Triangulating Debates Within the Field: Teaching International Relations Research

Methodology
Author(s): Peter Howard
Source: International Studies Perspectives , November 2010, Vol. 11, No. 4 (November
2010), pp. 393-408
Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44218697

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Studies Perspectives

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
International Studies Perspectives (2010) 11, 393-408.

Triangulating Debates Within the Field:

Teaching International Relations Research
Methodology
Peter Howard1
American University

Undergraduate introductory methods courses offer a unique opportu-

nity to bring methodological pluralism to the field by teaching students
multiple approaches to research. This article presents one way to orga-
nize an introductory undergraduate research methods course. By focus-
ing on central debates between methodological approaches on issues of
causality, context, and essentialism, an instructor can introduce positiv-
ism, interpretivism, and relationalism as distinct, coherent methodologi-
cal approaches to research. Depicting these three debates and three
approaches graphically on a triangle can illuminate some core method-
ological debates within the field today. It also illuminates the methodo-
logical underpinnings of many of the discipline's theoretical debates.

Keywords: teaching, methodology, relationalism, interpretiv-

ism, positivism

While the "high politics" of methodological debates within the field play out in
the pages of top journals, the "low politics" of methodological debates reside in
the curriculum design of introductory undergraduate methods courses. These
courses serve as critical junctures in the education of both future scholars and
the much wider group of future readers of scholarship, where students learn
how to discern, evaluate, and construct knowledge claims, evidence-based argu-
ments, and methodologically sound work. However, a generic version of this
course, using a generic textbook as its guide, typically presents a very narrow pic-
ture of both the discipline of international relations and contemporary social sci-
ence methodology. Given calls for expanding methodological pluralism within
the discipline (Monroe 2005), it is important to introduce students to different
ways scholars are presently doing research without a priori privileging one over
the other. Such an approach accomplishes two important pedagogical goals:
equipping students to critically read, evaluate, and appreciate scholarship from a
range of methodological approaches, and empowering students to locate them-
selves in a particular methodological camp so that they may then learn to

Author's note : Special thanks are due to all of the students in my Introduction to International Relations
Research classes at American University's School of International Service for whom this triangle was developed. An
earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the International Studies Association
Northeast. The views expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the US govern-
ment.

^eter Howard is currently an AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow at the US Departmen
is also an adjunct assistant professor in the School of International Service at American University.

doi: 10.1111/j.l528-3585.2010.00413.x
© 2010 International Studies Association

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
394 Tńangulating Debates Within the Field

produce coherent scholarship. Students are empowered by learning the to

language, and skills to ask questions and design research projects consistent w
their philosophical approach to knowledge. Making these implicit commitmen
to knowledge explicit allows students to develop an understanding of t
possibilities as well as limits of their chosen approach to research.
As Schwartz-Shae and Yanow (2002) observe, "an exclusive emphasis on p
tivist epistemology limits students' capacity for questioning what is worthwhil
know - with a consequent skewing (or even stultifying) effect on the kinds
research questions students learn to pose. Or, it leaves those asking such ques
tions in a weak position absent philosophical and methodological arguments t
support their case." This is the story of one attempt to enact these goals in
classroom - the syllabus of my undergraduate Introduction to International Re
tions Research course. In that course, I teach three major approaches t
research methodology within contemporary international relations in relation
one another, as if in a sustained scholarly conversation that illuminates impo
tant debates within the field. This approach offers a different way to introd
students to methodology in a way that is intended to both better serve studen
and better serve the long-term health of the field that some of these studen
may eventually join.
In introducing approaches to research methodology, it is important to reca
that we as scholars typically define "research" as the production of "knowledg
Any discussion of different approaches to research draws on longstanding deb
in ontology and epistemology - what we can know about the world and how
can know it. The goal of methodology is not to resolve these intellectually p
debates, but rather to start from a particular position and articulate what exa
"counts" as knowledge, how claims about that knowledge are arbitrated, and w
one must demonstrate with evidence to produce knowledge.
Within a given methodological framework, then, various methods can be d
cussed and those techniques of gathering information about the world ca
put into context of the methodologies they serve. Some methods can be used
different ways to make different points, depending on the methodolo
employed. For example, archival research is a well-established method in inte
national relations research. However, archival documents can be used by
number of scholars in a number of ways in service of a number of differen
methodologies. An archival record could be part of a process-tracing of a
foreign policy decision, it could be part of a case study that tests a hypothesis
it could be an example of a discourse to analyze (George and McKeown 1
Van Evera 1997; Hansen 2006). It does not mean that archival work must serv
one or the other; rather, going to the archives is a method of research t
requires a methodology to tell the researcher how to make sense of the inform
tion - in this case the documents - found in the archives.
My approach is premised on the notion that in contemporary international
relations research there are three dominant methodological approaches to schol-
arship in the discipline. The ideal-type version of each methodology can be iden-
tified by its position on three debates. The debates allow us to "triangulate"
these three positions. Recall the way an ideal type works - no one researcher
actually takes these positions in a pure form, rather they approach them as a
function approaches a limit. We evaluate scholarship by holding it up to the
ideal, assessing its convergences and divergences, and understanding its relation-
ship to the ideal type (Weber 1968). To triangulate the position of each type
within the field, I will outline three debates. Each debate involves a two-step
discussion. First is a yes/no distinction between those willing to commit to the
position and those who are not. Second is a debate among members on
the "yes" side on how that position is defined. Three positions on each issue
are presented and illustrated graphically. When combined, they form a

