knowledge by the different types of

scholarshipand point to the challengesthat

still remain. Despite important progressto

date, it behooves us to recognize some

importantissuesrevealedby these reviews.

Concern for endogeneityraisesthe ques-

tion of whether a putative causal variable

shoulditselfbe explained.Thus, forinstance,

althoughthe formationof rival allianceshas

tended to be a precursor o the outbreakof

war, the causal attribution implied by this

connectionmaybe questionedbecausestates

can form alliances n anticipationof hostili-

ties. Likewise, although there is a general

agreement that democracies tend to be

peaceful, ess attentionhasbeen given to the

propositionthat peacehasbeen a conducive

factor in the historical consolidation of

democracies(Thompson, 1996). As a third

example, whereas shared membership ininternationalorganizationsand active trade

arestronglyrelatedto bilateralpeace, peace-ful statesmaybe moredisposedto join inter-

nationalorganizations ndengage n trade n

the firstplace (e.g. Russett& Oneal, 2001).

Thus, rather han takingan ostensiblecausal

variableas a given,one mayprofitably prob-lematize'it and 'endogenize' t as part of a

larger nquiry.

Selectionbiaspresentsanotherconcern.Ifdemocraciesareknown to fight less often, is

it becausethese regimesare more peaceful?

Or could it be that realizingdemocraciesare

more likely to win wars,autocracies end to

be more reluctant o challengethese regimesin the first place and, when faced with

demands from democracies,morewilling to

make concessions to them?In other words,

can the observedpeacefulness f democracies

be explained by their having fewer oppor-

tunities to fight ratherthan their inherent

pacificdisposition(Schultz,1999)?Likewise,

could the tendency for democraciesto win

more wars than autocraciesbe due to the

formerbeing

more selectiveinfightingonlythe more winnable wars as a result of their

needforpublicconsent and concernforelec-

toralpenalty (Reiter& Stam, 2002)? Selec-

tion effects similarly affect other common

researchquestions.Forinstance,contrary o

conventionalwisdom,shouldone not expect

the credibilityof immediate deterrence o be

inversely related to the success of such

attempts (e.g. Fearon,2002)? As additional

examples, states which decide to imposeeconomic sanctions will presumablychoose

easytargetspromising he greatest hancefor

their coercive policy to succeed, and states

which initiate wars against membersof an

alliance should pick victims which in their

view are the least likely to receivesupportfrom powerful friends. Accordingly, it is

difficultto judgethe relative uccessof sanc-

tion policiesorthe reliability f alliancecom-

mitments from knowncasesof sanctionsand

wars.Those occasionswhen sanctionor warwasforegoneshould alsobe partof thisjudg-ment.

A tendencyto dwellupon events thathave

happened is understandablebecause it is

inherently difficult to analyze non-occur-

rences.Yet, the study of non-events - the

proverbial dog that did not bark - can

improveknowledge.Those exceptionswhere

the expected did not materializehelp to

identifycriticalmissingfactors n our under-standing. Why did the power transition

751








betweenthe USA and UK not producewar?

Why did Moscow not resort o arms to avert

the disintegrationof its empire?Why did the

Westnot intervene n Rwanda o stop geno-cide?To makea differentpoint thoughin the

same vein, patternrecognitioncan comple-

ment in-depth analysisof particularcases.

While the formerare concernedwith central

tendencies,the latter can be broughtto bear

on the outliers.What can account for those

deviant cases that departfrom the norm?A

recent study by Siverson & Ward (2002)

underscoresanother helpful point: whereas

the field has soughtprimarily o explainthe

occurrenceof war,an alternative ocuson the

persistence of peace offers consequential

lessonsfor theoryand policy.

Aggregateanalysisnaturallyassumesthat

the casesbeingstudiedarehomogeneousand

independentunits. One seeks to increase he

number of these cases acrossspaceand over

time in orderto maximizeone'ssamplesize

for statisticalexaminationand the generaliz-

abilityof one'sconclusions.Yet,as Biersteker

(2002) persuasively rgued,conceptssuch as

state, sovereignty,and territoryhave vastly

differentmeaningacross paceand over time.

