Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Positivist Approaches (I.E., Scientific Methods) To Studying International Relations
Positivist Approaches (I.E., Scientific Methods) To Studying International Relations
, SCIENTIFIC METHODS) TO
STUDYING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
International Relations is not methodologically specific in the sense of raising issues of
theories. The classical approaches to international relations were informed more by
history and law than by natural science. It seems that the initial stage of the study of
International Relations has seen too much of the conceptual dimensions rather than the
explanatory ones. Thus, it would be fair to claim that positivist approaches opened the
floodgate of scientific method of explanation in International Relations, where the
success or failure of predictions was the key to identifying the causal correlation
between variables. Here we may perforce encounter a question: is positivism the
legitimate method of explanation in International Relations?
On this basis, finding an answer for the foregoing question, this paper seeks to assess
the positivism to the field by examining its implications for scientific methodology of
International Relations. The structure of the argument is to assess both positive and
negative aspects of positivist approaches taking classical and normative approach into
account following brief elucidation of the notion of positivism. It would be cardinal to
note that positivism has enormously influenced the field primarily because it has
impinged upon what the discipline could talk about. However, my argument would be
that it is not less important to highlight the normative aspects of International Relations
that have been marginalized by positivism.
1
Second, there is a distinction between facts and values. It was thought that the positivist
should approach the facts in an unprejudiced frame of mind and that the facts would
present themselves to the viewer in an uncomplicated way. Third, there has been a
powerful belief in the existence of regularities in the social as well as the natural world.
Finally, there has been a reliance on the belief in empirical validation or falsification.
Thus, positivism in International Relations has tended to involve a commitment to a
natural science methodology, tied to an empiricist epistemology. In other words, it is a
methodological view that combines naturalism with a belief in regularities, just in
contrast with the classical approaches that see the subject as akin to history by taking
notice of the actor’s motivation or intention in the social and institutional framework.
2
circumstances. In this sense, positivism provided International Relations with scientific
approaches that aimed to uncover general patterns of international affairs through
observation of facts and validation by the test. Third, this logical positivism has been
extended to some more moderate ways of approach in International Relations. Some
positivists also permit perceptions and other psychological states such as hostility that
are not directly observable. Especially in the field of International Relations, even
observation need interpreting before it can be counted on. On this view, positivist
approach requires that we specify and differentiate the sources of our explanation. In
other words, positivism in international relations has permitted some considerable
measure of interpretation into international events. Moreover, some would even argue
that “intuition” would convey a sense of the unobservable relations of the subject
matters. In either case, the essential process of validation and generalization as a
scientific method would be salient. Fourth, the positivist approach has cleared the way
for the development of International Relations theories. I assume that positivism has
possibility of universality to be applied any International Relations theory in some way
or another. Actually, positivist belief in generalization yielded quantification and
rational choice theory, which has been applied to strategic analysis such as the Game
theory framework or peace research. I also feel entitled to see neo-realism as being
based upon positivism in that it generalizes the pattern of state behavior.
Positivism characterized International Relations theories that saw the world as a set of
ready-made facts awaiting discovery through the application of scientific methodology.
Especially for the logical positivist, perception of the facts is quite independent of the
specific social framework in which it takes place. In other words, positivists normally
work within communities with common sets of premises, assumptions, criteria and
techniques. They are all premised on a strong distinction between facts and values. On
this view, scientific judgments are to be understood in contrast with value judgments
that are held to be subjective, relative or conventional. There is no possible verification
for value judgments for positivists. As is argued by critical theorists, however, facts in
International Relations are social and historical products partly determined by the
3
human actions and ideas and therefore cannot confirm or falsify our theories in the way
that positivism maintains. In this context, facts have to be interpreted. We have to
determine what is to count as a relevant fact in the light of the concepts we use.
In this context, positivists’ methodology cannot be wholly value-free. Of course, when
positivists argue in favor of a value-free, neutral and objective science, they do not
necessarily mean that values play no role in motivating research. What they mean is that
scientist should act as an impartial judge in terms of which specific theories and
explanations are accepted. In my view, however, value orientations might influence the
way in which the facts are perceived. Value helps to build structures that support some
lifestyles and kills other forms of life. For example, rational-choice analysis will depend
much on the extent to which people accept its rules to guide their behavior.
Then to what extent are value orientations important in International Relations? First of
all, what are dealing with in the first place in international relations are actions in the
arena of world politics. While actors’ perceptions are not completely determined, this
does not mean that perceptions are not caused. They would be best understood as
conditional to a large extent. Actors inhabit a world in which their interpretations and
assessments based on the language they use are largely socially constructed. Hence, the
investigator must understand the language of the actors. We experience the world only
through languages that are already theoretical. In order to do this, he must understand as
a whole the social practice within which the actions take place. This in turn requires that
he learn what would count as a mistake within the practice and therefore understand the
value systems of those actions in the practice. This values underlying the practice is
often highly contested. Hence, the investigator must become involved in substantive
normative approach.
A few words should be added about the positivists’ limitation. Since International
Relations theory is involved in deciding what the facts are, there is room for choice
when we decide whether the theory at stake is consistent with them. While positivist
believes in the possibility of generalization, its methodology does not necessarily
guarantee a coherent basis for theorization. In fact, the generalization about human
behavior may be unstable and the patterns of behavior may be fluid. Thus, if we
excessively persist in adopting positivist approaches, we may run the risk of fettering
our perspectives to analyze the international events.
4
5. Conclusion
5
[Bibliography]
Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve eds, International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1995)
Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve, Explaining and Understanding International Relations
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)
Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken, and Zalewski, Marysia eds., International theory: positivism
and beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)
Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
1979)