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter Howard 395

methodological triangle for in

useful as a pedagogical tool.
illuminates "research design
publications' ' (Skocpol 1994
The focus on research des
research starts with posing q
ent design for answering que
triangle when it is connect
assignment for the class, stu
produce three short research
odological camp identified o
methodological implications
each position. Using a comm
contrasting types of know
assignments allow students to
This triangle is meant to in
the discipline in the context
debates, multiple methodolog
not meant to argue for a rad
to open vast new areas of i
certain debates within the
certain methodological argu
logical positions within th
trouble within those alliances that one observes in the literature (Price and
Reus-Smit 1998; Sterling-Folker 2000; Barkin 2003). When paired with a very
basic theoretical map of the field, it reveals that many theoretical debates are as
much about methodology as they are about theory. It is also important to keep
in mind what this triangulation is not. It is not meant to be a definitive map of
the discipline, nor is it meant to create boxes in which scholars and research
programs may be placed. Moreover, it is not meant to be exclusive - other
approaches to introducing methodology can present a coherent picture of the
discipline in a compelling and enlightening way. It is designed primarily as peda-
gogical tool to help students better understand the fundamental commitments
of certain methodologies and the relationships between them.
To explain the development and use of this triangle in teaching research
methods, I will first discuss the three main debates that define the distinctions
between approaches to research and knowledge: causality, context, and essential-
ism. Next, I will articulate the ideal-type sketch of the three main methodologi-
cal types based on positions within those debates and provide a brief example of
how this plays out in one segment of the international relations literature. The
debates will be depicted graphically, on a triangular map of methodology in
international relations research. Finally, I will pair the methodological map with
a basic theoretical map of the field to further illuminate debates within interna-
tional relations.

The "Great Debates"

Causality

The first key debate concerns the status of causality. This remains a central fault-
line within the field, and many methodological texts only discuss this issue
(King, Keohane, and Verba 1994), ignoring the other two. The debate over
causality happens on two levels, illustrated graphically in Figure 1.
The first level of debate about causality pits those who reject the notion of
causality altogether against those who see a causality as central to any

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
396 Triangulating Debates Within the Field,

General
causal forces

'
Causality

No Causality ' ''

Specific causal
processes /
mechanisms

Fig. 1. Causality

explanation of a phenomenon. Robert Keohane asserts that "making causal

inferences is the 'Holy Grail' of political science" (Keohane 2009) and exhorts
political scientists to seek causal factors that produce the outcomes we observe
in contemporary politics. This knowledge of causation thus unlocks explanation,
understanding, and recommendations. While, traditionally, a majority of the
members of the discipline agree with Keohane' s assertion, an increasing number
are challenging the role that causality plays in contemporary social science
inquiry.
Claiming that social life is too complicated and contingent, and aware that
the position of the researcher has significant influence on what is reported, it is
possible to reject causality as a relevant source of explanation in the social world.
From this perspective, social phenomena are not caused in any meaningful
sense; rather, they are interpreted or experienced by an author from a particular
position. Dunn, for example, remains "unconvinced that we can offer causal
explanations. The world is far too complex, complicated, and contingent to be
studied with any degree of certainty" (Dunn 2006). He instead follows Camp-
bell's (1993) "logic of interpretation that acknowledges the improbability of
cataloguing, calculating, and specifying 'real causes.'" This position of "no
causality" demands that a researcher focus only on the particular experience of
a phenomenon. Among those who appreciate and seek to understand causality,
then, there are two approaches to the phenomenon: that of general causation,
and that of particular causation (Parsons 2007).
The traditional definition of social science research is to provide explanations
of social phenomena. Within political science and international relations, many
have sought to define an acceptable explanation as a "causal law" (King et al.
1994; Van Evera 1997). Modeled after a basic understanding of causality in the
classical description of the "hard sciences" (physics, chemistry) originating with
thinkers such as Hume and Mill, the idea of causality assumes that a particular
and identifiable force acts on an entity to produce an observed outcome. Grav-
ity causes objects to fall. Imbalances of power cause states to go to war (Mears-
heimer 2001). The life-blood of social science research has long been a quest
to identify causal relationships of this sort. The key to this sort of causal argu-
ment is to be able to identify a causal force and to be able to correlate out-

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter Howard 397

comes with the existence of th

that a scholar can generalize th
to produce parsimonious, gene
works that can be verified by oth
the mainstream, most widely acc
as defined by King, Keohane, and
1994). For undergraduate student
stand and reproduce in a researc
taught in high school science cla
makes a good starting point to in
Increasingly, a number of schol
generalizable causal laws in favor
(Tilly 1995). Here, causality is a p
in particular ways to produce an
somewhat generalizable, outcom
setting, and circumstance. Conte
in similar processes - variation t
dent of context. Causation move
specific interaction of actors
asking what causes war, a focu
caused a particular war, or rath
outbreak of the war in question
still seeks to uncover a cause for
''how" as "why" (Tilly 2006).