Their naturehashardlybeen fixed.The gain

in sample size thus often comes at the

expense of conceptual precision, as Sartori

(1970) warned some time ago. Qualitative

differencesn kindaresometimesoverlooked

due to an eagernessto assess quantitativedifferencesn degree.Mattersof classification

(such as in establishingdifferent types ofinterstatewar)should logicallyprecedecon-

cernsfor measurement suchas in determin-

ing the severityor magnitudeof particular

wars),sincequestionsabout 'how much'can

only apply to items belonging to the same

type (that is, only after one has settled the

issueof 'whatkind').

As forcaseindependence, arge-N pattern

recognition efforts typically assume that

people somehow fail to learn from the past.By treating, say, the Korean War, the

VietnamWar,the Gulf War,and the Warin

Kosovo each as a separate ase,one is in fact

asserting hat the US behavior n these con-

flicts is governedbya fixedsetof factors,andthat the behaviorof Washington's dversaries

is not influencedby perceived essons drawn

from the priorconflicts.Learningand adap-

tation should be especially relevant in

repeated encounters such as those among

enduring rivals (Goertz & Diehl, 2000).

Leng(2000), for instance,reportedevidence

of temporaldependencesuch that partiesto

a dispute tend to undertakereciprocalesca-

lation from one crisis to the next, leading

eventuallyto war.Axelrod's 1984) 'shadow

of future' offers another helpful reminder.

Suchtreatments,however,arerelatively are.

Richardson (1960: 12) remarkedthat his

classic formulation of arms race represents

'merelya descriptionof what people would

do if they did not stop to think'. Many

studies continue to take this posture, with

assumptionsof independence of cases and

invarianceof structurethat implicitly deny

the relevance of experience and people's

capacity o learn(e.g. Bernsteinet al., 2000).

Case studies especially face other

additionalconcerns.A few salient issues and

episodeswith relativelyeasy data access are

over-studied, offering slim assurance that

they constitute a viable basis for making

more general nferences.As Mitchell (2002:

512) put it in reference o the studyof inter-

national environmentalpolitics, 'we need to

examine more than the ozone depletion,climatechangeand acid rain cases that have

been the empirical testbeds for too manytheories'.The explanations or the successof

international environmental regimes pre-sented by these case studies tend to be over-

determined as they point to a variety of

causal actors uchasissuearea,actor charac-

teristics,and international ontext. The same

situation applies to the subfield of inter-

national law and compliance, where themultitudeof causal actorsproposedmakes t









difficult to disentangle and weigh their

relativeimportance(Raustiala& Slaughter,

2002: 545). Even beforeone begins to con-

sider the interactive effects among thesefactors,one is at risk of exhausting he avail-

abledegreesof freedom.This typeof scholar-

ship thereforeengenders he classicproblem

of 'many variables, few cases' raised by

Lijphart 1971) over three decadesago.

Selection on the dependent variable,

unclear scope conditions, and over-

determinedexplanationsnaturally ead to a

sense thatdespitesignificantprogresso date,

there s still 'the lack of confidencewe havein

the ability to draw strong inferences from

much of the research o date' (Simmons &

Martin, 2002: 205). Indeed, considerable

skepticism n this abilityis warranted o the

extent that, for instance, 'much of the evi-

dence of high compliancewith international

law is merelyindicativeof the shallowness

of manyinternational greements nd should

not be generalizedo moredemandingcases'

(Raustiala& Slaughter,2002: 543). Com-

mentingon humanrightsregimes,Donnelly

(1986) had similarlycautionedagainstextra-

polationfrom the 'easy'developmentphaseof

such regimesthus far. It is difficult to judgefrom this experience whether states are

willing to make a qualitativencrease n their

commitment to these regimes,and whether

strongstateswill submit themselves o these

regimes,as so faronly weak states have been

challenged to conform to them. The US

refusal o supportthe InternationalCriminalCourt vindicates his premonition.

Insteadof over-determination,ndetermi-

nacyis a concernfor some scholarlyperspec-tives of a metatheoreticor metaphoricsort.

They are ndeterminaten the sensethatthey

provideconvergent expectations.As Fearon

& Wendt (2002) remarked,rationalist and

constructivistexplanationsare not mutually

exclusive.Echoing the same views, Choi &

Caporaso 2002: 490) concludedthat the so-called logic of appropriateness nd logic of

consequences pose too simple a dichotomy

becausepeople seldom act strictlyin one or

the other of these sharplydrawncapacities.

