intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2019.17.2.57.4intertrends-568Research ArticleПРОДОЛЖЕНИЕ ДИСКУССИИCONTINUING THE DISCUSSIONМеждународные отношения. Наука без метода?International Relations.Science without Method?ИстоминИгорьIstominIgor

Истомин Игорь Александрович - кандидат политических наук, доцент кафедры прикладного анализа международных проблем, старший научный сотрудник Лаборатории анализа международных процессов МГИМО МИД России

Москва

Dr Igor Istomin - Associate Professor, Department of Applied International Political Analysis, Senior Research Fellow, Laboratory of International Trends Analysis, MGIMO University

Moscow, 119454

iaistomin@gmail.comБайковАндрейBaykovAndrey

Байков Андрей Анатольевич - кандидат политических наук, доцент, директор Научно-образовательного форума по международным отношения (НОФМО)

Москва

Dr Andrey Baykov - Associate Professor, Department of Applied International Analysis, MGIMO University; CEO, Academic and Educational Forum on International Relations

Moscow, 119454

ХудолейКонстантинKhudoleyKonstantin

Худолей Константин Константинович - доктор исторических наук, профессор, заведующий кафедрой европейских исследований факультета международных отношений Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета

Санкт-Петербург

Prof. Dr Konstantin Khudoley - Professor, Department of European Studies, School of International Relations, Saint Petersburg State University

Saint Petersburg, 199034

МГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian FederationСанкт-Петербургский государственный университетРоссияSaint Petersburg State UniversityRussian Federation2019150520251726390Copyright © Истомин И., Байков А., Худолей К., 20252025Истомин И., Байков А., Худолей К.Istomin I., Baykov A., Khudoley K.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/568

Год столетия учреждения первой кафедры международной политики – подходящий повод бросить ретроспективный взгляд на историю развития «международных отношений» (МО) как самостоятельного кластера учебно-научных дисциплин, оценив их с точки зрения зрелости сложившихся в его рамках представлений о границах предмета науки о МО и об адекватности её теоретико-методологического инструментария. Авторы настоящей работы, формулируя свою реакцию на открывшую эту своевременную дискуссию статью А.В. Фененко, подвергшего критике использование количественных методов в международно-политических исследованиях, предпринимают более масштабную попытку не только непосредственно ответить А.В. Фененко по конкретным пунктам несогласия с ним, но и в более широком сопоставительном контексте соотнести траектории эволюции МО в России и за рубежом, выявить причины их расхождений, очертить место метода как такового в методологии международно-политической науки и, наконец, охарактеризовать с точки зрения эпистемологии применимость и роль количественного и качественного анализа при изучении явлений международной жизни. Основной тезис предлагаемой статьи состоит в утверждении того, что российская версия науки о МО, в отличие от её западного аналога, совершившего существенный прогресс не только в плане значительно более проработанной методологии, но и в смысле преодоления теоретико-методологической фрагментации сообщества учёных-международников, по-прежнему находится на дометодологической и в этом смысле донаучной стадии развитии, на которой отсутствует согласие по типу «нормальной науки» о приемлемых методах исследования и сохраняется разобщённость среди учёных во взглядах на природу постигаемого объекта и возможности его объективного познания. В заключение авторы излагают своё видение оптимального соотношения эпистемологических и методологических подходов к изучению международно-политической действительности.

2019 marks a centenary of the first Department of International Politics. It is a good opportunity to cast a retrospective look at International Relations’ (IR) development as an independent cluster of academic disciplines. This cluster is evaluated in terms of maturity of its subject and its methodology. The authors present their reaction to the article by Alexey Fenenko, which rekindled the timely discussion of applicability of quantitative methods in international politics research. The authors present their view on the issue, contest Feneko’s position, and compare the International Relations development in Russia and abroad. In the article reasons for existing differences between the two are emphasized, the place of the method per se is determined, and epistemological role of quantitative and qualitative analysis in the study of international life is outlined. The Russian school of IR in contrast to the established global one still finds itself at the methodological and, in this sense, pre-scientific stage of development, at which there is no “normal science” agreement on acceptable research methods. It remains considerably fragmented in the nature of the subject of inquiry and in the achievability of objective knowledge. In conclusion, the authors set their normative vision of epistemological and methodological balance, as well as schools of IR adhering to different ontological basis.

