[Table of contents]
Post-cold war literature in international relations lacks a consensus on theory and agreement on methodology, and has therefore restricted itself to a purely empirical or descriptive approach. Even though it can be argued that such approaches now fill the gaps in international relations which existed during the cold war era, I argue that we cannot do without theory and a methodology. It is methodology that gives theory a concrete meaning. On the other hand, methodology without theory will result in mere observation of no analytical power.
Despite differences in predictive capacity both the natural and social sciences derive a hypothesis in the same way. They attempt to reorganise existent phenomena into a meaningful body of knowledge, within which a theory establishes how and why certain patterns exist. Both accept established knowledge on which a methodology is built. This is what should bring us both closer to truth. It is evident that for the political scientist, especially for those who study international relations, the record is not so impressive. The truth is that we seem to regress much more often than our colleagues in the natural sciences. This is so because we face the dilemmas of objectivity, terminology, and the problem of quantification of qualitative factors, as well as difficulty in searching for recurring patterns in a complex world. It cannot be denied that political science theory has provided us with important insights. Yet, citing Marxism as an obvious example, political theory failed to forecast actual events accurately. Revolutions in capitalist societies have not occurred, rather the opposite has happened. One of the questions that needs to be addressed is whether one can disregard such a theory because it has either been proved wrong or because it appears to have no more relevance to the present. Can and should we confidently close the chapter on theories that have failed in their predictions and regard them as history? Doing so would justify discarding most of the developed theories in our discipline. A good starting point for a post-methodology is that we ask ourselves why theories have failed to predict, and whether we can blame the unexpected changes in the global political system for their failure. It is my conviction that the failure lies in the various methodologies and theories based solely on the stability of the Cold War era.
Asking such questions should be done from a perspective that does not solely view 'our discipline' as the questioning of fact and attribution of value. We need to accept the essential dichotomy of science and the humanities. The natural sciences operate with value free knowledge of the natural world, whereas in the social world, the observer explores the meanings and potential meanings for him or herself and how one should relate the problem to the world or to one's fellows.
International Relations theory has, with scientific vigour, attempted to explain the behaviour and structures of the international order. While it is deductive, even though the linkage with reality is not obvious (Kaplan), it does provide for taxonomies and classificatory schemes (Easton), it provides for analysis of rational behaviour, it has attempted to set propositions on behaviour inductively, and it seeks to establish norms and values that address the question of ethical behaviour. After all, the traditional use of International Relations theory is as a basis for advising the states person.
Theory here has its role in understanding, evaluating and, in its essence, predicting, since furthering knowledge derives from hypotheses which have implications for the future. Brown suggests that "what makes ideas theory is that they are indeed speculation purporting to explain why something happened, not that they can be stated in formal mathematical terms or are empirically testable" (Brown 1992: 8). He then contests that "[i]n debates such as these we are admittedly in the realm of speculation - informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless - which, in conventional wisdom is the essence of theory" (Brown 1992: 10).
The rationale should be that proper methods need to be applied to the proper questions to avoid global statements about international politics (Kaplan 1968) in our search for post-theories. Things change and so do our perceptions.
Modern theoreticians are now beginning to review their theoretical fallacies, in order to come up with solutions which predict more accurately. Yet, how can one be sure that the model constructed will not be yet another one that has limited scope? We should not miss this opportunity to review the difficulties that the social scientist encounters in the creation of models, frameworks and methodologies.
This is why today, the political scientist needs to create a mental map to simplify this complex, post-cold war order in order that research approaches can be rectified. Before embarking on the discussion of approaches to international relations, we need to highlight the characteristics of current, related theory.
The study of International Relations accepts the political order as the central organising framework, where theory and methodology can be divided roughly into four characteristics.
Two methods are possible. The easier option is to reject all previous approaches, having proved them wrong, and finally to end up with a grand, yet ambiguous declaration describing another post-methodology. Then there is the more difficult and laborious route which is the approach to post-methodology that I advocate: to examine previous approaches again: to ask ourselves why they did not work, how these previous methods could work, and finally whether and how we can complement them.
In line with all other approaches in international theories (1), Morton Kaplan was also of the opinion that a scientific approach and a proper methodology aims to forecast. He realised the difficulty of using theory to anticipate actions and maintained that one could only predict general characteristics of the international system provided it was stable (Kaplan 1957).
From one end of a continuum in International Relations theory (which is Morgenthau's power based approach) three facets of international relations theory will be discussed: Firstly, the behavioural approach, secondly the structural approach and thirdly the interdependence approach in Integration theory. The rationale for discussing the first two is that each of these approaches takes a different view of the world and shares the aim of scientific reasoning with the goal of prediction. Their differing and rigorous methodologies can be effectively juxtaposed in order to most effectively demonstrate the complexity of each. I will conclude with Integration theory because it is not based on a power motive, as are the realist schools such as Morgenthau's, and its ambition to deal with dynamic factors adds a further dimension to the previous discussion. In taking this focus, I will look at the goals and visions, the problems and difficulties of the respective methodologies in order to explain their failure to predict. Post-methodology does not mean abandoning what has been constructed but setting 'signposts' in the search for a flexible methodology. These 'signposts' are needed to tie the empirical research into a conceptual framework.
Hence behaviouralists, with their narrow focus on variables, often found themselves buried in an avalanche of them. Failing to rely on a hypothesis, as part of a scientific approach, meant that a change in the direction and importance of those variables could not be accommodated. In the end the behaviouralist approach also offers an excellent example of the butterfly trap that has been encountered in the meteorological sciences. This explores how the minutest events can change outcomes so that the fluttering of an innocent butterfly flying through New York could produce a hurricane in Chicago. Or expressed in political terms, Bush's innocent stomach ache could have had an effect on the formulation of Japanese foreign policy.
Just as the natural scientist has for a long time realised that both regularity and randomness exist in the real world, so it should be realised that political science operates within a similar unpredictability. This is why we cannot expect to explain phenomena, which derive from infinite variables of interaction, with great accuracy. The overemphasis on measurable behaviour cannot fulfil the aims of our discipline, and this should be taken into account by our methodology.
Borrowing its fundamental tenets from the sciences (3), systems theory can be classified into several types that differ in foci. It offers a structural analysis of systems to achieve a more coherent and stable study of problems posed. On the basis of general systems theory (4), systems are categorised as a whole of functions by virtue of interconnectedness (Rapoport in Buckley n.d.: 17). Having defined a set of elements or objects as a whole, systems theory is then used to describe conceptual frameworks and methodologies for understanding the operations by and within them (5).
Eastons's input-output analysis set the basis for further developments in this approach. It focused on domestic demands and support measures by government while allowing for the fact that a political system will respond to changes in the environment, and subsequently have an impact on a demand, which will in turn alter the political system again (Eastons 1965). His notion of a conceptual framework (Eastons 1953: 53- 59) is one which encompasses a series of integrated and consistent propositions that are easily adoptable. He recognises the need to make this complex environment more lucid, and thus to condense major significant environmental influences (Eastons 1953: 12). Inputs are the summary representations of influences in terms of political stress. Political stress tests the responses of the political system. Simply put, when political stress causes a breakdown of response, then the system fails. Easton focuses on the link between information and human interaction and/or on the societal implication of interaction and the corresponding systems management which legitimises the selection of only a few of the most important variables. The output, as a logical consequence of processed inputs, is the outflow of the system which comprises the decisions and actions of the authorities (Eastons 1953: 28). The provision of a feedback loop, which responds to the environment, and hence the system, completes the analysis.
International systems analysis seeks a very similar definitional approach using general systems theory. In a top down approach assuming unobservable yet existing patterns, empirical evidence is organised to project into the future in order to assess the durability of systems and their effect on structures. Kaplan's definition exemplifies the scientific approach of a system in action in world politics in that he establishes a set of variables which are so distinctive that they become describable behavioural regularities and hence connect the internal relationships of the set of individual variables to combinations of external variables (Kaplan 1964: 4). Behaviour in the international system falls into patterns and therefore, changes the system if it is unstable.
Kaplan described five different types of systems in terms of elements, outputs and outcomes. In terms of theoretical mapping, Kaplan's work was an attempt to forecast in abstract terms. This made its application to reality difficult and ambivalent to both students and practitioners and hence it proved only of limited utility. His emphasis on the system itself, derived from his focus on the organisation of decision-making, aimed for greater flexibility and adaptability and provided scope for forecasting the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately, his theoretical mapping did not make use of an accepted terminology. This becomes apparent when he uses the term dominating subsystem in his analysis of the bipolar system. One might contradict Kaplan, in that a logical result of dominating subsystems would be the erosion of a bipolar system giving rise to a new system (Kaplan 1964: 4).
More fundamentally, it appears that methodological problems occur as a result of his assumption that only inputs (processes within the state) shape the international system, whereas in parallel the international system is affected by the environmental influences. Failing to define the boundaries between those two essential units of systems analysis obscured the logic of Kaplan's theory and, for that reason, it lacked foresight. Numerous attempts have been made to clarify the methodology of the systems approach. For example, Charles McClelland (McClelland 1965) advocates that identification, measurement and examination within the system and subsystem should be isolated to allow a theoretical insight into the nature of interdependence (of the national and international system), but his focus on the nation state, or "anything outside the black box", limits his approach.
Richard Rosencrance (1963), on the other hand, takes an a posteriori approach to systems theory. He places past events in systems language to describe interactions and outcomes. Even though it is difficult to follow his hypothesis, since his historical observations were not conclusively linked to the present and therefore had little relevance to the future, his arguments are easily followed as he makes use of a common terminology - that of systems theory.
Waltz (1979) attempts to reshape Kaplan's theory. Stipulating that one should specify what the system comprises of, and that one should indicate the comparative weights of systemic and subsystemic causes which would show how forces and effects change from one system to another, he advocated a demarcation between the units and systems. His premise was that the distribution of a state's capabilities would shape the system and that the system imposed limits on state action. He maintained that only the structure of the system and its changes will have an impact on the capabilities of states (or units). However, the changes that are associated with the international world order have derived from a shift of capabilities amongst units. Hence a concentration on the international system could not anticipate that the structure of the Cold War system would change. This is exemplified by Waltz' premise that bipolarity would survive, which he expressed in terms of the principle of industrial economics, the oligopolistic concept of market entry (Geddis 1992: 33). His methodological pitfall was quite similar to his colleagues: rejecting a fundamental change in the structure, he allowed the system bipolarity change in its quality, but still based it on conflict, which again, obscured the logic of the theory.
It becomes clear then, that since method dominated the subject the authors fell prey to systemic theory. This was due to the concentration on a individual foci in their analyses; on either certain structures and units, on the multiple combinations of interactions in systems, or even on a rigid separation of systems from their sub-units. The failure to look beyond this meant the failure of a theory that, in terms of its methodology, appeared logical but produced limited conclusions.
Referring back to its scientific origins, the image of feedback (offering a complete causal linkage model) presents a dilemma for a methodology which aims to examine a dynamic. Feedback puts systems theory in a constant state of flux. Further, the idea that systems can operate over time implies that we need to describe them at various times, so that we locate the variable changes which give rise to their new succeeding states (Geddis 1992: 4). This does not provide us with an easy option. The practitioner of such a proposed methodology is caught in a circle and is forced to establish a definite time frame in the analysis. The establishment of a time frame of analysis is an issue that has recently come under review. It is argued that the use of a static model that fails to account for flux and flexibility fails also to account for vital elements of temporal dynamics that affects institutions, culture and the changing patterns of actions of the individual as autonomous variables.
Four issues should be considered in the establishment of a more comprehensive integration approach: Firstly, there is debate as to whether one can or should accept the concept of a sui generis type of European integration. The avoidance of generalisation has been criticised. Indeed, there is a case for investigating the causes of international integration more thoroughly and in a microcosmic way that would allow a comparative approach (6). Yet the sui generis assumption of a community does not preclude the consideration of micro methodology. In fact it helps to focus on the selection of independent variables.
This leads to the second problem: the most fundamental concern in this body of research lies in the selection of dependent and independent variables. In the interests of prediction, ambiguity results from choosing fictional or hypothetical types of dependant variables, since "the postulated conditions have not yet come about anywhere, at least in the contemporary world" (7).
In the choice of the independent variable one faces a similar problem to that which the behaviouralist encountered. In order to avoid this, a normative approach needs to be applied by identifying the most salient variables. The integration of evaluative concepts in the body of integration theory could contribute to a coherent and explanatory approach (8). Furthermore, the search for methods that can encapsulate variables of bargaining in a more holistic method, should include a look at behaviourism.
Thirdly, since Integration theoreticians have attempted to account for the dynamic aspect of time, they should not disregard the structuralist method in selecting a time frame for their methodology. The latter would also profit from a similar common terminology to that which is used so effectively in the structuralist approach.
Finally, the failure to describe the process of intergovernmental supranational bargaining resulted in their not accounting for factors which determine the policy responses of governments and other political and economic actors. This gives a rationale for reconsidering, in a more focused manner, the complexities of linkage of the domestic environment both within, and especially across, the member states (Webb in Wallace et al. 1989: esp. pg 38). This would support the use of Carlsnaes' notion, of the agent structure approach as a neutral framework, as a frame of reference since it is based on the scientific realist notion that "in so far as causal mechanism in society can be both objective or subjective, the social scientist cannot afford to limit himself or herself to either outside or inside stories" (Carlsnaes 1994: 285 -286).
The end of the Cold war has had important unanticipated implications for European integration which will, in turn, have an important impact on the new world order. This is what makes reassessment and proper methodologies a matter of urgency.
This failure of international relations theory, argues Geddis, is "because of a methodological passing of ships in the night" (Geddis 1992: 53). While the social sciences were moving to apply a 'hard science' approach, natural scientists have 'softened' by recognising the importance of new theories that accommodate irregular and unpredictable phenomena.
In using the classic scientific method, we will always face the impossible task of attempting to measure the uncertain and erratic effects produced by human behaviour and the processes of the real world. Locking ourselves into one approach and one methodology is not a solution to this difficulty. Doing so will always create the danger of excluding variables which could have some importance in further hypotheses. We may be political scientists but we are also human beings trying to deal with complex occurrences. Our perceptions will be different, and so will our methodologies, and hence our results. Viewing the world in its complexity, we need to realise that our knowledge is imperfect and to use multiple methods that are already available to further our knowledge.
Behaviouralists who pursued a methodology which was over disciplined, structuralists who have viewed impressionistically, and either did not divide the data into clear units of analysis or focused on only one unit of analysis, both in a condition of stasis, along with scholars of integration who faced difficulties in selecting, defining, and linking quantifiable variables on the shaky grounds of dynamism, have all one problem in common: one-dimensionality. The constraint of including oneself in the methodology of international relations, abstaining from the question of how one can relate the world to the parameters of "me", "you", "us" and "them", has limited the vision of the international relations scholar.
While confronting these theoretical problems, we want to create a model of observability. The processes of our future knowledge need to be variable and flexible, and can only be rigorous as far as we have knowledge of our problems. Since we do not understand the post-cold war order, we must review the forces and methodologies which failed to forecast it. We should agree that some discipline needs to guide us so that we can systematically explore and prepare ourselves for the future. For this reason I urge that we ask the same question all over again and use the developed methods within a more critical approach, while at the same time in a harmonious and non competitive manner. Yet while realising that methodologies cannot simply be put together, they can complement each other, in order to arrive at a multidimensional and flexible methodology. This is how the differing approaches and methodologies of International Relations theory can benefit each other from within the discipline. Thus, the political scientist has to gain the confidence that her/his approach is scientific, while one does need to rely on more than the rigor and purity that the natural scientist pursues in his/her methods.
Thus the post-cold war brings good news to the international relations scholar: there is scope for a post-methodology to fulfil the aims of our discipline, while the bad news is that this is a process which should derive from our own discipline.
The author would like to acknowledge Prof. Moxon-Browne and Paul Bowe M.Sc. for their valuable comments and support. Many thanks to the Trinity Postgraduate Sociology group, particularly Roland Tormey, who organised this unique postgraduate conference. For most helpful assistance in the editing, many thanks to Roland Tormey, Anne Good and Carol MacKeogh.
(Note 2) This was the Correlates of War Project at the University of Michigan. [Back]
(Note 3) Defined as "the comparative study of automatic communication and control in functions of living bodies and in mechanical and electric systems". Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (1979 edition). [Back]
(Note 4) General systems theory focuses on the link of information and human interaction and/or on the societal implication of interaction and the corresponding systems management. See Boulding 1956. [Back]
(Note 5) For an introduction and overview of systems theory see 1972: 103 [Back]
(Note 6) An example of this would be the nature of fundamental social actors, their preferences and the constraints they face in order to describe the determinants of choice: see Moravscik (1993: 477), Lindberg and Scheingold (n.d.: 284) and Haas in Lindberg and Scheingold (n.d.: 27). [Back]
(Note 7) Nye's, Schmitter's, and Puchala's efforts in doing so prove the operationality of such an approach. [Back]
(Note 8) See Haas (n.d.: 33), and his notion of pre-theory [Back]