International Relations.Science without Method?

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.

1. (1976). Sovremennyye burzhuaznyye teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: kriticheskiy analiz. [Modern bourgeois theories of international relations: a critical analysis]. M .: Nauka.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Baddeley A. (2012). Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual review of psychology. Vol. 63. P. 1–29.

7. 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.

8. Beckley M. (2018). The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters. International Security. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 7–44.

9. Bertoli A.D. (2017). Nationalism and conflict: Lessons from international sports. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 61. No. 4. P. 835–849.

10. Biddle S.D. (2004). Military power: Explaining victory and defeat in modern battle. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 337 p.

11. Bogaturov A. (2000). Desyat' let paradigmy osvoyeniya. [Ten years of development paradigm]. Pro et contra. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 195–201.

12. 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.

13. Borishpolets K.P. (2010). Metody politicheskikh issledovaniy. [Methods of Political Research]. Moscow. 230 p.

14. 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.

15. Brooks S.G., Wohlforth W.C. (2016). America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century. Oxford University Press.

16. Bull H. (1996). International theory: The case for a classical approach. World politics. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 361–377.

17. Buzan B., Lawson G. (2015). The global transformation: history, modernity and the making of international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 232–233.

18. Degterev D.A. (2015a). Kolichestvennyye metody v mezhdunarodnykh issledovaniyakh [Quantitative methods in international studies]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 35.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Faure A.M. (1994). Some methodological problems in comparative politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 307–322.

23. Fearon J.D. (1991). Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science. World politics. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 169–195.

24. Fenenko A. (2019). “Long Peace” and Nuclear Weapons. Russia in Global Affairs. No. 1. P. 72–99.

25. 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.

26. Fenenko A.V. (2018). Statistika protiv istorii [Statistics against history]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 3. P. 56–83.

27. 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.

28. Florea A. (2017). De facto states: Survival and disappearance (1945–2011). International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 61. No. 2. P. 337–351.

29. Gaman-Golutvina O.V. (2019). Preodolevaya metodologicheskuyu raznitsu. [Bridging the Mthodological Difference]. Polis: zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 5. P. 19–42.

30. 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.

31. George A.L., Bennett A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press. P. 17–35.

32. Gerring J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

33. Hafner-Burton E.M., Kahler M., Montgomery A.H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 559–592.

34. 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/9780199933624.001.0001

35. Ikenberry G.J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 372 p.

36. Ish-Shalom P. (2013). Democratic peace: A political biography. University of Michigan Press. 266 p.

37. 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.

38. Kagan R. (1998). The benevolent empire. Foreign Policy. No. 111. P. 24–35.

39. Kelley J.G. (2017). Scorecard diplomacy: Grading states to influence their reputation and behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 355 p.

40. Kennedy P. (2010). The rise and fall of the great powers. Vintage. 677 p.

41. 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.

42. King G., Keohane R.O., Verba S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 245 p.

43. King G., Langche Zeng. (2001). Explaining Rare Events in International Relations. International Organization. Vol. 55. No. 3. P. 693–715.

44. 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.

45. Kydd A.H. (2015). International relations theory: the Game-theoretic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 228 p.

46. 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.

47. Lawson G., Hobson J. (2008). What is history in international relations? Millennium – journal of international studies. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 415–435. DOI: 10.1177/0305829808097648

48. Lebow R.N. (2010). Forbidden fruit: Counterfactuals and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 335 p.

49. Levy J., Goertz G. (ed.). (2007). Explaining war and peace: case studies and necessary condition counterfactuals. Oxon: Routledge. 346 p.

50. Levy J.S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict management and peace science. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 1–18.

51. Mandelbaum M. (2005). The case for Goliath: How America acts as the world's government in the twenty-first century. Public Affairs. 283 p.

52. 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.

53. Mearsheimer J. (2016). Benign Hegemony. International Studies Review. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 147–149.

54. 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.

55. Moravcsik A. (2014a). One Norm, Two Standards: Realizing Transparency in Qualitative Political Science. The Political Methodologist. Vol. 22. No.1. P. 3–9.

56. Moravcsik A. (2014b). Trust, but Verify: The Transparency Revolution and Qualitative International Relations. Security Studies. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 663–688.

57. Moravcsik A. (2014c). Transparency: The Revolution in Qualitative Political Science. PS: Political Science & Politics. No. 1. P. 48–53.

58. Moravcsik A. (2019). Transparency in Qualitative Research. Sage Research Methods Foundations. October. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036

59. Neustadt R., May R.E. (1986). Thinking in time: The uses of history for decision makers. Free press. 329 p.

60. Nye Jr J.S. (2015). Is the American century over? John Wiley & Sons. 152 p.

61. Pollock III Ph.H. (2012). The Essentials of Political Analysis. Fourth Edition. Washington: CQ Press. 268 p.

62. Seckon J. (2004). Quality meets quantity: Case Studies, Conditional Probability, and Counterfactuals. Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 281–293.

63. 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.

64. Tetlock P. E. (2005). Expert political judgement: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton University Press. 344 p.

65. Tetlock P. E., Belkin A. (ed.). (1996). Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: Logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

66. 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.

67. Thomae H. (1999). The nomothetic-idiographic issue: Some roots and recent trends. International Journal of Group Tensions. Vol. 28. No.1. P. 187–215.

68. Thomas W. (2001). The ethics of destruction: Norms and force in international relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 222 p.

69. 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.

70. 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.

71. Torkunov A.V. (2019). Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya: khaos ili plyuralizm. [International relations: chaos or pluralism]. Polis: zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 5. P. 7–18.

72. Treverton G. F., Jones S. G. (2005). Measuring national power. RAND Corp Arlington VA National Security Research Div. URL: https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA434665

73. Tsygankov A.P., Tsygankov P.A. (2007). Sotsiologiya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. [Sociology of international relations.]. M.: Aspekt Press. 237 p.

74. Tsygankov A.P., Tsygankov P.A. (2017). Prosveshchennoye derzhavnichestvo [Enlightened Sovereignity]. Polis: zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 4. P. 175–185.

75. Tsygankov 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.

76. 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.

77. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological bulletin. Vol. 76. No. 2. P. 105–110.

78. 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.

79. Vrasti W. (2008). The strange case of ethnography and international relations. Millennium. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 279–301.

80. 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.

81. Walt St. (2008). America’s IR Schools are Broken. Foreign Policy. URL: https://foreignpolicy.

82. 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.

83. Wendt A. (1994). Collective identity formation and the international state. American political science review. Vol. 88. No. 2. P. 384–396.

84. Wendt A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 429 p.