scholarly journals Rethinking causal explanation in interpretive international studies

2021 ◽  
pp. 135406612110064
Author(s):  
Ludvig Norman
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Process Tracing ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Clear Differentiation ◽  
Shared Understandings ◽  
Interpretive Process

This article develops a model for causal explanations amenable to interpretive International Relations (IR) research. A growing field of scholars has turned toward causal inquiry while stressing the importance of shared understandings, identities, and social practices for their explanations. This move has considerable potential to strengthen the contributions of interpretive approaches to IR. However, the article identifies shortcomings in the causal models on which this research is based which work to limit this potential. The article provides a detailed discussion of these limitations and offers an alternative model of causal explanations for interpretive IR. The proposed model builds on a clear differentiation between constitutive and causal analysis and supplies an explicit argument for how they can be combined to generate causal explanations. This paves the way for a more well-defined notion of causal explanation than has commonly been the case in interpretive IR. In doing so, it also offers a more coherent and detailed account of the points at which interpretive explanations intersect with more mainstream approaches and where they differ. Finally, the paper outlines an application of the model through a discussion on an updated form of interpretive process tracing (IPT).

scholarly journals Searching for a middle ground? A spectrum of views of causality in qualitative research

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Chiara Ruffa ◽  
Matthew Evangelista
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Statistical Model ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Ongoing Dialogue

Abstract Qualitative scholars exhibit a wide range of views on and approaches to causality. While some approaches reject causality from the outset, a large strand of qualitative research in political science and international relations does, however, pursue causal explanation. Qualitative scholars nevertheless disagree about what causality means. Our paper reviews what causality means within different strands of qualitative research and how qualitative scholars engage in causal explanations. We focus particular attention on the fertile middle ground between qualitative research that seeks to mimic the statistical model and research that rejects causality entirely. In broad strokes, we understand views of causality as lying on a spectrum and partly overlapping. Along the spectrum, we identify three main clusters: ‘positivist leaning,’ ‘postpositivist leaning,’ and ‘interpretivist leaning.’ Within each cluster, we identify the main traits and provide illustrative examples. We find merit in each of these three clusters of approaches and in the ongoing dialogue among qualitative scholars of different orientations. Understanding similarities and differences in the way various scholars address causality might encourage some to take steps along the spectrum and expand their repertoires to embrace elements of other approaches. By making these distinctions more explicit, we hope to be able to enhance our understanding of different views of causality and the extent to which they overlap and provide the potential for collaboration.

Traditions of foreign countries studies in modern russian economic expertise

2015 ◽  
pp. 116-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Kuznetsov
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Economy ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Scientific Schools ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Modern Application ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
World Development

The article deals with Russian traditions of studies of foreign countries which have become an intellectual pillar for Russian economic expertise. The modern application of experience of Soviet scientific schools in international studies is shown, especially in the fields of world development forecasts, analysis of Russian foreign economic relations and research of economic policy abroad. The article is based on open sources with publications, reports and presentations about expert and analytical activities of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) and other institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, VNIKI-Institute, MGIMO-University and some other centers. It is explained that results of international studies have become a necessary element for consulting of governmental bodies and businessmen in the epoch of globalization.

scholarly journals Historical materialism and international studies: theorising the politics of struggle in the everyday world

2021 ◽  
pp. 004711782199161
Author(s):  
Cemal Burak Tansel
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Historical Materialism ◽  
Global Capitalism ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Historical Materialist ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Everyday World ◽  
Global War ◽  
Materialist Feminist

This forum brings together critical engagements with Andreas Bieler and Adam David Morton’s Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis to assess the prospects and limits of historical materialism in International Studies. The authors’ call for a ‘necessarily historical materialist moment’ in International Studies is interrogated by scholars working with historical materialist, feminist and decolonial frameworks in and beyond International Relations (IR)/International Political Economy (IPE). This introductory essay situates the book in relation to the wider concerns of historical materialist IR/IPE and outlines how the contributors assess the viability of Bieler and Morton’s historical materialist project.