As a third example, preferencesand insti-tutions often predictsimilartradepractices

by states.Moreover, hey tend to be recipro-

callycausal(Milner,2002). Abstractdebates

about the relative merits of these grand

formulations are likely to leave both sides

exhaustedratherthan satisfied.At the same

time, studies that deliberately eek to assess

the 'excess empirical content' (Kugler &

Lemke, 2000: 156) of one or the other

perspectiveareratherrare.As Choi &

Capo-raso(2002: 490) argued,one shouldask how

well explanationsofferedby one metatheory

can performoverand abovethose presented

by another,noting that, for instance, 'vari-

ables central to constructivism, such as

norms and institutions, will be judged

increasinglyn terms of theirvalue-added o

otherexplanations'.

Outcomes such as war often have

multiple causes (Levy,2000: 325; Vasquez,2000b: 381). Thus, mono-causal expla-

nations are likely to disappoint, and

different combinations of causalfactors can

produce the same outcome. The searchfor

'nice laws'aboutempiricalregularitiesunder

given conditions and the identification of

'multiple conjuncturalcausality'have been

recommendedby Most & Starr(1989) and

Ragin (1987). These colleagues emphasize

that different factors can combine to

producethe same outcomes, and the effectsof a factor can be contingent upon the pres-ence or absence of other factors(that is, the

same factor can have different effectsunder

differentcircumstances).They offeracogent

logic of inquiry and a useful methodology

(in the case of Ragin, Boolean algebra) hat

integrate quantitative pattern recognitionand qualitativehistoricalanalysis.They seek

to strike a balance between the temptation

to make sweeping (often deterministic)generalizationsand the inclination to dwell

753








upon the excruciatingdetails of individual

cases.

Severalcontributors o the volumesbeing

reviewed recommended the pursuit ofmultiplemethodsfor the purposeof conver-

gent validation(e.g. Crenshaw,2000; Levy,

2002; Mitchell, 2002). This is certainly

sound advice,because each method and the

evidenceexaminedby it have theirparticular

weaknesses.In combination, however, one

may hope that the different methods and

data can offset each other's limitations and

offergreater nalyticconfidencebyproviding

cross-validation.Geller(2000) and Geller&Singer(1998) exemplifyanotherapproach o

validation.They followedthe adviceof King,Keohane& Verba 1994: 30-3 1) to look for

theoretical confirmation by checking the

available videnceat severaldifferent evelsof

analysis.Forinstance,is there corroboration

betweenevidenceat the monadic level (say,

the associationbetween a state'snumber of

neighborsand its incidence of war involve-

ment)and the

dyadiclevel

(the physicaldis-

tanceseparatingpairsof statesandtheirjoint

warproneness)?

Conclusion

The differenttypesof scholarshipdescribed

in this essayarenot mutuallyexclusive.They

make different contributions that can be

mutually beneficial, as when historical

studies isolate immediate causes that act as

catalysts or the general endencies dentified

in aggregateanalyses.Metaphorscan offera

basis for developing formal theoretical

formulations.Engineeringcan drawspecific

insightsfrom history,and generalheuristics

from patternrecognition.The variousconcernsraised n this review

are not peculiar to any particulartype of

scholarship.They are generic to the chal-

lenges of valid inference. Although some

issuessuch as selection effects and the endo-geneity problem have only recentlygained

the attention that they deserve,other issues

have been recognizedfor some time, if not

consistently acted on. For instance, in

describing a fictitious accident causing adrunkard's eath,Richardson 1960: xix-xx)

enjoinedconsiderationof interactive actors

and conjunctural causality.Therefore, one

would not necessarilyexpect 'eureka'reac-

tions to the problems identified here,

although their very persistence seems to

warrant more insistent caveats. That the

relative allocation of scholarlyattention to

the different types of research has been

marked by substantial continuity sinceBobrow's original analysis also perhaps

speaks to the persistenceof certain disci-

plinaryincentives and the reproductivepro-

clivities of different subfields. Such a

sociological analysis of the field, however,

will have to wait for anotheroccasion.

References

Allison,GrahamT., 1971. Essencef

Decision:

Explaininghe CubanMissileCrisis.Boston,MA:Little,Brown.

Axelrod,Robert,1984. TheEvolutionf Cooper-ation.New York:Basic.

Bernstein, teven;RichardN. Lebow, aniceG.

Stein & StevenWeber,2000. 'God Gave

Physics he EasyProblems: daptingSocial

Science o anUnpredictable orld',EuropeanJournal fInternationalelations(1):43-76.

