Applying concepts in international relations: The language of causal explanation in high- and low-graded concept-application essays

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 ◽  
pp. 113-126
Author(s):  
Gordon Myskow ◽  
Paul R. Underwood
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Concept Application ◽  
Application Essays

Causes of a divided discipline: rethinking the concept of cause in International Relations theory

2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
MILJA KURKI
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Constitutive Theory ◽  
Ir Theory

During the last decades ‘causation’ has been a deeply divisive concept in International Relations (IR) theory. While the positivist mainstream has extolled the virtues of causal analysis, many post-positivist theorists have rejected the aims and methods of causal explanation in favour of ‘constitutive’ theorising. It is argued here that the debates on causation in IR have been misleading in that they have been premised on, and have helped to reify, a rather narrow empiricist understanding of causal analysis. It is suggested that in order to move IR theorising forward we need to deepen and broaden our understandings of the concept of cause. Thereby, we can radically reinterpret the causal-constitutive theory divide in IR, as well as redirect the study of world politics towards more constructive multi-causal and complexity-sensitive analyses.

Forum: Interrogating the use of norms in international relations: postcolonial perspectives

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Epstein ◽  
Ayse Zarakol ◽  
Julia Gallagher ◽  
Robbie Shilliam ◽  
Vivienne Jabri
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Object Relations Theory ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Norm Diffusion ◽  
Homi Bhabha ◽  
The World ◽  
Interpretive Communities ◽  
Situated Perspective

In this forum five scholars bring their particular postcolonial perspectives to bear upon the constructivist concept of norms. Charlotte Epstein introduces the forum by considering what it means to theorise international politics from a postcolonial perspective, understood not as a unified body of thought or a new ‘ism’ for IR, but as a ‘situated perspective’; and how this casts a different light upon the makings of international orders and key epistemological schemes with which these have been studied in International Relations (IR), such as norms. In her contribution Ayze Zarakol argues that the constructivist paradigm of ‘norm diffusion’ commits two fallacies: first, it mishandles the causal explanation because it conflates internalisation, socialisation and compliance. Second it reproduces existing international social hierarchies by treating (bad) non-compliance by non-Western actors as endogenously driven, and (good) compliance as the result of external Western stimuli. She uses Erving Goffman’s concept of stigmatisation to show how our understanding of norm diffusion in the international order – or lack thereof – can be improved. Julia Gallagher’s article examines the norm of good governance as acted out by the World Bank in its policies towards African countries. She uses psychoanalytic object relations theory to show how the Bank employs good governance to structure the world into good and bad objects, thereby overcoming internal ambiguity and creating an idealised self-image. Robbie Shlliam’s contribution challenges constructivism to attend to calls for epistemic justice regarding the delineation of interpretive communities to the ostensibly “moderns”. He does so by explicating the understandings of slavery provided by knowledge traditions inhabited by descendants of enslaved Africans. Vivienne Jabri’s article mobilises Homi Bhabha and Frantz Fanon in a critical engagement with constructivist readings of postcolonial agency in the normative ordering of the international. She argues that a postcolonial reading of the international must account for both the discursive and material presence of the postcolonial subject, a presence at once both constituted and constituting of the international.

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 Causation in International Relations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam R. C. Humphreys
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Causal Knowledge ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Full Picture ◽  
Philosophical Texts ◽  
The Relationship

Causal claims are bound into the fabric of international relations (IR). Efforts to explain past outcomes, to predict future developments, to comprehend the range of options open to international actors, to advance policy prescriptions, and to evaluate policy decisions vis-à-vis possible alternatives all typically rely, explicitly or implicitly, on causal claims. Moreover, politicians, policymakers, and other state and nonstate actors who seek to manipulate particular aspects of world politics are also (whether they realize it or not) typically acting on causal claims. Acquiring reliable causal knowledge is therefore extremely valuable. It is, however, a challenging task. The content of causal claims is shaped not only by relevant facts about the world, but also by ideas about causation itself—for example, about what ‘causing’ is, about the kinds of things that can be causes (and effects), about how causes can be identified, and about what constitutes an adequate Causal Explanation. These are tricky and controversial issues which are often submerged below the surface of our thinking. The challenge of arriving at a clear understanding is reflected in the divisions within work which explicitly engages with questions about causation in IR, divisions which are also found within the philosophical literature on which this work draws. It is also reflected in the tendency, within the broader discipline, to set questions about causation to one side, either because they are viewed as too hard to answer or because it is not obvious how answering them will improve our knowledge of world politics. In order to gain a full picture of debates about causation in IR and their implications for substantive topics it is helpful to explore three broad kinds of literature: first, the philosophical texts which provide the backdrop against which discussions of causation in IR take place; second, existing debates about causation in IR, encompassing both mainstream discussions of methods for causal inference and more specialist literatures on causal realism, the nature of causal explanation, and the relationship between historical and causal inquiry; and third, literature in IR which explicitly examines how positions on underlying questions about causation can and do shape positions on substantive topics in IR.

Rethinking Logic of Inference and Explanation in the Field of International Relations

Politics ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 162-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Soo Eun
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Political Behaviour ◽  
Deductive Logic ◽  
Reasoning Strategy ◽  
State Behaviour

This article provides an investigation of the conventional logic of inference that underlies the search for a causal explanation of social and political behaviour, including state behaviour, in world politics. It proposes an alternative reasoning strategy which can complement the traditional (inductive and deductive) logic of inference. In addition, the article enters into a discussion of how the proposed alternative can make theoretical contributions to obtaining a better understanding of the complex reality of world politics.

Theory, history, and great transformations

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 422-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Reus-Smit
Keyword(s):  
Boundary Condition ◽  
International Relations ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
International Order ◽  
Order System ◽  
Large Scale Systems ◽  
Global Modernity ◽  
Fundamental Boundary

In International Relations arguments abouthistoricalorigins provoketheoreticaldebates, as origins assume an emergent theoretical unit of inquiry – an international order, system, society, etc. – while at the same time defining its core properties and dynamics. By boldly casting the long 19th century as the origin of global modernity and, in turn, the modern international order, Buzan and Lawson’sThe Global Transformationchallenges the romance with Westphalia that undergirds so much of our theorizing. Yet, the contributions to this symposium push deeper than usual, challenging established ways of conceiving change, and suggesting very different models ofpropertheorizing. While all of the papers ostensibly debate large-scale systems change, three modes of change are in contention: breakpoint, evolutionary, and processual. The further one pushes towards the latter, however, the more elusive the idea of ‘system’ becomes, eroding the fundamental boundary condition that undergirds the systemic mode of theorizing that dominates the field. Similarly, a persistent theme in these contributions is Buzan and Lawson’s purported failure to theorize change. But instead of offering rival theories, contributors advance very different conceptions oftheorizing, from pre-observational conceptualization to causal explanation. This not only challenges the field to reflect more systematically on the process of theorizing, but to acknowledge forms of theorizing that it currently brackets.

Towards the politics of causal explanation: a reply to the critics of causal inquiries

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 400-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milja Kurki ◽  
Hidemi Suganami
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
Reflective Approach ◽  
Sticking Point

Causal inquiry has been a controversial matter in International Relations scholarship in recent years. While many new ‘non-positivist’ stances on causal analysis have been developed in recent years, many post-positivist and critical theorists in the discipline have remained unconvinced of the virtues of causal inquiry. Crucially, the political consequences of causal analysis seem to be a sticking point for many such critics. Yet, the politics of causal analysis are, we argue, complex and relatively poorly engaged with at present. Indeed, the arguments against causal analysis, which rely on warnings concerning the political nature of causal analysis, are inadequate and incomplete. We contend here that causal analysis is, indeed, political but that this does not mean that we should not engage in causal inquiry. On the contrary, we argue that this is what makes causal inquiry interesting and important in social science. A more nuanced and reflective approach to dealings with the politics of causal analysis is needed, and it is such a response that we provoke critics of causal analysis to consider.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document