The Study of International Relations in Great Britain: Further Connections

1986 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 626-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene M. Lyons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
World War I ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Political Experience

Aside from language, students of international relations in the United States and Great Britain have several things in common: parallel developments in the emergence of international relations as a field of study after World War I, and more recent efforts to broaden the field by drawing security issues and changes in the international political economy under the broad umbrella of “international studies.” But a review of four recent books edited by British scholars demonstrates that there is also a “distance” between British and American scholarship. Compared with dominant trends in the United States, the former, though hardly monolithic and producing a rich and varied literature, is still very much attached to historical analysis and the concept of an “international society” that derives from the period in modern history in which Britain played a more prominent role in international politics. Because trends in scholarship do, in fact, reflect national political experience, the need continues for transnational cooperation among scholars in the quest for strong theories in international relations.

scholarly journals Mechanism, process and the wider context of economic geography

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie MacLeavy
Keyword(s):  
Reflective Practice ◽  
Economic Geography ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Critical Realism ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Transformative Change ◽  
Methodological Development ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Critical Realist ◽  
Analytical Approaches

This commentary responds to Henry Wai-chung Yeung’s call to develop clearer causal explanations in geography through mechanism-based thinking. His suggested use of a critical realist framework to ground geographical research on economies is, on one level, appealing and may help to counteract taken-for-granted assumptions about socio-spatial conditions and the significance of economic structures for everyday lived experiences. However, the general lack of applied critical realist research means the distinction between ‘mechanism’ and ‘process’ is often difficult to define in analyses of specific empirical events or geographical episodes. Not only is there a need for methodological development but, I suggest, also for greater recognition of critical realism as a reflective practice. We need to consider the means by which scholars distinguish between contingent and necessary relations, identify structures and counterfactuals and infer how mechanisms work out in particular places. The critical realist goal of advancing transformative change through the provision of causal explanation relies upon inferences made on the basis of researcher experience. Hence, we need to recognise that research is always a political practice and be careful not to discount knowledge borne from other analytical approaches.

scholarly journals International studies in an unpredictable world: still avoiding the difficult problems?

2020 ◽  
pp. 135406612094812
Author(s):  
Ivan Fomin ◽  
Konstantin Kokarev ◽  
Boris Ananyev ◽  
Nikita Neklyudov ◽  
Anzhelika Bondik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Difficult Problem ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Predictive Research

We revisit and empirically evaluate crucial yet under-examined arguments articulated in “God Gave Physics the Easy Problems” (2000), the authors of which emphasized that, in International Relations (IR) predictions, predominant nomothetic approaches should be supplemented with concrete scenario thinking. We test whether the IR predictive toolkit is in fact dominated by nomothetic generalizations and, more broadly, map the methodological profile of this subfield. We build on the TRIP database, supplementing it with extensive original coding to operationalize the nuances of predictive research. In particular, we differentiate between nomoscopic predictions (predictive generalizations) and idioscopic predictions (predictions for concrete situations), showing that this distinction is not reducible to other methodological cleavages. We find that even though in contemporary IR an increasing number of articles seek to provide predictions, they consistently avoid predictions about concrete situations. The proportion of idioscopic predictions is stably small, with an even smaller proportion of predictions that develop concrete narratives or specify any determinate time period. Furthermore, those idioscopic studies are mostly limited to a niche with specialized themes and aims. Thus, our research shows that the critical claims from 20 years ago are still relevant for contemporary IR, as the “difficult problem” of developing predictive scenarios is still consistently overlooked in favor of other objectives. Ultimately, the types of predictions that IR scholars develop depend on their specific aims and constraints, but the discipline-wide result is a situation in which international studies’ ambition to provide predictions grows, but they tend to reproduce the same limitations as they did in 2000.

Contemporary Issues and Christian Models of Integration: Into the Modern/Postmodern Age

1995 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Ingram
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Model Building ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Comprehensive View ◽  
The Past ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Dsm Iv

Model building in Christian psychology has gradually become increasingly outdated and unsophisticated over the past decade, particularly in light of postmodern challenges to the limitations of received modern scientific perspectives and social practices. The present article draws from Rychlak's (1993) “complementarity” model, Sperry's (1993) “bidirectional determinism” concept, and Engel's (1977) biopsychosocial formulation to develop a multiperspectival, holistic framework drawing on the strengths of both modern and postmodern approaches. The proposed model includes inferences from both top down and bottom up formulations, as well as potential for interactions between or among any of the various “groundings” for psychological theories. Such a model seems more faithful to both biblical and scientific perspectives, and thus may provide a more accurate and comprehensive view of persons to facilitate more effective research and treatment. A clinical example is provided with DSM-IV descriptive and criterion referents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document