Biersteker,homasJ., 2002. 'State,SovereigntyandTerritory',nCarlsnaes, isse&Simmons

(157-176).

Bobrow,DavisB., 1972.'TheRelevance oten-

tialof Different roducts',nRaymond anter& RichardH. Ullman, ds,TheoryndPolicyin InternationalRelations.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversity ress204-228).

Buenode Mesquita, ruce,1981. TheWarTrap.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity ress.

Bueno de Mesquita,Bruce& David Lalman,1992. Warand Reason: omestic nd Inter-

national mperatives.ew Haven,CT: Yale

University ress.Carlsnaes,Walter;ThomasRisse & Beth A.









Simmons, eds, 2002. Handbook of Inter-

nationalRelations.London:Sage.

Choi, YoungJong & JamesA. Caporaso,2002.

'ComparativeRegional Integration', n Carl-

snaes,Risse & Simmons (480-499).

Choucri, Nazli N. & Robert C. North, 1975.

Nations n Conflict:NationalGrowth ndInter-

nationalConflict.SanFrancisco,CA:Freeman.

Coleman,JamesS., 1991. 'Microfoundationsand

Macrosocial Behavior', in Joan Huber, ed.,

The Micro-Macro Linkages in Sociology.

Newbury Park,CA: Sage (153-173).

Crenshaw,Martha, 2000. 'Terrorismand Inter-

nationalViolence', in Midlarsky 3-24).

Deutsch, KarlW, 1966. TheNervesof Govern-

ment:Modelsof Political Communication nd

Control.New York:Free Press.

Donnelly, Jack, 1986. 'International Human

Rights: A Regime Analysis', International

Organization 0(3): 599-642.

Fearon,James D., 2002. 'Selection Effects and

Deterrence', InternationalInteractions28(1):

5-29.

Fearon, James D. & AlexanderWendt, 2002.

'Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical

View', in Carlsnaes, Risse & Simmons

(52-72).

Friedman,Milton, 1953. 'The Methodology of

PositiveEconomics', n Milton Friedman,ed.,

Essaysn PositiveEconomics.Chicago, IL: Uni-

versityof ChicagoPress(3-43).

Geertz, Clifford, 1973. The Interpretationof

Cultures.New York:Basic.

Geller,Daniel S., 2000. 'ExaminingWar:Empiri-

cal Patternsand TheoreticalMechanisms', n

Midlarsky 407-449).

Geller,Daniel S. & J. David Singer,1998. Nations

at War:A ScientificStudyofInternationalCon-

flict. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

George,AlexanderL.; David K. Hall & William

E. Simons, 1971. TheLimitsofCoerciveDiplo-

macy.Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Goertz,Gary& PaulF.Diehl, 2000. '(Enduring)

Rivalries',n Midlarsky 222-267).

Hardin, Garrett, 1968. 'The Tragedy of

Commons', Science 162 (December):

1243-1248.

Hardin, Garrett, 1974. 'Living on a Lifeboat',

BioScience 4 (October):561-568.Hughes, Barry B., 1999. InternationalFutures:

Chaos in the Face of Uncertainty,3rd edn.

Boulder,CO: Westview.

Janis, Irving L., 1982. Groupthink:Psychological

Studiesof PolicyDecisions and Fiascoes,2nd

edn. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

J0rgensen, Knud Erik, 2000. 'Continental IR

Theory: The Best Kept Secret', European

Journalof InternationalRelations (1): 9-42.

King,Gary;Robert 0. Keohane& SidneyVerba,

1994. DesigningSocialInquiry:Scientific nfer-

ence in Qualitative Research.Princeton, NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Kugler, Jacek & Douglas Lemke, 2000. 'The

PowerTransitionResearchProgram:Assessing

Theoreticaland EmpiricalAdvances', n Mid-

larsky(129-163).

Kuhn, Thomas, 1962. The Structure f ScientificRevolution.Chicago,IL:Universityof Chicago

Press.

Leng, RussellJ., 2000. 'Escalation:Crisis Behav-

ior andWar',in Vasquez,2000a (235-258).

Levy,JackS., 2000. 'Reflectionson the Scientific

Studyof War',in Vasquez,2000a (319-327).

Levy,JackS., 2002. 'WarandPeace', n Carlsnaes,

Risse & Simmons (350-368).