Теория международных отношенийколичественные и качественные методы исследованийпрофессионализация МОонтологияэпистемология и методология международно-политических наукпарадигмы в наукахнормальная наукаTheory of International Relationsquantitative and qualitative research methodsprofessionalization of International Relationsontologyepistemology and methodology of international political sciencesparadigms in the sciences“Normal science”research programReferencesАлексеева Т.А., Дегтерёв Д.А. Международные отношения: спор о науке и методе // Вестник Российской академии наук. 2017. Т. 87. № 9. С. 848–857.(1976). Sovremennyye burzhuaznyye teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: kriticheskiy analiz. [Modern bourgeois theories of international relations: a critical analysis]. M .: Nauka.Алексеева Т.А., Лебедева М.М. Что происходит с теорией международных отношений // Polis: Journal of Political Studies. 2016. № 1. С. 29–43.Achen, Christopher H. (2005). Let’s Put Garbage-Can Regressions and Garbage-Can Probits Where They Belong. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Vol. 22 No. 4. P. 327–333.Байков А.А. «Золотой стандарт» подготовки международника и эффективность внешней политики // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2016. №1. С. 70–83.Alekseyeva T.A., Degterev D. A. (2017). Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya: spor o nauke i metodike. [International relations: a dispute about science and methodology]. Vestnik Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Vol. 87. No. 9. P. 848–857.Богатуров А.Д. Понятие мировой политики в теоретическом дискурсе // Международные процессы. 2004. Т. 2. № 4. С. 16–33.Alekseyeva T.A., Lebedeva M.M. (2016). Chto proiskhodit s teoriyey mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. [What is happening with the theory of international relations]. Polis: zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 1. P. 29–43.Богатуров А. Десять лет парадигмы освоения // Pro et contra. 2000. Т. 5. № 1. С. 195–201.Anckar C. (2008). On the applicability of the most similar systems design and the most different systems design in comparative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Vol. 11. No. 5. P. 389–401.Боришполец К.П. Методы политических исследований. М., 2010. 230 с.Baddeley A. (2012). Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual review of psychology. Vol. 63. P. 1–29.Войтоловский Ф.Г. «Производство» интеллектуального пространства мировой политики // Международные процессы. 2006. Т. 4. № 2. С. 100–111.Baykov A.A. (2016). «Zolotoy standart» podgotovki mezhdunarodnoy i effektivnoy vneshney politiki. [The “Golden Standard” for the preparation of international and effective foreign policy]. Vestnik MGIMOUniversiteta. No. 1. P. 70–83.Гаман-Голутвина О.В. Преодолевая методологические различия: споры о познании в эпоху неопределенности // Polis: Journal of Political Studies. 2019. № 5. С. 19–42.Beckley M. (2018). The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters. International Security. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 7–44.Дегтерёв Д.А. Количественные методы в международных исследованиях // Международные процессы. 2015. Т. 13. № 2. С. 35.Bertoli A.D. (2017). Nationalism and conflict: Lessons from international sports. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 61. No. 4. P. 835–849.Дегтерёв Д.А. Прикладной количественный анализ и моделирование международных отношений: Учебник. М.: РУДН, 2016. 556 с.Biddle S.D. (2004). Military power: Explaining victory and defeat in modern battle. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 337 p.Дегтерёв Д.А. Сетевой анализ международных отношений // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия 6. Политология. Международные отношения. 2015. № 4.Bogaturov A. (2000). Desyat' let paradigmy osvoyeniya. [Ten years of development paradigm]. Pro et contra. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 195–201.Истомин И.А., Байков А.А. Сравнительные особенности отечественных и зарубежных научных журналов // Международные процессы. 2015. Т. 13. № 2. С. 114–140.Bogaturov A.D. (2004). Ponyatiye mirovoy politiki v teoreticheskom diskurse. [The concept of world politics in theoretical discourse]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 16–33.Сергеев В.М., Казанцев А.А., Медведева С.М. Кризис конструктивизма и методологические проблемы изучения международных отношений // Polis: Journal of Political Studies. 2019. № 5. С. 56–70.Borishpolets K.P. (2010). Metody politicheskikh issledovaniy. [Methods of Political Research]. Moscow. 230 p.Современные буржуазные теории международных отношений: критический анализ. М.: Наука, 1976.Braumoeller, Bear F., Sartori A.E. (2004). The Promise and Perils of Statistics in International Relations. In Sprinz D.F., Volinsky-Nahmias Y. (eds) Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 129–151.Тимофеев И.Н. Формализованные методы исследования в политологии и сравнительной политике: перспективы политологической школы МГИМО // Сравнительная политика. 2010. № 1. С. 121–129.Brooks S.G., Wohlforth W.C. (2016). America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century. Oxford University Press.