Context

The second key debate is over

(Figure 2). Dating back to the
allows for objectivity, there is
irrelevant when making claims a
objective, observable world that
researcher should be able to ob
objective world. The social con
role in this objective world becau
measured. Social context canno
are generalized, observable outc
ied and confirmed by any resear
as another observable and reprod
then is to produce an accurate re
izing findings is possible beca
independent of the researcher, n
specific.
Opposite this is the notion that
consequential to be broken int
social world, and in a social worl
mean to them. Consider Geert
description of the difference be
same observable behavior, an e
pointed at a particular person.
behavior, the point of a wink is
winkee. From a purely objective
ized is the raising and lowering
ciative of social context, the co
amusing wink all convey deep ye

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
398 Tńangulating Debates Within the Field

in the moment. It is this context that makes the wink worth studying (an
worth doing). As an in-class example, it readily demonstrates value of under
standing context as students are quite familiar with the different contexts and
meanings associated with a wink. It also points out the importance of the con-
text of the researcher, as in-class discussion will quickly reveal a wide variety of
ways to make sense of the same wink based on past experience as either a win-
ker or winkee.
The question arises, however, as to the nature of social context: is meaning
wholly subjective, determined separately by each observer and ultimately open to
each observer's unique interpretation, or is meaning intersubjective, created by
shared understandings among actors as to how all make collective sense of an
experience? On the subjective side, meaning is strictly a function of position
and encounter. Each researcher will uncover a different meaning depending on
his or her position and access to a social structure. Because social contexts are
unique, they are not reproducible; rather, all one can do is attempt to under-
stand how a researcher made sense of, or 4 'read" a particular encounter.
Indeed, each encounter of researcher and subject is unique, emphasizing
' 'multiple representations or interpretations and the infinite number of ways in
which individuals or groups 'see' the world" (Fierke 2002). As Dunn (2006) says,
"I am interested in whether or not my conclusions make sense to me." Meaning
is thus fluid, and its interpretation is "absolutely" relative.
On the other hand, meaning may be understood as intersubjective - a series
of shared understandings that exist in use, be it a discourse, practice, or institu-
tional form. The more subjective orientation "tends to emphasize interpretation
and representation rather than rules" (Fierke 2002). From the intersubjective
position, meaning does not depend on what any one individual believes, rather,
meaning rests in what members of a group can share amongst themselves and
recognize as such. Social context is thus a set of shared rules. The interpretation
of a rule can only be taken so far - there is a way to grasp a rule that is not pure
interpretation - is one following the rule or not. From an intersubjective per-
spective, the social context is more plastic. It can be maintained as stable for a
sustained period, allowing complex social forms to develop, but it is not so rigid
as to resist change and the social practices that give rise to change. The more
who share a social context, the more work to change it. But because it is inter-
subjective, a social context can be easily studied, observed, and traced. It cannot
reside inside an individual's head, it must be shared, and again, the process of
sharing meaning must be participatory and therefore observable for study.
Indeed, meaning rests in this process of sharing, not with the actors who may
participate in this process.

Objective
(independent
of context)

Subjective Context - ■ ,ntersubjective

(unique to (shared
individual) understanding)