Lijphart,Arend, 1971. 'ComparativePoliticsand

the ComparativeMethod',AmericanPolitical

ScienceReview65(3): 682-693.

Maoz, Zeev & BruceM. Russett,1993. 'Norma-

tive and Structural Causes of Democratic

Peace, 1946-1986', AmericanPoliticalScience

Review87(3): 624-638.

Meadows, Donnela H.; Dennis L. Meadows,

Jorgen Randers & William W. Behrens III,

1974. The Limits to Growth,2nd edn. New

York:New AmericanLibrary.

Mesarovic,Mihajlo D. & EduardPestel, 1974.

Mankind at the TurningPoint. New York:Dutton.

Midlarsky,Manus I., ed., 2000. Handbook ofWarStudies I. Ann Arbor,MI: Universityof

Michigan Press.

Milner,Helen V., 2002. 'InternationalTrade', n

Carlsnaes,Risse & Simmons (448-461).

Mitchell, Ronald B., 2002. 'International

Environment', n Carlsnaes,Risse& Simmons

(500-516).

Morrow,JamesD., 2000. 'The Ongoing Game-

Theoretic Revolution', in Midlarsky(164-192).

755








Most, Benjamin A. & Harvey Starr, 1989.

Inquiry, Logic and International Politics.

Columbia, SC: Universityof South Carolina

Press.Olson, Mancur,Jr., 1965. TheLogicof Collective

Action:Public Goods nd theTheory f Groups.

Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

Olson, Mancur,Jr.,1982. The Riseand Declineof

Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation,and

Social Rigidities.New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-

versityPress.

Ragin, Charles C., 1987. The Comparative

Method:MovingBeyondQualitative nd Quan-

titativeStrategies.Berkeley,CA: Universityof

CaliforniaPress.Raustiala,Kal & Anne-Marie Slaughter,2002.

'International Law, International Relations

and Compliance', in Carlsnaes, Risse &

Simmons (538-558).

Reiter,Dan & Allan C. Stam,2002. Democracies

at War.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Richardson,LewisF, 1960. Armsand Insecurity.

PacificGrove,CA: Boxwood.

Russett,BruceM. & John R. Oneal, 2001. Tri-

angulatingPeace:

Democracy,nterdependence,and InternationalOrganizations.New York:

Norton.

Sartori,Giovanni, 1970. 'ConceptMisformation

in Comparative Politics', American Political


Schmidt, Brian C., 2002. 'On the History and

Historiographyof InternationalRelations', n

Carlsnaes,Risse & Simmons (3-22).

Schrodt, Philip A., 1990. 'A Methodological

Critiqueof a Test of the Effectsof the Mahar-

ishi Technologyof the United Field',Journal

of ConflictResolution 4(4): 745-755.

Schultz, Kenneth A., 1999. 'Do Democratic

InstitutionsConstrainor Inform?Contrasting

Two InstitutionalPerspectives n Democracy

and War', InternationalOrganization53(2):133-162.

Simmons,BethA. & LisaL.Martin,2002. 'Inter-

national Organizationsand Institutions', in

Carlsnaes,Risse & Simmons (192-21 1).

Simon, HerbertA., 1969. TheSciences ftheArti-

ficial. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Simowitz, Roslyn & BarryL. Price, 1990. 'The

ExpectedUtility Theory of Conflict: Measur-

ing Theoretical Progress',American Political


Siverson, Randolph M. & Michael D. Ward,2002. 'The Long Peace:A Reconsideration',

InternationalOrganization 6(3): 679-691.

Thompson, William R., 1996. 'Democracyand

Peace: Putting the Cart Before the Horse',

InternationalOrganization 0(1): 141-174.

Tuchman, Barbara.1962. The Guns of August.

New York:Macmillan.

Vasquez,JohnA., ed., 2000a. WhatDo WeKnow

About War?Lanham,MD: Rowman & Little-

field.

Vasquez,JohnA., 2000b.

'Reexamininghe

Stepsto War: New Evidence and Theoretical

Insights', n Midlarsky 371-406).

STEVE CHAN, b. 1949, PhD in Political

Science(Universityof Minnesota, 1976); Pro-

fessor, University of Colorado, Boulder

(1984- ). Most recent book (co-edited with

JamesR. Scarritt),Copingwith Globalization

(FrankCass,forthcoming).

volume39 / number6/ november2002

Documents

2002 IR Metatheory