Торкунов А.В. Вызовы социогуманитарной науке в России // Polis: Journal of Political Studies. 2018. № 5. С. 8–16.Bull H. (1996). International theory: The case for a classical approach. World politics. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 361–377.Торкунов А.В. Международные отношения: хаос или плюрализм // Polis: Journal of Political Studies. 2019. № 5. С. 7–18.Buzan B., Lawson G. (2015). The global transformation: history, modernity and the making of international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 232–233.Фененко А.В. Почему в Америке не любят публиковать российских авторов? // Международные процессы. 2016. Т. 14. № 1. С. 172–180.Degterev D.A. (2015a). Kolichestvennyye metody v mezhdunarodnykh issledovaniyakh [Quantitative methods in international studies]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 35.Фененко А.В. Статистика против истории // Международные процессы. 2018. № 3. С. 56–83.Degterev D.A. (2015b). Setevoy analiz mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. [Network analysis of international relations]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya 6. Politologiya. Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. No. 4. P. 119–138.Хрусталёв М.А. Анализ международных ситуаций и политическая экспертиза: очерки теории и методологии. 2008. 231 с.Degterev D.A. (2016). Prikladnoy kolichestvennyy analiz i modelirovaniye mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: uchebnik. [Applied quantitative analysis and modeling of international relations: a textbook]. M.: RUDN. 556 p.Цыганков А.П., Цыганков П.А. Просвещённое державничество (А.Д. Богатуров и российская теория международных отношений) // Polis: Journal of Political Studies. 2017. № 4. С. 175–185.Farrel H., Finnemore M. (2009). Ontology, methodology and causation in the American school of international political economy. Review of International Political Economy. Vol. 16. No. 1. February. P. 58–71.Цыганков А.П., Цыганков П.А. Социология международных отношений. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2007. 237 c.Faure A.M. (1994). Some methodological problems in comparative politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 307–322.Цыганков П.А., Цыганков А.П. Между западничеством и национализмом: российский либерализм и международные отношения // Вопросы философии. 2005. № 1. С. 3–18.Fearon J.D. (1991). Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science. World politics. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 169–195.Цыганков П.А. «Международные отношения и мировая политика»: консолидация учебно-научной дисциплины? // Международные процессы. 2013. Т. 11. № 34. С. 6–20.Fenenko A. (2019). “Long Peace” and Nuclear Weapons. Russia in Global Affairs. No. 1. P. 72–99.Achen Christopher H. Let’s Put Garbage-Can Regressions and Garbage-Can Probits Where They Belong // Conflict Management and Peace Science. 2005. Vol. 22 No. 4. P. 327–333.Fenenko A.V. (2016). Pochemu v Amerike ne lyubyat publikovat' rossiyskikh avtorov? [Why America doesn’t like to publish Russian authors?]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 172–180.Anckar C. On the applicability of the most similar systems design and the most different systems design in comparative research // International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2008. Vol. 11. No. 5. P. 389–401.Fenenko A.V. (2018). Statistika protiv istorii [Statistics against history]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 3. P. 56–83.Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies // Annual review of psychology. 2012. Vol. 63. P. 1–29.Flockhart T. (2006). ‘Complex socialization’: A framework for the study of state socialization. European journal of international relations. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 89–118.Beckley M. The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters // International Security. 2018. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 7–44.Florea A. (2017). De facto states: Survival and disappearance (1945–2011). International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 61. No. 2. P. 337–351.Bertoli A.D. Nationalism and conflict: Lessons from international sports // International Studies Quarterly. 2017. Vol. 61. No. 4. P. 835–849.Gaman-Golutvina O.V. (2019). Preodolevaya metodologicheskuyu raznitsu. [Bridging the Mthodological Difference]. Polis: zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 5. P. 19–42.Biddle S.D. Military power: Explaining victory and defeat in modern battle. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. 337 p.George A.L. (2019). Case studies and theory development: The method of structured, focused comparison. In George A.L. A Pioneer in Political and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. P. 191–214.Braumoeller Bear F. and Anne E. Sartori. The Promise and Per-ils of Statistics in International Relations / Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations // Ed. Detlef F. Sprinz and Yael Volinsky-Nahmias. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. Р. 129–151.George A.L., Bennett A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press. P. 17–35.Brooks S.G., Wohlforth W.C. America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, 2016.Gerring J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.Bull H. International theory: The case for a classical approach // World politics. 1966. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 361–377.Hafner-Burton E.M., Kahler M., Montgomery A.H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 559–592.Buzan B., Lawson G. The global transformation: history, modernity and the making of international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. P. 232–233.Hesse-Biber Sh.N., Johnson R.B. (eds) (2015). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.001.0001Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: Logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives / ed. by P.E. Tetlock, A. Belkin. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. 344 p.Ikenberry G.J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 372 p.Explaining war and peace: case studies and necessary condition counterfactuals / ed. by J. Levy, G. Goertz. Oxon: Routledge, 2007. 346 p.Ish-Shalom P. (2013). Democratic peace: A political biography. University of Michigan Press. 266 p.Farrel H., Finnemore M. Ontology, methodology and causation in the American school of international political economy // Review of International Political Economy. Vol.16 No. 1. February 2009. P. 58–71.Istomin I.A., Baykov A.A. (2015). Sravnitel'nyye osobennosti otechestvennykh i zarubezhnykh nauchnykh zhurnalov. [Comparative features of domestic and foreign scientific journals]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 114–140.Faure A.M. Some methodological problems in comparative politics // Journal of Theoretical Politics. 1994. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 307–322.Kagan R. (1998). The benevolent empire. Foreign Policy. No. 111. P. 24–35.Fearon J.D. Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science // World politics. 1991. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 169–195.Kelley J.G. (2017). Scorecard diplomacy: Grading states to influence their reputation and behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 355 p.Fenenko A. “Long Peace” and Nuclear Weapons // Russia in Global Affairs. 2019. No. 1. P. 72–99.Kennedy P. (2010). The rise and fall of the great powers. Vintage. 677 p.Flockhart T. ‘Complex socialization’: A framework for the study of state socialization // European journal of international relations. 2006. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 89–118.Khrustalev M.A. (2008). Analiz mezhdunarodnykh situatsiy i politicheskaya ekspertiza: ocherki teorii i metodologii. [Analysis of international situations and political expertise: essays on theory and methodology]. 231 p.Florea A. De facto states: Survival and disappearance (1945–2011) // International Studies Quarterly. 2017. Vol. 61. No. 2. P. 337–351.King G., Keohane R.O., Verba S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 245 p.George A.L. Case studies and theory development: The method of structured, focused comparison // Alexander L. George: A Pioneer in Political and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham, 2019. P. 191–214.King G., Langche Zeng. (2001). Explaining Rare Events in International Relations. International Organization. Vol. 55. No. 3. P. 693–715.George A.L., Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, 2005. P. 17–35.King G., Tomz M., Wittenberg J. (2000). Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 44. No. 2. P. 347–361.Gerring J. Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Kydd A.H. (2015). International relations theory: the Game-theoretic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 228 p.Hafner-Burton E.M., Kahler M., Montgomery A.H. Network analysis for international relations // International Organization. 2009. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 559–592.Lauretig A., Braumoeller B. (2018). Statistics and International Security. Gheciu A., William C. Wohlforth W.C. Oxford Handbook of International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lawson G., Hobson J. What is history in international relations? // Millennium – journal of international studies. 2008. Vol. 37 No. 2. P. 415–435. DOI: 10.1177/0305829808097648Lawson G., Hobson J. (2008). What is history in international relations? Millennium – journal of international studies. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 415–435. DOI: 10.1177/0305829808097648Ikenberry G.J. Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. 372 p.Lebow R.N. (2010). Forbidden fruit: Counterfactuals and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 335 p.Ish-Shalom P. Democratic peace: A political biography. University of Michigan Press, 2013. 266 p.Levy J., Goertz G. (ed.). (2007). Explaining war and peace: case studies and necessary condition counterfactuals. Oxon: Routledge. 346 p.Kagan R. The benevolent empire // Foreign Policy. 1998. No. 111. P. 24–35.Levy J.S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict management and peace science. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 1–18.Kelley J.G. Scorecard diplomacy: Grading states to influence their reputation and behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. 