Fig. 2. Context

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter Howard 399

Essentialism

The third key debate is over essentialism (Figure 3). This is perhaps the most
recent debate and most difficult to explain to undergraduates, but it is no less
significant. Those who make or rest on essentialist claims hold that actors in the
social world have clear, identifiable, unchanging essences. A state is... Bipolarity
is... The West is... The notion that there is such a thing as a state or bipolarity
or the West that can be identified with a core set of characteristics without which
it would not be itself is the hallmark of essentialism. Essentialism locates the
properties of an object within that object, and essences serve as the sta
point for inquiry.
Opposite the essentialists are those who argue that all social phenomena to
studied are processes, not things (Tilly 1995). "Instead of possessing a constit
essence , actors - whether states or individuals - should be regarded as the pr
of ongoing constitutive practices " (Jackson 2004b; emphasis original). The
posed 4 'essence' ' of an object at any particular point is thus the product of a
cess. At any one moment it may appear fixed, but that fixity is subjec
explanation. It is the job of the researcher to disassemble ' 'things' ' int
processes that create, maintain, and shape those social forms. The West is n
essential culture, rather, the West is an ongoing project to assert a connect
among certain core texts, ideas, history, and people. France is a set of proc
and practices to continually link an idea of nationhood to a particular
institutions, people, and territory. All of it could unfold differently, g
that such processes are contingent and not fixed (in any essential way). Hen
both stability and change are equally problematic and to be explained. C
requires an explanation of processes leading to different results, taking adv
tage of a particular contingency, while stasis requires an explanation of
particular processes were continually maintained and reproduced in the fac
contingency.
Essentialists differ on the nature of essence: are essential qualities material
and objective facts, or are they ideational and subjective items? Material, objec-
tive essences are posited to exist in actors or things such as States or Bipolarity
or the National Interest. "The State" is a fundamental unit of study in the field,
and it has identifiable interests that can be identified and measured. States exist
and persist, and it is the job of the researcher to most accurately represent their
essential nature. On the other side, items like culture or a foundational text
have an ideational, subjective essence. To claim that there is an "authentic"
local culture that best represents a traditional folkway is to essentialize both the
"real nature" of a culture and the items that threaten it by somehow distancing
it from its essential roots. Either way, essences serve as the starting point for
inquiry and are not the object of inquiry. Stasis is the assumed nature of things,
while change is to be problematized and explained.

Triangulation
When combined, these three debates allow for the triangulation of three ideal-
type methodological positions within contemporary international relations
research. It is important to keep in mind that these are ideal-types around which
it becomes possible to organize and map the literature of the field. I do not
assume that these ideal types represent the research of any particular scholar.
Rather, as scholars identify with one methodological camp or another, as defined
by these ideal types, they locate their research relative to the above debates.
A short description of each of the three approaches to research - the points
of the triangle - follows. Pedagogically, my syllabus is actually organized this way,
as it is easier to teach each methodology as a coherent approach. Moreover, it is

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
400 Tńangulating Debates Within the Field

Objective
materialist

Essentialism
/
^ Anti-essentialist
S"bJectlvf ideational (processecual)
ideational

Fig. 3. Essentialism

necessary to support the research design assignments for the course. The course
unfolds in three sub-units, covering each methodological approach. Each
sub-unit concludes with a research design assignment, forcing students to think
through the requirements of research design for each approach and the practi-
cal consequences of those requirements in the research process. After a descrip-
tion of each approach, I provide an example of how I illustrate these differences
in class using the democratic peace debate.

Type 1: (Neo)Positivists

The (Neo)Positivists are those who subscribe to general causality, objective essen-
tialism, and reject the importance of social context. This ideal type is best articu-
lated by Waltz (1979) and later King et al. (1994), and remains the dominant
standard against which much research is evaluated. Again, though, keeping with
the notion of the ideal type, it is important to note that few researchers are fully
able to implement each and every one of King, Keohane, and Verba's dictums.
Rather, they try to approach this ideal, making necessary compromises as partic-
ular projects require. Take, for instance Van Evera's (1997) Guide to Methods for
Students of Political Science. It is intended as a guide, a cookbook almost, on how
to construct a qualitative case study dissertation. Van Evera continues to hold
King, Keohane, and Verba as the ideal, but instructs students on acceptable com-
promises deviating from the ideal in the name of practicality.
The goal of a (Neo) Positivist research design is to construct a project that
seeks to test a claim of cause and effect on an observable world to generate a
generalizable causal law about how the world works. The role of theory is to gen-
erate hypotheses, defined as statements positing a causal relationship between
independent and dependent variables, and test those hypotheses against
objective, real-world evidence. Successful research will produce evidence that
corresponds with the claims of the hypothesis, thus validating its causal claims.

Type 2: Interpretivist

The Interpretivists subscribe to the importance of subjective context, idea-

tional/subjective essences, but reject the notion of causality. For the interpretivist,
the goal of research is to uncover essential meanings of cultures, representations,
or discourses while recognizing that each articulation of meaning is totally and
incontrovertibly subjective. Each reading of the world is subjectively unique,

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter Howard 401

depending on the position of the

research "self-consciously adopts
interpretation is as equally valid
terms and makes sense to the int
is impossible for any two people
same position. This subjectivity r
of themselves - the merit lies in
uncovering the "political consequ
over another" (Campbell 1993).
An interpretivist research des
read an aspect of politics and rep
encounter, identifying what key
form, it is a wholly subjective en
own merits. This may take the fo
struction. Regardless, the end pr
of the position of the researcher

