Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics

Harvey Starr, Benjamin A. Most

Description

Through the use of logic, simulation, and empirical data, Benjamin A. Most and Harvey Starr develop and demonstrate a nuanced and more appropriate conceptualization of explanation in international relations and foreign policy in Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics. They demonstrate that a concern with the logical underpinnings of research raises a series of theoretical, conceptual, and epistemological issues that must be addressed if theory and research design are to meet the challenges of cumulation in the study of international relations (or any area of social science). The authors argue for understanding the critical, yet subtle, interplay of the elements with a research triad composed of theory, logic, and method.

Sujets

• International Relations
• Political Science
• Security studies
• Foreign Policy Initiative
• Policy studies
• Theory of International Politics
• International security
• Comparative research
• Peace and conflict studies
• Comparative politics
• Political culture
• Security dilemma
• International political economy
• Decision theory
• Multilateralism
• Conflict resolution
• Power politics
• Decision making
• Foreign policy
• Diplomatic history
• International relations theory
• General officer
• General

Informations

• Publié par: University of South Carolina Press
• Date de parution: 29 septembre 2015
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781611175936
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics
Studies in International Relations
Charles W. Kegley, Jr., and Donald J. Puchala,
Series Editors
Marvin S. Soroos
Beyond Sovereignty: The Challenge of Global Policy
Manus I. Midlarsky
The Disintegration of Political Systems: War and Revolution in Comparative Perspective
Lloyd Jensen
Bargaining for National Security: The Postwar Disarmament Negotiations
Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach
The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics
William R. Thompson
On Global War: Historical-Structural Approaches to World Politics
Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics
BENJAMIN A. MOST and HARVEY STARR
WITH A NEW PREFACE BY
HARVEY STARR
2015 University of South Carolina
Published by the University of South Carolina Press Columbia, South Carolina 29208
www.sc.edu/uscpress
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data can be found at http://catalog.loc.gov/
ISBN 978-1-61117-592-9 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-61117-593-6 (ebook)
Time is too valuable, life too short, to waste my time on dead ends.
Benjamin A. Most (1986:14)
To the memory of BEN MOST student and teacher, colleague and friend
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations
Preface to the 2015 Edition
Acknowledgments
1. INTRODUCTION: Cumulation, Theory, and the Logic of Inquiry
2 OPPORTUNITY AND WILLINGNESS: A Pre-Theoretic Framework
3. BASIC LOGIC AND RESEARCH DESIGN: Conceptualization, Case Selection, and the Form of Relationships
4. CONCEPTUALIZING WAR: Attributes and Process
Appendix to Chapter 4
5. FOREIGN POLICY SUBSTITUTABILITY AND NICE LAWS: Integrating Process and Theory
Appendixes to Chapter 5
6. THE LOGIC OF INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURE: Power, War, and Micro-Macro Linkages
Appendix to Chapter 6
7. CONCLUSION: Closure, Cumulation, and International Relations Theory
Notes
References
Index
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURES
Figure 1.1.
Depictions of the Research Process
Figure 1.2.
The Analysts Cube
Figure 2.1.
Opportunity/Willingness and War
Figure 3.1.
Necessary and Sufficient Relationships between X and Y
Figure 3.2.
Elaboration of Necessary and Sufficient Relationships
Figure 6.1.
Post-World War II Dyads
Figure 6.2.
Imbalanced and Balanced Dyads: Selected Hypothetical Systems
Figure 6.3.
Proportion of Imbalanced Dyads: Selected Hypothetical Systems
TABLES
Table 3.1.
Sampling Only Examples with the Occurrence of an Independent Variable
Table 3.2.
Sampling Only Examples with the Occurrence of a Dependent Variable
Table 3.3.
Consequences of Selective Sampling
Table 3.4.
Alternative Hypotheses and Consequences of Logic in Design
Table 4.1.
A Preliminary Illustration
Table 4.2.
A Simple Interaction Possibility
Table 4.3.
A More Complex Interaction Possibility
Table 4.4.
A Deterrence/Balance Illustration
Table 5.1.
Hypothetical Action-Reaction Process
Table 6.1.
Outline of Simulation Procedures
Table 6.2.
Simulation of Systems with 10 States and 5 Major Powers
Table 6.3.
Simulated Conflict Initiations: PR(W) = 0.02
Table 6.4.
Simulated Conflict Initiations: PR(W) = 0.05
Table 6.5.
Simulated Conflict Initiations: PR(W) = 0.02 and 0.05
PREFACE TO THE 2015 EDITION
Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics Twenty-five Years On
THE EXPANDED COVERAGE OF A CRITICAL LOGIC
Harvey Starr
The year 2014 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of Most and Starr s Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics (hereafter noted as ILIP ). In this book we introduced a set of elements that were claimed to be useful-indeed critical in several senses-for good model building, research design, and the assessment of the validity of systematic empirical inquiry. While explicit in our thinking about how to do good research that would more efficiently and profitably lead to better cumulation in the research of international relations scholars, we were less explicit in framing the book as a truly critical commentary on the logic of inquiry and the research practices of many IR scholars. In retrospect I see ILIP as a significant piece of critical analysis whose impact can be traced in a number of ways. Because it is still read, assigned in classes, and cited in scholarly work, and because some of the ideas it introduced are now so widespread that they are often used without citation (such as substitutability or opportunity and willingness), recognition of a quarter-century in print is indeed the appropriate time to step back and assess the book s contributions and impact. I do that briefly here, as well as introduce and highlight some of the important aspects of the book to follow.
In Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics Ben Most and I address a set of impediments to cumulation, which include a self-critical appraisal of the failure of quantitative scholars to match theory and logic to research design and method (see also Starr 2005). We identify these three elements-theory, logic, and method-as the components of the research triad, which serve as the core of our presentation (see chapter 1 ). We argue that scholars need to recognize the existence of a research triad . . . and that each leg of this triad is critical for advancing our knowledge of international phenomena ( ILIP , 2). Scholars are likened to jugglers as each element of the triad needs to be held in the air at the same time in a complex set of interrelationships, indicating that for the juggler to be successful, all of the balls (elements of the triad) must be kept going simultaneously ( ILIP , 10). Because a number of the issues we raise in the book have been continued by such scholars as Gary Goertz, Bear Braumoeller, Claudio Cioffi-Revilla, Phil Schrodt, and Cliff Morgan, among others, I can do no better here than to continue the call for attention to the research triad and the promotion of creative and rigorous research design-no matter what subfield is under investigation, what specific theoretical framework is used to guide the research, or what specific methodologies are used to evaluate and compare theoretical frameworks.
SUMMARIZING ILIP: CUMULATION/PROGRESS AND THEORY
Understanding the extent and nature of and the reasons for the cumulation of knowledge in a specific discipline or area was a central motivating factor for ILIP , in which we argue that theory must be central to research and propel the research process. While ILIP points to a set of ongoing feedback loops among the elements of the triad, the driving element has always been theory . Thus theory must be at the forefront of our endeavors, whatever the subfield or methodology employed (clearly, I do not think this is unique to ILIP ; see also Starr 2002). The centrality of theory in the research enterprise is also key to Zinnes s (1976) notion of integrative cumulation or Bueno de Mesquita s (for example, 1989 or 1985) focus on progress in a Lakatosian sense. The obvious position that students of research design must support is that the methods selected by any researcher must be appropriate to the questions being investigated. Those questions, in turn, must be theory-driven. Thus any researcher must begin with well-grounded and well-specified theory. 1 Therefore, ILIP stresses in chapter 1 the dynamic feedback loops that exist among theory, research design, and findings, as each informs and modifies the other. Theory thus not only affects the design and the research product but also is itself continually modified and updated by the research process and the results of that process, in a dynamic combination of induction and deduction. As the research process unfolds and theory is modified, the researcher may be led to investigate additional phenomena originally omitted from the study.
This view means that theory is central to the actual enterprise of empirical research. Given the current state of international relations theory at some U.S. institutions as well as abroad, it is important that the basic issues concerning methodology (and epistemology) that link theory, research design, and the actual enterprise of research are discussed and returned to the forefront of the scholarly enterprise. This must be argued explicitly because for some academics, the idea of theory has been and too often continues to be used to mean only broader philosophical world-views or ideologies. As such, theory has been divorced from research by those who use the term in this way. Social scientists need to be reminded that theory s central contribution rests in the way in which it informs, shapes, and is in turn shaped by empirical research-that theory is a tool in the study of the world of politics. The theory-research loop is crucial here. This loop is irrelevant when theory is conceived of as ideology, where the answers are known, and thus research is irrelevant. Only when theory is seen as central to research, and not used as ideology, can it be the basis for integrative cumulation. While this point is not included in ILIP , concern with theory should be directed at two basic questions about theory that I have always stressed. Both are extremely important but are not necessarily related to each other: first, where does theory come from? and second, how are we to evaluate and compare theories? 2
This theory-research feedback loop is a prominent component of ILIP . My work in that book, and with other colleagues since then, ha