355 p.Mandelbaum M. (2005). The case for Goliath: How America acts as the world's government in the twenty-first century. Public Affairs. 283 p.Kennedy P. The rise and fall of the great powers. Vintage, 2010. 677 p.Maoz Z. (2012). How network analysis can inform the study of international relations. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 247–256.King G., Keohane R.O., Verba S. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. 245 p.Mearsheimer J. (2016). Benign Hegemony. International Studies Review. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 147–149.King G., Langche Zeng. Explaining Rare Events in International Relations // International Organization, 2005. Vol. 55. No. 3. P. 693–715.Mearsheimer J., Walt S. M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations. 2013. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 427–457.King G., Tomz M, Wittenberg J. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation // American Journal of Political Science. 2000. Vol. 44. No. 2. P. 347–361.Moravcsik A. (2014a). One Norm, Two Standards: Realizing Transparency in Qualitative Political Science. The Political Methodologist. Vol. 22. No.1. P. 3–9.Kydd A.H. International relations theory: the Game-theoretic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. 228 p.Moravcsik A. (2014b). Trust, but Verify: The Transparency Revolution and Qualitative International Relations. Security Studies. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 663–688.Lauretig A., Braumoeller B. Statistics and International Security // Oxford Handbook of International Security / Ed. by A. Gheciu, W.C. Wohlforth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. P. 133–151.Moravcsik A. (2014c). Transparency: The Revolution in Qualitative Political Science. PS: Political Science & Politics. No. 1. P. 48–53.Lebow R.N. Forbidden fruit: Counterfactuals and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. 335 p.Moravcsik A. (2019). Transparency in Qualitative Research. Sage Research Methods Foundations. October. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036Levy J.S. Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference // Conflict Management and Peace Science. 2008. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 1–18.Neustadt R., May R.E. (1986). Thinking in time: The uses of history for decision makers. Free press. 329 p.Mandelbaum M. The case for Goliath: How America acts as the world's government in the twenty-first century. Public Affairs, 2005.Nye Jr J.S. (2015). Is the American century over? John Wiley & Sons. 152 p.Maoz Z. How network analysis can inform the study of international relations // Conflict Management and Peace Science. 2012. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 247–256.Pollock III Ph.H. (2012). The Essentials of Political Analysis. Fourth Edition. Washington: CQ Press. 268 p.Mearsheimer J. Benign Hegemony // International Studies Review. 2016. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 147–149.Seckon J. (2004). Quality meets quantity: Case Studies, Conditional Probability, and Counterfactuals. Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 281–293.Mearsheimer J., Walt S.M. Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations // European Journal of International Relations. 2013. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 427–457.Sergeyev V.M., Kazantsev A.A., Medvedeva S.M. (2019). Krizis konstruktivizma i metodologicheskiye problemy izucheniya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. [The crisis of constructivism and methodological problems in the study of international relations]. Polis: zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 5. P. 56–70.Moravcsik A. Transparency in Qualitative Research. Sage Research Methods Foundations. October. 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036Tetlock P. E. (2005). Expert political judgement: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton University Press. 344 p.Moravscsik A. One Norm, Two Standards: Realizing Transparency in Qualitative Political Science // The Political Methodologist, 2014a. Vol. 22. P. 3–9.Tetlock P. E., Belkin A. (ed.). (1996). Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: Logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Moravcsik A. Trust, but Verify: The Transparency Revolution and Qualitative International Relations // Security Studies. 2014b. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 663–688.Thies C. (2002). A Pragmatic Guide to Qualitative Historical Analysis in the Study of International Relations. International Studies Perspectives. Vol. 3. No. 4. P. 351–372.Moravcsik A. Transparency: The Revolution in Qualitative Political Science // PS: Political Science & Politics. 2014c. No. 1. P. 48–53.Thomae H. (1999). The nomothetic-idiographic issue: Some roots and recent trends. International Journal of Group Tensions. Vol. 28. No.1. P. 187–215.Neustadt R., May R.E. Thinking in time: The uses of history for decision makers. Free press, 1986. 329 p. Nye Jr J. S. Is the American century over? John Wiley & Sons, 2015. 152 p.Thomas W. (2001). The ethics of destruction: Norms and force in international relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 222 p.Pollock III Ph.H. The Essentials of Political Analysis. Fourth Edition. Washington: CQ Press, 2012. 268 p.Timofeyev I.N. (2010). Formalizovannyye metody issledovaniya v politologii i sravnitel'noy politike: perspektivy politologicheskoy shkoly MGIMO. [Formalized research methods in political science and comparative politics: prospects of the political science school of MGIMO]. Sravnitel'naya politika. No. 1. P. 121–129.Seckon J. Quality meets quantity: Case Studies, Conditional Probability, and Counterfactuals // Perspectives on Politics, 2004. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 281–293.Torkunov A.V. (2018). Vyzovy sotsiogumanitarnoy nauki v Rossii. [Challenges of socio-humanitarian science in Russia]. Polis: zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 5. P. 8–16.Tetlock P.E. Expert political judgement: How good is it? How can we know? 2005.Torkunov A.V. (2019). Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya: khaos ili plyuralizm. [International relations: chaos or pluralism]. Polis: zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 5. P. 7–18.The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry / ed. by Sh.N. Hesse-Biber, R.B. Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.001.0001Treverton G. F., Jones S. G. (2005). Measuring national power. RAND Corp Arlington VA National Security Research Div. URL: https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA434665Thies C. A Pragmatic Guide to Qualitative Historical Analysis in the Study of International Relations // International Studies Perspectives. 2002. Vol. 3. No. 4. P. 351–372.Tsygankov A.P., Tsygankov P.A. (2007). Sotsiologiya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. [Sociology of international relations.]. M.: Aspekt Press. 237 p.Thomae H. The nomothetic-idiographic issue: Some roots and recent trends // International Journal of Group Tensions. 1999. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 187–215.Tsygankov A.P., Tsygankov P.A. (2017). Prosveshchennoye derzhavnichestvo [Enlightened Sovereignity]. Polis: zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 4. P. 175–185.Treverton G.F., Jones S.G. Measuring national power. RAND Corp Arlington VA National Security Research Div, 2005. URL: https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA434665Tsygankov P.A. (2013). «Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika» konsolidatsiya uchebnonauchnoy distsipliny? ["International Relations and World Politics" consolidation of academic discipline?]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 11. No. 34. P. 6–20.Tversky A., Kahneman D. Belief in the law of small numbers // Psychological bulletin. 1971. Vol. 76. No. 2. P. 105–110.Tsygankov P.A., Tsygankov A.P. (2005). Mezhdu zapadnym i natsionalizmom: rossiyskiy liberalizm i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. [Between Western and Nationalism: Russian Liberalism and International Relations]. Voprosy filosofii. No. 1. P. 3–18.Vrasti W. The strange case of ethnography and international relations // Millennium. 2008. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 279–301.Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological bulletin. Vol. 76. No. 2. P. 105–110.Waever O. The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations // International organization. 1998. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 687–727.Voytolovskiy F.G. (2006). «Proizvodstvo» intellektual'nogo prostranstva mirovoy politik [“Production” of the intellectual space of world politics]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 100–111.Walt St. America’s IR Schools are Broken. Foreign Policy. Feb. 20. 2018. URL: https://foreignpolicy.Vrasti W. (2008). The strange case of ethnography and international relations. Millennium. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 279–301.com/2018/02/20/americans-ir-schools-are-broken-international-relations-foreign-policy/ Waltz K.N. Theory of international politics. Waveland Press, 2010. 251 p.Waever O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations. International organization. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 687–727.Thomas W. The ethics of destruction: Norms and force in international relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. 222 p.Walt St. (2008). America’s IR Schools are Broken. Foreign Policy. URL: https://foreignpolicy.Wendt A. Collective identity formation and the international state // American political science review. 1994. Vol. 88. No. 2. P. 384–396.com/2018/02/20/americans-ir-schools-are-broken-international-relations-foreign-policy/ Waltz K. N. (2010). Theory of international politics. Waveland Press. 251 p.Wendt A. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 429 p.Wendt A. (1994). Collective identity formation and the international state. American political science review. Vol. 88. No. 2. P. 384–396.Wendt A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 429 p.Wendt A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 429 p.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.