Type 3: Relational

The third approach requires brin

tional relations methodological le
new label that is not yet widely u
tional sociology (Emirbayer 1997
relations scholarship (Nexon 20
that is home to a variety of theo
Nexon 2009).
A relational approach rejects essentialism, focuses on the specifics of causal
processes and the intersubjective nature and importance of social context. The
processes that form "things" are indeed causal and produce an intersubjective
understanding among those involved that can lead to particular outcomes in
contingent situations. The stuff of politics is intersubjective understandings
shared over a network of actors. This network, however, is not a network of wires
and routers, rather it is a social network of social ties and social communication.
These social ties are processes themselves, causal mechanisms that create or
maintain a network. The stuff of those social processes is the intersubjective
meaning making sense of the world. Social context exists in the relationships
actors have with each other. Relational approaches study relations before states
(Jackson and Nexon 1999).
A relational research design seeks to identify either the constitution of inter-
subjective understandings and social networks or the causal processes and mech-
anisms that create, maintain, and change those items. Both can be seen as two
sides of the same coin - processes of relating create relationships that can be
described as a network, processes of discourse create intersubjective understand-
ings - but a researcher must start somewhere, and often analytically brackets one
side to investigate the second. The result of this research is an account of how a
particular, contingent configuration of social processes come together to pro-
duce a recognizable, meaningful result. "What is generalizable from an account
such as this is not a specific set of nomethetic generalizations, but a 'toolkit' of
analytical devices which might be used to analyze similar situations" (Jackson
2002).

Example
There are numerous examples and exemplar pieces of scholarship for each
approach. When crafting a syllabus, providing many examples of exemplar

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
402 Tńangulating Debates Within the Field

scholarship is necessary to give students a tangible understanding of

engage in research from each approach. However, I have found it also us
provide examples of each approach to research on similar topics. By s
different ways of looking at a similar empirical puzzle, students can
implications of each research perspective on both the type of questio
project proposed, and analysis offered. The democratic peace debate p
one such site.
There is a substantial amount of (Neo) Positivist research on the democratic
peace, most relying on statistical analysis to identify a causal relationship
between regime type and conflict. I have found one early debate in the litera-
ture, between Maoz and Russett (1993) and Färber and Gowa (1995), particu-
larly useful. Maoz and Russett were among the first to offer and test a set of
hypotheses on the causes of the democratic peace. Färber and Gowa dispute
their findings, and thus challenge the democratic peace hypothesis. These two
articles engage each other directly, and use the same data source to test rival
hypotheses. The core of this particular dispute produces a discussion of the
importance of how a researcher operationalizes a variable and the sample size of
the test data. When taught together, the two articles provide a solid example of
how (Neo) Positivist research is conducted across the discipline to test a hypothe-
sis with objective data to produce cumulative knowledge about concepts such as
the democratic peace.
From the interpretive perspective, Ido Oren (1995) offers a trenchant and
powerful criticism of this debate. He argues that a claim about democracies is
value-laden, not objective and value-free, and the product of the American social
context in which the scholarship was produced. I often introduce this article by
asking students to define democracy - framing the question as who counts as a
democracy in the world today. As students debate democracy, they soon see the
subjective elements of the definitional debate. Once the class has a working defi-
nition, I then ask when the US became a democracy by that standard. The
answer is often sometime in the early to mid-twentieth century, and yet the US
is often classified as a democracy from the founding of the republic. As Oren
demonstrates, by interpreting the definition of democracy relative to a contem-
porary American standard, and yet not applying these standards in a uniform
trarishistorical fashion when coding data, the democratic peace argument is
really a peace among states understood to be "like us." Through a detailed
discussion of prominent early political scientists' views of Germany before and
after World War I, Oren shows that as Americans reinterpret which states they
most admire, they reinterpret the essential elements and meaning of democracy.
Colin Kahl (1999) offers an early relational approach to his analysis of the
democratic peace. While Kahl wrote before the widespread use of the relational
label, his argument nevertheless makes use of relational approaches. Kahl
(1999) explicitly positions himself between the "hard" positivists and the
"extreme form" of interpretivism, making an early case for a relational
approach to the democratic peace. He identifies a collective liberal identity as
the mechanism that produces peaceful relationships among those states who
share the set of liberal intersubjective understandings he describes. Kahl's focus
on the democratic peace as an intersubjective process of sharing an identity
based on the meaning of democracy in a particular social context, rather than
an objective, essential quality of a particular regime type differentiates him from
the (Neo) Positivists. His focus on the causal mechanisms generated by intersub-
jective understandings separates him from interpretivists. The process of creating
a shared understanding among states can generate international outcomes. Kahl
illustrates how he is not simply splitting the difference between these two
positions, but rather attempting to construct a coherent third approach to the
democratic peace debate.

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter Howard 403

This typology of the three id

angle below (Figure 4) which
(Figures 1-3):
The points of the triangle are the ideal type positions of the three major
research methodologies in international relations today. The legs of the triangle
are the three main debate issues from above. The midpoint of each leg repre-
sents the limit or break between the two ways to view the issue. The altitudes of
the triangle are the rejectionist positions. Thus, the (Neo)Positivists, at the top,
are on the general causal and objective material essentialism sides of the causal-
ity and essentialist legs. They discount the role of social context, and thus are
opposite the context leg, as indicated by the altitude from the context leg to the
(Neo) Positivist point. Interpretivists, in the lower left, are on the side of subjec-
tive meaning of context and subjective, ideational essentialism while rejecting
the importance of causality. Relationalism, on the lower right, is on the side of
causal processes, intersubjective meaning to context and anti-essentialism.
Again, the points of the triangle represent ideal types in this methodological
map. Few scholars do actual research and design actual projects from those
points. Rather, individual researchers make pragmatic and practical compro-
mises that have them slide down the legs, toward the center of the triangle in
the practice of research and scholarship. Qualitative case study research, for
example, brings the importance of contextual accounts or more specific causal
processes to bear as explanations. However, a researcher can only slide so far
down the leg - the midpoint of the leg acts as a limit, the point at which one
must switch a fundamental conviction about how the world works.
Along those lines, it is possible to consider an inscribed circle resting in the
triangle. This circle becomes an area of incompatible assumptions. It is, in a
sense, an argument against complete methodological eclecticism because to

(Neo)Positivist
Method

Material / ' Generalizable causal

essence / ' forces

.£ /
.$y v 'QQ^
W. ^
4¡f r

Ideational / ' Specific causal

essence / ' processes and
/ ' mechanisms

Interpretive ¿s' ^ ^ Relational

Method Subjective COHtCXt Intersubjective Method
meaning understanding

Fig. 4. Triangulating Debates

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
404 Tńangulating Debates Within the Field

occupy a position in that circle is to hold fundamentally incompatible as

tions about the world. Either there is an objective reality or there is not
concede that one side dominates over the other has profound implication
the ultimate importance and relevance of meaning and generalization
social world. There either are essences of actors or there are not, to have an
actor be half essence, half process is to concede one side of the debate. While it
is possible to come toward the center of the triangle part-way (indeed, not just
possible, but required on some level), one must stay within the limits of one's
own position. The triangle requires commitment to one point or another.
Toward the end of the course, when presented with the triangle in full,
students learn two very important lessons about the way I am teaching them
research methodology. At the outset of the course, I tell them that they will love
one unit, hate one unit, and find a third unit plausible. They encounter a simi-
lar experience with the research design assignments - one is straightforward, one
is plausible, and one baffling. The first lesson is that there is a pre-analytic, per-
sonal decision to be made about why they come to embrace the positions they
do. It is a decision that they are capable of making. The approach that makes
the most sense does so for a reason: it resonates with how they make sense of
the world. I attempt to clarify this point repeatedly in class discussions. The sec-
ond lesson is that their particular choice does not matter - what matters is their
ability to recognize, articulate, and defend that choice and produce rigorous
research designs from their chosen methodological home. Solid research can
come from any approach if pursued rigorously. This moment is intended to be
empowering to students, as they locate themselves within the field and learn
how to design inquiries that they find both interesting and convincing.

Methodology and the Sociology of the Discipline

Toward the end of the class, after covering each of the three points of the triangle,
I attempt to illustrate the link between theory, method, and the sociology of
knowledge within the discipline. My triangle is somewhat reminiscent of Alker' s
triangle on international relations theory (Alker and Biersteker 1984). But, before
I complete the comparison, I want to clearly lay out the limits of what I am about
to argue: The theoretical map I propose is not meant to be definitive, and the
relationship between the two maps is one of general similarity, NOT a one-to-one
correspondence or any sort of isomorphism. Not all theorists from one theoretical
corner fit into the similar methodological corner. Rather, there is, to borrow the
Weberian term, an elective affinity between certain theories and certain methodol-
ogies. The general similarity is useful to illuminate the tension between theoreti-
cal camps and the types of debates they have with one another.
This theoretical triangle has its genesis in the Alker triangle of the early 1980s
where Alker divided the field into Realist, Liberal, and Radical/Marxist
approaches to international relations (Alker and Biersteker 1984). Alker's trian-
gle is reproduced in Figure 5.
In the 1990s, the shape of the Alker triangle changed. First, the distanc
between realist and liberal points shrunk considerably, resulting in the "ne
neo" consensus (Powell 1994; Waever 1996). Neorealists and Neoliberals argue
the finer points of relative vs. absolute gains but otherwise espoused rather sim
lar theories. While that happened, the radical line extended itself significantly
ultimately fracturing. Marxists largely disappeared with the end of the Cold War
and a whole host of new 4 'radicals" arose in their place. Constructivism emerged
as a new 4 'third pillar," creating a new "Big 3" theories of international rela-
tions (Walt 1998; Snyder 2004). At the same time, postmodernism (and several
other 4 'post" theories), along with critical theory emerged as the new "radical
ism," thereby creating a new trapezoid-triangle of realist/liberal, postmodern,

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter Howard 405

Realism

Radicalism / Liberalism
Marxism
A
Fig. 5. Alker and Bierstecker's Triangle of Intern
1984)

and constructivist theories. Thus, the contemporary theoretical triangle is not

actually a nice, neat triangle, but a somewhat contrived trapezoid that at least
looks similar to a triangle from a certain distance (Figure 6).

Realism ■■■ Liberalism

(Neo-Neo consensus)

Post-Modernism Constructivism

(Neo) Positivist
Method

Material / ' Generalizable causal

essence / ' forces

// ' S
Jk'
Ideational ļ ' Specific causal
essence
Ī '
ļ ' processes and
mechanisms

Interpretive y ^ Relational
Method Subjective Con text intersubjective Method
meaning understanding

Fig. 6. Contemporary International Relations Theory and the Three Methodologies

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
406 Tńangulating Debates Within the Field

Step back and consider the two triangles side by side, as shown in Figure 6.
reveals a distinct similarity between theory and method. The realists and liber
converge around (Neo) Positivism. The postmodernists occupy the interpretiv
position, and the constructivists occupy the corner for relational approach
Again, this is neither an isomorphic nor a one-to-one map. While many constru
tivists fit this relational framework, not all do - most notably Alex Wendt and
adoption of scientific realism as a way to be a constructivist and yet remain
the positivist side of the triangle. Post-structuralism fits somewhat uncomforta
on the bottom leg of the triangle, somewhere between interpretive and r
tional approaches. That said, the point of the comparison between the two trian
gles is not to pigeon-hole every theorist into a particular methodological cam
or vice versa. Rather, the comparison serves to illuminate some of the debate
within the field to students encountering them for the first time - so much
what passes for theoretical debate is in fact methodological debate.
This illustration provides one way to make sense of several alliances within th
field. Constructivists, critical theorists, and post-structuralists have mad
common stand against the neopositivism of liberals and realists which ignore
the social context they find so vital (Price and Reus-Smit 1998). Some constru
tivists and realists have attempted to make common cause over the study of
role and function of power (Barkin 2003; Jackson 2004a) while other constructi
ists and liberals share an appreciation of the power of liberal ideas to shape st
behavior (Sterling-Folker 2000). This triangle reveals that such theoreti
conversations and collaborations are potentially fruitful on certain comm
ground but also are limited by fundamental differences on a key issue.
For example, consider the challenge faced by feminist approaches to intern
tional relations theory. Much of the resistance to feminist research is justified
methodological, not substantive grounds. Consider Keohane's critique of femi-
nist scholarship in his exchange with Tickner (1995). Keohane's primary ch
lenge to feminists is a methodological critique on the issues of causality, from
clear (Neo) Positivist position on the triangle. Keohane asserts that proper soc
science methods investigate causality, and because the feminists in question d
not tell causal stories that generate testable hypotheses, they are not mak
significant contributions to the discipline. Tickner's response asserts the rele-
vance of the other legs of the triangle - feminist theory does have somethin
important to say, it just says it by employing a methodology that falls somewh
along the social context leg of the triangle. The triangle also illuminates the t
tical alliance between constructivist and postmodern feminists against critics li
Keohane. When juxtaposed with a traditional (Neo) Positivist, the relative agre
ment among feminists on the general importance of social context leads to an
ability to have a broad conversation about the importance of understandin
social context theoretically and a tactical alliance against those who deny a
relevance to any sort of context or meaning.
Toward the end of the term, I include a discussion on the sociology of t
discipline. While the triangle presents the three methodological approaches on
equal footing, a quick glance at the actual state of the discipline, whethe
program from the annual ISA meeting or a list of the articles in the top jour
nals or the dissertations deposited each year, reveals that in practice, scholar-
ship is unevenly distributed among the three approaches. Neopositivism s
dominates the field. However, the number of interpretive and relational scho
ars, papers, and publications is growing at a noticeable rate. This revelatio
however, serves as another teachable moment about the differences between
the three approaches and why they are not as balanced in practice as they
might be in theory. For the undergraduate new to the discipline, this discus-
sion serves two important purposes - one theirs and one mine. First, for the
students, it provides an explanation for what they will encounter as they

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter Howard 407

continue their studies in the f

approaches are empowered to
of their position and that t
me, it helps realize the goal
making my students - future
ars, policymakers, and activ
field, I seek to encourage th
create a future where all th
ing field.

Conclusion

This triangle map of the three dominant research methodologies within interna
tional relations today illuminates many of the debates and alliances amo
methodological camps. It is not the only way to map methodologies in interna-
tional relations, but it is illuminating in ways that other maps are not, because
shows the fault lines between the approaches and presents each approach
equal footing, as one position in a tri-partite debate. It also allows one to emph
size the difference between methodology - how one organizes and makes sense
of information about how the world works - and method - particular techniqu
for gathering and processing information about the world. Methods - like inte
viewing, case studies, or computer-assisted quantitative analysis - can be usefu
for a multitude of methodologies, depending on how they are used. Interviews
can serve as data points to generalize relationships by gathering in-depth per-
sonal evidence, texts to deconstruct, or stories of causal processes and relation
ships. What matters, from this perspective, is less the way in which a researche
chooses to gather information, and more the way in which the research
chooses to organize and makes sense of that information to make a claim about
how the world works. As such, it provides an organizing logic for an introductor
class in international relations research.
My course explores all three approaches to research, presenting each on its own
merits, as if in a sustained scholarly conversation with other approaches. Doing so
does not inherendy privilege one approach as dominant, nor does it force stu-
dents into a particular track. Rather, it provides an opportunity for students to
learn each methodological approach on its own terms, understand its epistemo-
logica! and ontological commitments, and construct coherent research projects. I
ask them to design three research designs exploring a common topic, one from
each approach, forcing them to grapple with the practical side of identifying,
gathering, and making sense of data to support an argument. Most significantly, it
empowers students to determine how they come down on the three triangulating
questions and locate themselves on the methodological triangle. Finally, for future
scholars, this triangle helps to illuminate the stakes in making such choices in
international relations theory and international relations research.

References

Alker, H., and T. Biersteker. (1984) The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeolo
gist of International Savoir Faire. International Studies Quarterly 28(2): 121-142.
Barkin, J. S. (2003) Realist Constructivism. International Studies Review 5(3): 325-342.
Campbell, D. (1993) Politics Without Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics, and the Narratives of the Gulf War.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Dunn, K. C. (2006) The Forum: Examining Historical Representations. International Studies Review
8(2): 370-381.
Emirbayer, M. (1997) Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 103(2): 281-
317.

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
408 Tńangulating Debates Within the Field

Färber, H., and J. Gowa. (1995) Polities and Peace. International Secuńty 20(2): 123-146.
Fierke, K. (2002) Links Across the Abyss: Language and Logic in International Relations
tional Studies Quarterly 46(3): 331-354.
Geertz, C. (1973) Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Inter
of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Chapter 1, 3-30.
George, A., and T. McKeown. (1985) Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Deci
ing. In Advances in Information Processing in Organizations , edited by R. Coulam and R
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vol. 2.
Hansen, L. (2006) Secuńty as Practice : Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledg
Jackson, P. T. (2002) The West Is the Best: Occidentalism and Postwar German Reconstr
Constructivism and Comparative Politics , edited by D. Green. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Jackson, P. T. (2004a) Bridging the Gap: Toward A Realist-Constructivist Dialogue. Internatio
ies Review 6(2): 337-352.
Jackson, P. T. (2004b) Hegel's House, or 'People are states too.' Review of International S
281-287.
Jackson, P. T., and D. H. Nexon. (1999) Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the Study
of World Politics. European fournal of International Relations 5(3): 291-332.
Jackson, P. T., and D. Nexon. (2009) The Relational Turn in the Study of World Politics. Paper
presented at the 50th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, New York,
NY, February 2009.
Kahl, C. (1999) Constructing a Separate Peace: Constructivism, Collective Liberal Identity, and Dem-
ocratic Peace. Security Studies 8(2): 94-144.
Keohane, R. O. (2009) Political Science as a Vocation. PS: Political Science and Politics 42(2): 359-363.
King, G., R. O. Keohane, and S. Verba. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualita-
tive Research. Princeton, NI: Princeton University Press.
Maoz, Z., and B. Russett. (1993) Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-
1986. American Political Science Review 87(3): 624-638.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power politics. New York: Norton.
Monroe, K. R., Ed. (2005) Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Nexon, D. H. (2009) The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires,
and International Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Oren, I. (1995) The Subjectivity of the 'Democratic' Peace. International Security 20(2): 147-184.
Parsons, C. (2007) How to Map Arguments in Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Powell, R. (1994) Anarchy in International Relations Theory: the Neorealist - Neoliberal Debate.
International Organization 48(2): 313-344.
Price, R., and C. Reus-Smit. (1998) Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Con-
structivism. European Journal of International Relations 4(3): 259-294.
Schwartz-Shae, P., and D. Yanow. (2002) 'Reading' 'Methods' 'Texts': How Research Methods
Texts Construct Political Science. Political Research Quarterly 55(2): 457-486.
Skocpol, T. (1994) Social Revolutions in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, J. (2004) One World, Rival Theories. Foreign Policy 145 (Nov/Dec) 52-62.
Sterling-Folker, J. (2000) Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather? Constructivism and Neolib-
eral Institutionalism Compared. International Studies Quarterly 44: 97-119.
Suganami, H. (1996) On the Causes of War. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tickner, J. A. (1995) What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Rela-
tions Methodological Questions. International Studies Quarterly 49(1): 1-22.
Tilly, C. (1995) To Explain Political Processes. The American Journal of Sociology 100(6): 1594-1610.
Tilly, C. (2006) Why? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Van Evera, S. (1997) Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.

Waever, O. (1996) The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate. In International Theory: Positivism
and Beyond , edited by S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Walt, S. M. (1998) International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy 110 (Spring)
29-46.
Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society ; An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.

This content downloaded from

98.7.4.89 on Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms