Research Methods in International Relations 2nd Ed 230623 082354

RESEARCH
METHODS IN
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support
the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global
community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over
800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas.
Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data,
case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our
founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable
trust that secures the company’s continued independence.
Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

2ND EDITION
RESEARCH
METHODS IN
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
CHRISTOPHER LAMONT
SAGE Publications Ltd © Christopher Lamont 2022
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research, private
London EC1Y 1SP study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may not be
SAGE Publications Inc. reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means,
2455 Teller Road without the prior permission in writing of the publisher, or in the
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms
of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area the publisher.
Mathura Road
New Delhi 110 044
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd

3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Editor: Andrew Malvern Library of Congress Control Number: 2021937178

Assistant editor: Ozlem Merakli
Production editor: Martin Fox British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
Copyeditor: Catja Pafort
Proofreader: Bryan Campbell A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Indexer: Elske Janssen
Marketing manager: Lorna Patkai
Cover design: Sheila Tong
Typeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai,
India
Printed in the UK
ISBN 978-1-5297-2468-4
ISBN 978-1-5297-2467-7 (pbk)
At SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using responsibly sourced papers
and boards. When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the PREPS grading
system. We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.
CONTENTS
List of figures xi
List of tables xiii
About the author xv
Preface xvii
Introduction 1
1 Methodology and Methods in International Relations 11
2 Research Questions and Research Design 37
3 Research Ethics 63
4 Writing a Literature Review 79
5 Qualitative Methods in International Relations 93
6 Quantitative Methods in International Relations 115
7 Mixed Methods Research in International Relations 139
8 Fieldwork in International Relations 159
9 Interview Research in International Relations 177
10 Discourse Analysis in International Relations 195
11 Case Study Research in International Relations 209
12 Writing Up Your Research 227
Glossary 245
References 255
Index 273
EXTENDED CONTENTS
List of figures xi
List of tables xiii
About the author xv
Preface xvii
Introduction 1
What’s New in the Second Edition 1

Thinking About Research in IR 2
Introducing Research and Writing in International Relations 3
A Guide to Research Practice 4
Research Methods as Research Choices 5
Your Methodology and Methods Roadmap 7
Looking Ahead 10
1 Methodology and Methods in International Relations 11
Learning Objectives 11
IR Theory and Methodology 13
Positivism and Interpretivism in IR Research 15
How Methodology Matters 18
Methodological Pluralism in IR Research 24
Navigating Research Practice: Methodology, Theory, and Research Design 28
Crafting Your Own Research Project 29
Back to Basics: Thinking Critically About International Relations 32
Chapter Summary 34
Suggested Further Readings 34
2 Research Questions and Research Design 37
Question-Based Research: A Definition 38
From Research Topic to Research Question 40
Crafting Your Own Research Question 53
viii RESEARCH METHODS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
From Research Question to Research Design 53

Research Design: Research Question to Case Study 55
Overcoming Obstacles 59
Chapter Summary 60
3 Research Ethics 63
Reflexivity and Positionality in Research Questions and Data Collection 65
Plagiarism and Fabrication of Research Results 73
Chapter Summary 77
4 Writing a Literature Review 79
Why Write a Literature Review? 80
Types of Literature and Literature Reviews 82
How to Begin: Familiarizing Yourself with the Literature 84
What to Include in Your Literature Review? 87
Literature Reviews on New or Innovative Topics in IR 88
Writing a Literature Review 88
Avoiding Pitfalls: Strawman Argumentation 91
Chapter Summary 92
5 Qualitative Methods in International Relations 93
Qualitative Methods and Philosophy of Science 94
Collecting Qualitative Data 96
Interviews 96
Focus Groups 97
Archival and Document-based Research 97
Digital Research 101
Visual Data 104
Tools of Qualitative Analysis: Triangulation, Thick Description,
and Process Tracing 105
Thick Description 106
Process Tracing 106
Qualitative Data Analysis: Content Analysis, Discourse Analysis and
Visual Analysis 109
Chapter Summary 112
Extended Contents ix
6 Quantitative Methods in International Relations 115

Quantitative Methods in International Relations: What Are They?
And Why Use Them? 117
Conceptual Definitions, Operational Definitions, and Coding 119
Variables, Units of Analysis and Levels of Measurement 123
Survey Design and Generating Your Own Quantitative Data 125
Statistical Analysis 128
Formal Methods and Game Theory in IR 132
Chapter Summary 136
7 Mixed Methods Research in International Relations 139

Mixed Methods Research: What Is It? 140
Mixed Methods Research Design 142
Strategies for Analysis in MMR 147
A Practical Guide to Mixed Methods 151
Multimethodology and Research Practice in IR 153
Chapter Summary 156
8 Fieldwork in International Relations 159

What is Fieldwork? 161
Fieldwork in IR: Ethical Considerations 164
Why Fieldwork? 164
Practical Considerations for Fieldwork 166
Doing Fieldwork: Access and Trust 168
Fieldwork and Informed Consent 170
Fieldwork in Practice 173
Chapter Summary 174
9 Interview Research in International Relations 177

Interview Research in IR 178
Interview Formats and What Kind of Information Do You Want
to Collect? 180
Structured, Semi-Structured and Unstructured Interviews 181
Selecting Your Interview Participants 186
x RESEARCH METHODS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Approaching Interview Participants 186

Preparing for Your Interviews 188
Things to Consider During Your Interviews 189
After Your Interviews: Tips and Guidelines for Securing Your Data 190
Chapter Summary 192
10 Discourse Analysis in International Relations 195

What is Discourse? 197
Making Sense of Discourse Analysis 198
Critical Discourse Analysis 201
How to Conduct a Critical Discourse Analysis 202
Discourse Analysis for Positivist Research 205
How to Conduct Discourse Analysis for Positivist Research 205
Chapter Summary 208
11 Case Study Research in International Relations 209

What is a Case Study? 210
Case Study Research: Theory and Methodology 213
Case Study Research: Research Questions 214
How Can I Justify My Case Selection? 216
Chapter Summary 225
12 Writing Up Your Research 227

The Components of a Research Paper 228
Writing Up Your Research: Getting Started 237
Writing Tips and Strategies 238
Writing Up Your Research: Wrapping Up 240
Troubleshooting and Overcoming Obstacles 240
Research Proposals 241
Chapter Summary 244
Glossary 245
References 255
Index 273
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Positivism and Interpretivism Spectrum in IR 23
2.1 Research Question to Case Study 55
6.1 Per Capital GDP and Life Expectancy Scatterplot with linear
regression line and R2 value 131
6.2 Illustration of how two player game matrixes are usually presented 134
6.3 Example of a payoff structure 135
6.4 Equilibrium point for both players in a single game 136
7.1 MMR and Triangulation 145

7.2 MMR and Nested Analysis 147
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Climate Change: Research Purposes, Research Questions, and

Research Design 20
1.2 Mapping Methodologies: Core Aims and Evaluating Claims 20
1.3 Positivist and Interpretive Research in IR 25
1.4 Spotlight on Researching Japan–South Korea Relations 31
2.1 Modes of Reasoning in Qualitative Research 42

2.2 Positivist Research: Japan–South Korea Relations 43
2.3 Interpretive Research: Japan–South Korea Relations 50
2.4 Asking Critical Questions 52
2.5 Normative Questions in IR Research 53
2.6 The Research Process and Research Design 54
2.7 Research Design and Quantitative Research: Explaining the Big Picture 56
2.8 What is Your Question? Positivist and Interpretive Research Questions
and Research Design in International Relations 58
4.1 Selected Major Journals in International Relations 85
6.1 From Concept to Coding 121

6.2 GDP per capita (USD) and Life Expectancy (in years) 130
6.3 Per Capital GDP and Life Expectancy Regression Statistics 130
7.1 Three Mixed Method Research Designs and Examples from Scholarship 144
8.1 Fieldwork Activities 162

8.2 Field Research: Practical, Ethical and Security Considerations 167
9.1 Sampling Strategies 186
10.1 Methodology and the Study of Discourse in IR 199

10.2 Discourse Analysis Methods 200
xiv RESEARCH METHODS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
11.1 Case Study Definitions 213

11.2 What Do You Want to Do with Your Case Study? 214
11.3 Common Strategies for Case Selection 218
11.4 Cross Case and Over-Time Comparison 220
11.5 Creating Cross Case Comparisons and Structuring Your Case Study 221
11.6 Strategies for Interpretive Case Study Design 223
12.1 Sample Structure of a Research Paper 228

12.2 Recent ISA Award-winning Book and Article Titles in Human Rights 229
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Christopher Lamont is Assistant Dean of E-Track Programs and Associate Professor of

International Relations at the Institute for International Strategy, Tokyo International
University. He has taught a number of research methods classes, including Research
Design, Methodologies in International Relations, Methodologies and Research Practice,
and Research Methods for Area Studies. He holds a PhD in Politics from the University
of Glasgow (2008), a MSc in International and European Politics from the University of
Edinburgh (2005) and a BA in International Studies from the University of Mississippi.
Previously, Dr Lamont was Assistant Professor of International Relations at the University
of Groningen (2011–2018) and prior to that he was an R.C.U.K. postdoctoral fellow in
the Transitional Justice Institute at the University of Ulster (2009–2011). His research
interests include human rights and transitional justice, and he has published widely
on the subject, including his monograph, International Criminal Justice and the Politics of
Compliance (Ashgate, 2010), numerous peer reviewed journal articles and edited volumes.
PREFACE
The first edition of Research Methods in International Relations was published in 2015, at a
time when there were few introductory International Relations (IR) textbooks that intro-
duced students to important methodological debates in the discipline while also pro-
viding practical guidance on research methods. This is still the case today. Methodology
and methods are often discussed separately, despite the fact that any effective applica-
tion of research methods tools requires an understanding of methodology. The line that
ties together methodology, research design, and research methods is one that is often
obscured in texts that zoom into just one aspect of the research process.
The second edition of this book maintains the features of the first edition that were so
positively received, namely its comprehensiveness and accessibility. These features have
been joined by significant innovations, additions, and revisions throughout. The result
is a fully revised and updated second edition, which includes, as one important exam-
ple, a much more in depth and broader coverage of important methodological debates
and perspectives. One significant change I have made is to revise how the methodolog-
ical spectrum is presented, by using the terms of positivism and interpretivism rather
than empiricism and interpretivism. This more accurately reflects the state of the art in
research in International Relations, and gives due weight to interpretive research con-
ducted in IR. Of course, interpretive agendas are empirical, in the sense that collected
data is observed and experienced. While still empirical, positivist research is understood
by conformity to a set of epistemological assumptions about how to study the social
world in order to make generalizable law-like statements about social practices.
In addition to this, critical theory and normative theory are also addressed at greater
length in this second edition, to offer better guidance on the question of how to design
and carry out critical and normative projects and also to better highlight critical and
normative theory contributions to IR scholarship.
The second edition also includes two entirely new chapters on interview research and
discourse analysis. These additional chapters offer practical guidance on how to conduct
good interviews and make use of interview data, as well as a practical introduction to
the strengths and weaknesses of using discourse analysis in research. Both offer timely
updates, as these two methods’ tools are increasingly used in undergraduate research. All
chapters have been substantially revised and updated throughout, and reflect the recent
developments and most important debates in IR today.
xviii RESEARCH METHODS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
In writing the second edition, I am grateful for conversations and feedback from col-
leagues and students at Tokyo International University (TIU). At TIU, Akitoshi Miyashita’s
encouragement to craft a new graduate level course on research design proved helpful in
thinking about gaps in the first edition of this book. Also, Nathan Munier’s comments
on the quantitative methods chapter were helpful in making sure the chapter provided
the best possible introduction to quantitative methods that a single chapter can allow.
I am also grateful for colleagues outside of TIU who took the time to comment on
draft chapters of this book or who provided feedback on the first edition of RMIR. I would
like to thank Mieczysław Boduszyński, with whom I co-authored a separate methods
textbook spanning both Politics and International Relations, and Arnaud Kurze, who I
have worked with on other projects that provided inspiration for some of the examples
found in this text. In addition, Alessandra Russo’s feedback on the first edition was also
very helpful in revising the chapters on methodology and fieldwork. I am also grateful to
Mariam Salehi and David Shim for taking the time to provide feedback on some of the
draft chapters of this text. In addition to the above, I would like to extend my gratitude
to the anonymous reviewers commissioned by Sage for their time and effort in providing
such helpful feedback to this and the previous edition.
Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to those at Sage who acted as a constant
source of inspiration and encouragement for this book from its very beginning. I would
like to thank Natalie Aguilera who encouraged me to write the first edition of this book,
Eve Williams who encouraged me to take on the challenge of revising and expanding the
first edition and Ozlem Merakli and Martin Fox, who assisted in finalizing this edition. I
would like to extend a special word of appreciation to Andrew Malvern who worked with
me on the second edition. Andrew’s detailed feedback on each of this book’s chapters
helped push me to make this second edition one that is much improved. I am extremely
grateful for the time Andrew took to go over reviewer feedback and also to read and com-
ment on my draft chapters. As much of the second edition was written in Tokyo during
the COVID-19 pandemic, I am also grateful for Andrew’s encouragement and dedication
that kept this project going during a challenging year.
Christopher Lamont
March 26, 2021
Tokyo, Japan
INTRODUCTION
Research Methods in International Relations (RMIR) is a companion for students and

researchers in the broadly defined field of International Relations (IR). The aim of this
textbook is to help you navigate the research and writing process from start to finish. By
doing this, RMIR will help you to unlock the diverse research practices that today define
the study of international affairs.
The first edition of this textbook, published in 2015, took as its point of departure the
assumption that a firm grasp of methodology and methods was a necessary prerequisite
to making sense of research within the discipline, and also for making your own contri-
butions to academic and policy debates. Its central aim was to do this in a manner that
was accessible to the novice researcher. The second edition is written in the same spirit,
but with substantially updated chapter content and entirely new chapters on interviews
and discourse analysis.
What’s New in the Second Edition

The second edition is significantly revised and updated. Chapters that appeared in the
first edition include new examples from recent scholarship and reflect recent debates
and developments in methodology and methods. One of the more prominent changes
that you will notice is that Chapters 1 and 2 present a broader and more nuanced dis-
cussion of methodological choices in IR. In the second edition, I have also opted to use
the broad labels of positivism and interpretivism throughout this book over empiricism and
interpretivism, as used in the first edition. This is because the term ‘empiricism’ risks being
confused with approaches to research with an empirical focus, which includes a broad
range of research that falls outside of positivism. More on what these terms mean will be
discussed in Chapter 1.
One of the unique features of this book is that it provides an in-depth introduc-
tion to IR methodology that goes beyond just presenting you with a guide to research
methods. Research methods are practical tools that we use to collect and analyze data.
Methodology, on the other hand, refers to a consistent set of assumptions about how to
go about doing research and distinguishing between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ research. Without a
clear understanding of methodology, having a good command of research methods is like
2 RESEARCH METHODS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
knowing how to operate construction equipment without an architectural plan of what

kind of structure you are trying to build. The second edition has sought to expand upon
this by providing you with both an introduction to methodology as well as examples of
methodologies in practice. Moreover, the second edition also includes new sections on
critical theory and normative theory in IR.
Each of chapter of this book has been substantially updated to reflect recent develop-
ments and debates in IR and also to draw connections between IR methodology, methods,
and IR theory. Exemplary research is highlighted in each of this book’s chapters to provide
examples of how different methodologies and methods are used in research. In some cases,
exemplary research will be spotlighted in chapters. Every chapter will also contain further
reading lists that feature a roadmap of readings. These further readings will allow you to
explore many of the topics discussed in each of the chapters in much greater detail.
All of these updates and revisions have been made while maintaining the accessibility
of the first edition. Even with no prior background in IR, or in philosophy of social sci-
ences, you will be able to navigate the following pages and learn how to make sense of IR
research practice, and also how to research and write your own research essay, thesis, or
dissertation. We will return to some of these additions when the chapter outline of this
book is introduced. First, however, let us reflect on a question that you may have about
why you are reading this book. How do methodology and methods matter in IR?
Thinking About Research in IR

Researching and writing your own papers is an exciting and rewarding process that will
lead you to rethink many assumptions that you might have had before beginning your
research. For many of you, writing your first papers in IR will lead you toward a career
in research and writing, whether as a foreign affairs professional in government, in the
non-governmental sector, or as a researcher in industry or academia.
One of the things about IR that might have drawn you to the subject in the first place
is that there are a number of different ways we can draw upon to analyze and make sense
of international affairs. This goes beyond disagreements over how to deal with global
challenges, like for example, global COVID-19 vaccine distribution, and gets to the ques-
tion of what global problems do we identify as the most pressing and why? State security,
socio-economic inequality, racial justice, decoloniality are all part of the conversation
in IR. How we identify global challenges and what challenges we choose to address is
informed by how we understand the world around us. Methodological assumptions we
make about how we study world affairs, our own role in the research process, and what
kind of knowledge we aim to produce offer many different roads to travel in IR research.
RMIR will provide you with a roadmap that will allow you to more easily navigate
research design and methods choices you will confront in your own research. In order to
make informed research choices, you will learn the underlying logics behind methodology
and methods and how to use tools for data collection and analysis in your own research.
Introduction 3
As a roadmap, this textbook will provide you with a resource that will help you nav-
igate research choices. This textbook does not make a case for a unified methodology
or approach to IR research. There is no single approach that is advanced in the follow-
ing pages, but rather you will learn how different methodologies operate with different
logics and have different evaluative criteria. In this sense, this textbook takes a pluralist
approach to methodology, more on what this means will be discussed in Chapter 1, but
Jackson’s (2016) emphasis on rejecting efforts to impose a single way of knowing upon IR
captures nicely the ethos of research practice that this textbook aims to present.
With this openness to different ways of doing research in mind, the forthcoming
chapters will provide you with a comprehensive roadmap of the research process, from
research question formulation and research design, to data collection and analysis, to
writing up your research.
Introducing Research and Writing in International

Relations
What makes an academic essay, a thesis, or a dissertation different from other forms of
writing? When you read about international affairs, you probably click through a num-
ber of news stories and op-eds on your go-to international affairs websites. Moreover,
you might also watch video reports or documentaries and listen to any number of
podcasts that cover international politics. Reading articles, watching documentaries,
and listening to podcasts on international affairs might have been what first inspired
you to study IR.
What makes academic writing distinct is that our writing aims to answer questions
about the world around us through a rigorous, systemic and open-minded process known
as research. Often you will have a strong hunch about a research topic after having read
a lot about your topics of interest. Doing research will give you the tools needed to chal-
lenge your preconceived understandings of your topic. At the very heart of this process
is data collection and data analysis. Analyzing and collecting data isn’t as simple as it
sounds – there are wider philosophical issues to contend with: why are you collecting
your data? And how will you analyze it? Will you analyze large datasets because you
are interested in big picture arguments about international affairs? Will you analyze the
speeches of world leaders because you believe how we describe the world shapes how we
respond to major events? Do you see international politics as static and unchanging or
do you see it as dynamic and evolving?
Writing is how we communicate our research and our findings so that others can
see the roads we travelled and question how we arrived at our destination. Effective
and concise writing forms a bridge between our research and our audience. Indeed, you
may aspire for your research to help contribute to making sense of the myriad of urgent
and complex questions confronting decision-makers working for governments, NGOs,
or businesses. How you do this and what this looks like can take on many different
forms from policy papers that address contemporary challenges such as environmental
degradation, armed conflict, climate change, territorial disputes, human rights abuses,
and economic injustice, to papers that contribute to theorizing how ‘taken for granted’
concepts in international politics like borders and sovereignty emerged in the first place
and how their meanings continue to shift.
Research requires us to collect and analyze some form of data, whether that be opinion
polls, speeches by world leaders, data on military spending, or iconic photographs that
change how we understand a particular issue like migration or climate change. What dis-
tinguishes a piece of academic research from advocacy pieces is that we are transparent
about our methodological assumptions, method choices, and limitations of our research
designs. This requires us to open to challenging our own preexisting hunches we may have
about a topic. We often find the unexpected in our research. This is part of what makes
our research of value to a broad range of readers that goes beyond academia and includes
journalists, policy-focused researchers at think-tanks, and foreign affairs professionals.
A Guide to Research Practice

This textbook is best approached as a ‘how to’ guide for research practice in IR that offers
step-by-step advice for every stage of the research process, from thinking about basic
methodological positions to framing research questions, research design, data collection,
data analysis, and writing up your work. This textbook is a comprehensive guide for
how to set out on any kind of research project within the discipline, whether as a novice
researcher or as a postgraduate. Furthermore, it is designed to be sufficiently broad in the
tools covered to serve as a reference to have on your desk for any future research you may
conduct long after you complete your studies.
Not only will the following pages of this book help you engage with a wider audience
in IR, but methodological literacy will also make you a more critical consumer of infor-
mation you receive about international affairs that you find expressed on blogs, online
and print media or on television.
Take for example, the oft-cited claim that democracies do not go to war with other
democracies. During the later 1990s, it was even suggested that no two countries with a
McDonald’s have fought a war against each other (Musgrave, 2020). While this particular
claim was proven false – there are McDonald’s franchises in countries that have gone to
war, consider the wars in the former Yugoslavia for example – this proposition became
a widely held belief with strong roots in the United States’ own identity as a liberal
democratic state. In fact, during the early years of the George W. Bush presidency, this
assumption informed a wide range of policy discourses. How would we go about answer-
ing how useful a predictor of war is the type of government? That is, are democratic
states more or less likely to go to war with one another? We could start by turning our
assumption into a testable hypothesis.
H1: Democracies do not go to war with other democracies.

Introduction 5
Next, we can test this hypothesis against empirical data that we will gather as part of
our research process. Of course, at this point, you have probably already recognized that
this process, even in relation to a relatively simple statement like the one presented
above is fraught with choices related to research design and methods. When is a state a
democracy and when is a state not a democracy? Are elections enough to be considered
a democracy? Or do democracies also need to respect a wide range of political and civil
rights? Do you gather statistical data on all wars that have been fought in the last two
centuries and try to find correlations between regime types and conflict or do we look at
in-depth case studies of events where democracies were in conflict with each other, but
war did not break out? The chapters that follow will provide guidance on different ways
you can find answers to the questions asked above.
RMIR equips you with a set of tools for collecting, interpreting and analyzing a wide
body of information that we will gather from digital media sources, television, newspapers,
expert interviews, or large datasets. These tools will, in the short-term, help sharpen your
ability to make an impactful contribution to debates through your own research essays,
theses or dissertations. However, and perhaps more importantly, these tools will also help
make you a more effective decision-maker and communicator in the policy, business or
academic communities as questions about how we know and how we go about evaluating
claims are not just classroom exercises but inform strategic decision-making in pretty much
every field you can imagine. Your academic assignments or thesis project should therefore
not be viewed as a rarefied form of writing, but rather a project that will help sharpen skills
that will help you to ask better questions and provide more insightful answers.
Research Methods as Research Choices

At the very beginning of your research project, you may find yourself asking a number
of questions about how to conduct research. Common questions that come to mind might
be: how do I design my project? What data will I need to collect? How will I make sense
of this data? There is no one single answer to these questions, and how you answer these
questions in the context of your research project might be very different to your peers.
Research is about making choices. And, in order to make informed choices, there is an
important distinction to be made between methodological assumptions and methods.
Think of methods as the tools of research – they are the practical techniques which you
will use to collect and analyze data. Options when collecting data spans conducting
interviews to archival research, analyzing Tweets to experiments. When it comes to ana-
lyzing your data, again the options are plentiful, from using statistics to find causal links
to hermeneutics and discourse analysis. Don’t be overwhelmed – choosing the tools of
data collection and analysis is related to methodological questions and RMIR will assist
you by providing you with a detailed guide to navigating these research choices that you
will encounter during the course of your own research .
Methodology aids and informs our choice of the tools, or methods of research. By
methodology, we refer to the philosophical principles informing our research. It relates
to bigger questions around what it is we know, and how we can find that knowledge. We
discuss this further in Chapter 1, but for now, consider an example of the World Health
Organization (WHO)’s COVAX program. Under this program the WHO sought to secure
a fair and equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines once they became widely avail-
able in 2021 (WHO, 2021). You may wish to explore questions that identify reasons why
COVAX was effective, or not, in securing COVID-19 vaccines for developing countries.
Methodological considerations inform the likely tools, or methods, you will find most
useful in investigating answers to your question. Here, you would need to find a way
to identify causes of effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, and collect and analyze data that
would allow you to assess effectiveness.
As IR researchers, we’re passionate about shedding light on the complex challenges
faced by the world today. From authoritarianism, pandemics, terrorism, and populism,
to military coups, great power rivalry, regional integration, economic crises, and human
rights abuses, there is seemingly no end to the many salient issues in international affairs
that we grapple with and you can research. Any such research project must start first and
foremost with a consideration of philosophy of science, that will have you consider ques-
tions like: can we identify a single cause behind complex social events? Are there law-like
regularities that we can uncover through our research that will help bring a degree of
certainty to the policy process? Are we neutral observers of the world around us or are we
an active part of this world?
There is no universal agreement on the most persuasive answers to these questions,
but a broad consensus has emerged to now embrace this plurality. Different method-
ological positions offer different ways of explaining and theorizing, and each tells us
something different about the world. Traditionally, discussions around philosophy of
science were presented in a series of ‘Great Debates’. While they have been the subject
of intense discussion in IR, many of the so-called ‘Great Debates’ have been proven not
to have occurred in the way they’re typically presented in the textbooks (Ashworth,
2014), so I won’t reproduce them at length here, although they will be briefly revisited
in Chapter 1. At this point, an example will suffice, to show the different methodological
approaches to research questions. Let’s think about debates over US-China policy. Should
the United States challenge China’s rise as a great power? Should the United States be
more accommodating of China as a rising power? Or should the United States push
China harder on issues of human rights? Should China’s maritime claims be challenged
by Washington? All of these questions will require us to reflect on the question of power,
and how national power matters in IR. These debates are not new as you might think (see
Carr, 2001 or Morgenthau, 2005).
But, how do we know how to research power in IR? Is IR about the study of power as
an ordering principle in the international order, or is it about the study of how power is
exercised? What is power? How does that power operate? Is there a material world that is
separate from humankind that we study or is this world of nation-states something that
we had a hand in creating? While you are probably already familiar with some of these
questions, what you might not be aware of is that a question of methodology underlies
many of these contested understandings of the world around us. In order to engage with
Introduction 7
these debates, an understanding of how we know what we think we know about the
world around us is fundamental.
This is where having a firm grasp of methodological and methods concepts and prac-
tices is essential. Given the plurality of methodologies and methods in IR, you will be
provided in the forthcoming pages with the tools needed to establish a strong understand-
ing of positivist and interpretivist research, alongside qualitative, quantitative
and mixed methods data collection and analysis strategies. However, before introducing
these terms in the forthcoming chapters, let us first turn to setting out the chapter outline.
Your Methodology and Methods Roadmap

Over the course of the next 12 chapters, this textbook will provide you with a practical
guide to carrying out your own research project from beginning to end while also pro-
viding you with a survey of research methodologies and methods. Although the structure
of this book tries to parallel your own research journey, it is important here to remember
that research is not a linear process. There will be many times where you might go back
and revisit earlier research choices. This is perfectly OK. In fact, it is likely a sign that you
are on the right path.
Chapter 1 introduces the broad methodological debates underpinning all decisions
about research design and methods. IR’s contested methodologies are explored through
a presentation of a positivist and interpretive methodological spectrum. These two dis-
tinct approaches to doing and evaluating research will be discussed. The chapter offers
a comprehensive introduction to methodology, epistemology, and ontology, and you
will become proficient in using these terms to inform how you carry out research. With
reference to specific examples of diverse research practices in IR, this chapter will provide
you with the broadest possible introduction to methodology in IR that will also include
critical theory and normative theory.
Chapter 2 introduces you to crafting research questions and research design. Moving
from a broad topic of interest to a research question that you can answer in the scope
of an essay or thesis is often one of the more challenging steps of the research process.
This chapter provides you with some practical tips and considerations for coming up
with your own research question. Covering a broad spectrum of research questions and
designs, it covers research questions that span the positivist–interpretive spectrum. From
the starting point of research choices, we go deeper into making sense of the plurality of
research questions and designs within the discipline.
Considering research ethics is essential at every stage of the research process and also
an essential part of every IR research project, whatever its methodological grounding.
Chapter 3 provides a comprehensive overview of research ethics that goes beyond
questions of academic honesty, such as plagiarism. Here, we will explore how position-
ality and reflexivity are important ethical considerations to take into account whenever
carrying out research. In addition, research ethics are illustrated in practice when con-
ducting research with participants. The principle of ‘do no harm’ has long been a guiding
principle of social science research, which relies on interaction with human research par-
ticipants through interview research, focus groups, surveys, or questionnaires. As more
and more IR researchers gather their data from interviews or other forms of interaction
with research participants, questions of research ethics, and how they interact with differ-
ent codes of ethics (from personal ethics to institutional and professional ethics) require
greater attention within the discipline. Thus, research ethics go far beyond traditional
questions of plagiarism and academic dishonesty, which are also covered in this chapter.
In Chapter 4 you will be provided with an overview of how to conduct a literature
review from start to finish. This includes resolving dilemmas over where to begin when
preparing and structuring your literature review, and where to draw the line as your
literature review will always only be able to cover a small portion of a much broader
literature. This chapter is designed as a practical guide to explaining how your research
offers an original contribution to the field. Whatever your research project, it is essential
to situate your own research within the existing body of scholarship.
Chapter 5 marks a transition from these important but broader issues of methodol-
ogy, design, ethics and reviewing the literature, to focus on how to go about collecting
and analyzing data. Chapter 5 starts with an introduction to some data collection and
analysis techniques that fall under the broad umbrella of qualitative methods. Here we
will focus on how to study artefacts of human life from textual analysis to collecting pri-
mary data from research participants to visual analysis of images, photographs, or public
spaces. As such, this chapter provides you with a full range of qualitative methods, while
also highlighting more recent innovations in qualitative IR, such as visual methods.
Chapter 6 goes on to provide an introduction to quantitative methods. It also sur-
veys both data collection and analysis strategies, this time using quantitative methods.
Interpreting databases, such as the Correlates of War project, and making sense of indi-
ces, such as the Freedom House Index, will require quantitative literacy. Statistics and
formal methods are also widely used in IR and appear frequently in the discipline’s lead-
ing journals (Zinnes, 2002: 99). In addition, scholars have attempted to model a wide
range of strategic interactions in the study of international relations from cooperation to
conflict. Thus, literacy in formal modelling, in particular an ability to draw and under-
stand relationships between variables, is important for both students and scholars to
access this body of IR scholarship. This chapter will therefore provide you with a broad
introduction to quantitative methods in order to allow you to both read and consume
quantitative work in IR and also design and carry out your own quantitative project.
Chapter 7 provides you with an introduction to mixed methods research. Up to this
point, methods have been presented as falling within defined camps: either qualitative
or quantitative. However, many research projects use more than one method, and often
this spans this divide. For research methods involving two different techniques crossing
this boundary, we refer to the project as engaging in mixed methods. This chapter will
explore strategies for mixed methods research design and also present you with examples
from research practice, drawing from the ways statistical analysis can assist in qualitative
case selection, and how other concepts, like triangulation, are used in the context of
Introduction 9
mixed methods. After exploring mixed methods in practice, ranging from uses of mixed
methods in making causal arguments to mixed methods and strategic and simulation
models, this chapter will shift gears and return to a broader, and distinct, methodolog-
ical discussion in which methodological approaches such as critical realism, analytical
eclecticism, and methodological pluralism will be explored. These approaches will be dis-
cussed here so as to wrap up our introduction to the core methods families, qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods, and reinforce linkages between debates over how we
use methods tools.
The next three chapters will dive deeper into some of the most popular methods tools
and activities. These include fieldwork, interview research, and discourse analysis. The
chapters on interview research and discourse analysis are new additions to RMIR that
have been added in part because of how widely used both of these methods are among
researchers, but also to provide more specific guidance that goes beyond an introduction
to qualitative methods at large.
Chapter 8 provides you with a guide to fieldwork in IR. Fieldwork has become
increasingly common in IR and has provoked significant debate as to its purpose and
function. Recently, while more texts have been published that explicitly address many
of the challenges and practical considerations of using fieldwork, there remains only one
text that specifically addresses dilemmas of access, consent and safety that students are
confronted with during field research (Sriram et al., 2009). Chapter 8 outlines the entire
process of field research, including a step-by-step guide and illustrating some of the chal-
lenges encountered in the field. With examples drawn from field research in conflict
and post-conflict zones, students will gain an insight into conducting research in a wide
range of settings.
Perhaps the most commonly used technique for gathering qualitative data from
research participants in IR is the interview method. In a brand-new chapter for the 2nd
edition, Chapter 9 introduces interviewing in its many forms. Interviews range from a
long free flowing conversation to a highly structured interview with pre-scripted ques-
tions. You will be introduced to a wide variety of interview techniques in this chapter
covering the strengths and weaknesses of interviewing as a method, to practical consid-
erations concerning who to contact and how best to access those individuals that will
be useful to interview, as well as how to conduct the interviews, and how to interpret
your findings.
While the interview method is the most common way to gather primary data from
research participants, another common qualitative method of data collection and data
analysis that researchers draw upon is discourse analysis. Chapter 10, another new
Chapter for the 2nd edition, introduces you to using discourse analysis in your own
research. Discourse is the use of language in all forms of communication, but the main
focus here will be its use in text and speeches, the study of which shows the power of lan-
guage in shaping how we and other actors engage with the world around us. Discourse
analysis is valuable for many different research agendas. This includes critical approaches,
or research committed to social change, which is largely achieved through unpacking the
role of discourse in maintaining status quo (and often unequal) power relations. This
kind of analysis is referred to as critical discourse analysis.
Case study research, the subject of Chapter 11, is one of the most commonly used
research designs in IR research. Case studies come in many different forms that vary in
terms of number of case studies, a single case study or a comparative case study, but also
in terms of purpose. Here, you will question why and for what purpose you are con-
ducting a case study and how your case study design will help you answer your research
question. This will help you design your case study. Will you be using a comparative
method in order to maximize causal inference through your case studies? If so, there are a
number of case study design strategies from which you can choose. Alternatively, are you
researching a case that does not conform to theoretical expectations or are you aiming to
tell a specific process story? These are all different reasons why you may choose to carry
out a case study, and this chapter will provide you with a comprehensive overview to case
study design that will address them all.
Chapter 12 concludes this textbook with a practical guide to writing up your research.
Writing-up is an exciting and rewarding part of the research process. By this point you
will have done the heavy lifting of data collection and data analysis. Now, it’s time to tell
the reader about what you have found, why it is interesting and how it should contribute
to how we understand your topic. While academic writing often takes on a special form,
which will be presented to you in this chapter, you may wish to also think about sharing
your results with a wider audience, perhaps in a peer reviewed outlet, or in short form as
an essay that is aimed at the broader public. Either way, being a good writer is a skill that
will help get your research noticed.
Looking Ahead
Before moving on to the next chapter it is worth recalling that in international affairs
oftentimes bad outcomes are attributed to poor strategic decision-making. However, this
is rarely the result of a lack of information. Rather, often poor decisions were the result of
poor analysis of information at hand. Being able to better make sense of all of this infor-
mation about our world that we have at our fingertips is what research is about. Being
able to communicate your findings and make sure your research is easily understood
through being well written is also a valuable part of the process.
ONE
METHODOLOGY
AND METHODS IN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
learning objectives
• Explain the meaning of methodological plurality in IR

• Understand how theory and methodology are interrelated
• Explain methodological positions of positivist, interpretive, critical and normative
research in IR
• Understand how methodology, research design, and research methods relate to
one another
• Explain key terms: methodology, epistemology and ontology
• Gain an understanding of underlying logic of key research choices that you will
make during the research process
Why does methodology matter in International Relations (IR) research? When first
embarking on the study of IR, you are introduced to a wide range of approaches to ana-
lyze international affairs. This reflects different ways of making sense of the world around
us from explaining great power rivalries and the high politics of international diplomacy,
to the ways that everyday experiences, the media, and culture shape international affairs.
In addition to IR’s varied subject matter, the academic study of IR has also drawn inspi-
ration from a number of adjacent fields such as law, economics, political science, history,
and sociology, to name a few examples. This broad scope of study and cross-disciplinary
engagement helps explain why IR reading lists contain work that spans many of the
disciplines noted above and also works that rely on diverse methodologies or methods.
But, this diversity can also make a straightforward question – like why does methodology
matter in IR? – into one that has a seemingly complex answer.
Of course, IR’s diversity and richness should not be interpreted as suggesting that IR
is a discipline where ‘anything goes’ in terms of research practice. Because your readings
will cover a wide range of topics and will approach these topics from very different per-
spectives, an understanding of basic assumptions about how we know the world around
us is essential to making sense of this rich body of scholarship that today makes up IR.
This is why methodology matters. It will help guide you through existing scholarship
and also help you to think about your own research choices. When beginning to consider
methodology, it is helpful to take as a starting point Walt’s observation that we should
avoid attempts to impose a single method, or theoretical worldview, on the field (2011a).
Doing this, according to Walt, would limit research agendas to a narrow scope of ques-
tions that could be addressed by the popular method of the day (2011b). It would in the
end make IR less relevant and would leave IR research unable to stand the test of time.
We should instead strive to produce methodologically rigorous research that meets
the standards of inquiry within the methods and methodological traditions with which
we engage. This is what Jackson refers to as methodological pluralism (2016).
According to Jackson, methodological pluralism means holding research to the internal
standards and logics specific to its own distinct research practice in IR. Methodology mat-
ters because it describes a set of assumptions about how we study the social world. These
assumptions are what makes rigorous, systemic, and contestable research possible. IR’s
openness to distinct research practices, and an attentiveness to conversations between
them, requires us to make explicit our methodological assumptions (Jackson, 2016: 210).
If we are open to methodological plurality, how do we make judgments about what
constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’ research practice? And, how do we do this in a manner that
does not impose an overly narrow view of what constitutes ‘good’ research, which would
foreclose innovative research agendas? Methodological plurality does not mean that you
can approach methods like a breakfast buffet and pick and choose those methods and
tools that you would simply prefer to use, or that will simply get you the ‘dish’ that you
want. At the same time, methodological plurality does open doors to different ways of
exploring your research topic each with its own research purpose.
Methodology and Methods in International Relations 13
Researching Peace
How is methodological plurality reflected in IR research? Well, let’s take for an example
the study of peace. The question of peace has been central to many different research
agendas over the years and can be approached from many different perspectives.
Some researchers want to better understand the concept of peace, others want to map
broad trends in international conflict, or make conjectures about the causes of inter-
state peace and conflict.
To be sure, a researcher might look for empirical evidence that accounts for peri-
ods of stable peace between states, the formation of alliances, or to the causes of war
among states. One important area of research that emerged from this kind of work was
democratic peace theory: or the assumption that liberal democratic states are less likely
to go to war with each other than authoritarian states. In this type of research, quan-
titative methods were used to gather data on incidences of inter-state conflict for the
purpose of making generalizable claims about the conditions of peace. Also, included,
is research that sought to test some of these generalizable claims against the evidence
to see which claims held best against empirical evidence, and which claims could be
discounted.
On the other hand, your curiosity may lead you more in the direction of researching
a more granular understanding of peace that goes beyond inter-state conflict. Indeed,
your interest might direct you towards the study of intra-state conflict. For example, how
has the nature of political violence changed over the course of the twentieth and twenty-
first centuries? When looking at twenty-first century political violence from France to
Myanmar, you may ask: What animates violence in today’s world? What does peace look
like? Is a peace agreement merely a formal document negotiated by elites or is it some-
thing more? With this type of research, methods would be used to provide a thicker
understanding of the phenomenon of political violence in diverse contexts and how this
informs our understanding of conflict and peace in IR.
IR Theory and Methodology

Many of the most salient questions posed in IR theoretical debates are questions embed-
ded within our own basic understandings of methodology. But, while we discuss theory
a lot in IR, you might have discovered that finding a concise definition of what IR theory
is to be more difficult than finding explanations of what theory can do for us, such as
provide a means to make sense of world politics.
But what is IR theory? One reason for definitional confusion here is that the very
definition of what makes up theory can be different depending on which methodological
positions you adopt. For example, Van Evera defines theory as ‘general statements that
describe or explain the causes or effects of classes of phenomena’ (1997: 7–8). Cristol,
on the other hand, defines IR theory as ‘a theory that seeks both to explain past state
behaviour and to predict future state behaviour’; yet notes that many would disagree
with such a definition (2019).
Here, this textbook defines IR theory in a broad sense as a set of logically interre-
lated propositions about the world around us. This allows us to understand IR theorizing
across methodological positions, but also to engage with theory at different levels of
theorizing. To be sure, theories can take on many forms, they can be grand theories of
international politics, like liberalism, realism, neorealism, neoliberalism, or constructiv-
ism that advance more general propositions about world politics. Other theories can
be more ‘middle range’ in that the focus on an issue-oriented puzzle (Lepgold, 1998),
such as Democratic Peace Theory. There is also grounded theory, which has application
in IR as a bottom-up approach to theory building on the basis of observed empirical
data (Tucker, 2016). Moreover, critical theory advances a theoretical project that seeks to
disrupt oppressive structures that are maintained through social practices (Horkheimer,
1972). Here you might want to consider Cox’s (1981) proposition that theory is always
for somebody or some purpose as highlighting a view that theory-building in IR is not a
neutral project, but rather reflects the preferences of powerful international actors (1981).
Asking Questions about our World and

Disciplinary Knowledge
IR’s disciplinary history is often told along the lines of ‘great debates’. While these
debates will not be retold in great detail here, in brief this refers to debates between
idealists and realists, behaviouralists and traditionalists, and also positivists and post-
positivists (Schmidt, 2002). The first of these debates, between idealists and realists
became part of the foundational myth of IR as a discipline and was said to be centred
around the question of studying the world as it ought to be or studying the world as is.
While widely recognized as a foundational myth as opposed to an actual historiogra-
phy of IR, this debate was said to pit realists on the one hand and idealists on the other
(Schmidt, 2002). However, on closer inspection, those who were labelled as idealists or
utopian actually held much more nuanced views that hardly warranted the label that
was ascribed to them (Schmidt, 2002).
The second great debate was said to have been between behaviouralists who sought
to apply mathematical language to the study of IR and traditionalists who argued that
mathematical models could not capture the historic, contextual, and linguistic milieu
that makes up IR (Bull, 1966; Kaplan, 1966). One way to simplify this is to think about
what kind of knowledge is most valued in IR? Or in other words, how do you think your
IR program could be better designed? Should we place more of an emphasis on studying
the history of IR to better understand the historical contexts in which ideas and practices
emerged, or do we need more advanced mathematical, or digital training to make us
better analysts of world affairs?
When discussing the ‘third great debate’, Schmidt (2002) observes that this debate
highlights why telling our disciplinary history along the lines of simplified great debates
is troubling. As with earlier debates, there were actually a number of debates that can-
not be easily reduced into a binary A vs. B division. These include debates between
neo-liberals and neo-realists, rationalists and constructivists, and communitarians and
cosmopolitans.
Nevertheless, moving on, the ‘fourth great debate’ is said to be one that places a
number of critical perspectives such as critical theory, IR feminism, and critical construc-
tivism, among others, against approaches that relied on more traditional, or positivist
epistemological commitments that cast the researcher as an impartial observer to world
politics (Schmidt, 2002). Here we begin to see some of the methodological divisions that
will be explored in greater detail in this chapter become increasingly visible.
Positivism and Interpretivism in IR Research

In mapping out different perspectives on research in IR, crucial distinctions in how
researchers think about global politics can be noted. On the one hand is positivist
research. A researcher with a positivist approach to IR finds it possible to identify, and
test, causal phenomena for generalizable law-like regularities. If certain conditions are met,
outcomes can be predicted, for example the Democratic Peace Theory’s assumption that
democracies do not fight wars against other democracies. On the other is interpretive
research. Interpretive researchers suggest claims about IR are tied to a particular context
or time that gives them meaning which may change, making it impossible to generate
hard-and-fast, generalizable laws. Instead, there is often an emphasis on the importance
of ideas, concepts, or ethical standards. For example, how do gendered understandings of
masculinity shape how violence is carried out, or researched, in conflict settings?
The picture becomes more complex when we include other research choices: levels of
analysis, the role of theory, and the scope of your research project. Of course, different
types of research and the theoretical and methodological choices you make are decisions
which can cut across these two fundamentally distinct positions. How to navigate these
choices will be dealt with in this next chapter.
Here it must be emphasized that methodology and research methods are much more
than toolkits for research, but they play a key role in the very making of our discipline.
In the past, efforts to impose a unitary logic over all IR research produced exceeding
narrow standards for what constitutes ‘good’ research. The oft-told founding story of IR
is one that is presented in terms of ‘great debates’ recounted in brief in the previous sec-
tion. The ‘great debates’ story traces the origins of IR to the early 20th century. Whether
between idealists and realists, between rationalists and traditionalists, or positivists and
post-positivists, these debates framed IR as a discipline struggling over basic questions of
how to study the world around us. Over the course of the last three decades, the field of
IR has witnessed a remarkable growth. In sheer volume terms, there is more IR research
going on, but also the variety of research agendas has radically expanded. There has been
a growth in interpretive, critical theory and normative theory scholarship that moves
beyond a narrow focus on managing great power relations that the once dominant
state-centric paradigms of neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism held at their core.
IR constructivists first challenged the ways neo-realists and neo-liberal institutional-
ists viewed the world as being made up of unitary state actors that could be studied by
an unbiased researcher identifying objective laws that govern inter-state relations. Such
a narrow positivist logic of research was further challenged by feminist IR scholarship.
Feminist IR highlights the limits of positivism and recognizes the researcher’s own rela-
tionship with their research subject and how positivist methodological assumptions limit
our ability to engage with important research subjects such as inequality, gender, and race.
As has been pointed out by Henderson (2013), Vitalis (2015) and Sabaratnam (2020),
many of our understandings of IR are deeply embedded in racialized understandings
of hierarchy and power that reinforced Western dominance, imperialism, and colonial-
ism. Postcolonial and decolonial scholars have also drawn attention to how IR remains
a discipline where existing scholarship and journals are largely dominated by scholars
situated in Europe and North America (Noda, 2020). Moreover, Darby highlights this
western-centricity in IR scholarship when pointing out ‘One of the extraordinary things
about IR – at least until recently – is how few Western scholars did field work or even
spent much time in Africa or Asia’ (Parashar et al., 2016: 467).
Absent this contextualization of IR’s emergence and how IR is practiced today, it is
impossible to understand how many of the commonly told founding stories of IR, with
their foci on inter-state war and peace, and great power politics, made invisible some
of the most fundamental ordering principles in world politics of the twentieth century,
such as race, empire, and inequality.
Indeed, de Carvalho et al. (2011) explored in great detail how the founding myths of
IR, the myth of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the myth of the post-First World
War founding continue to perpetuate a disciplinary narrative that does not stand up to
historiographical scrutiny and perpetuates a very narrow understanding of the discipline.
Race and IR
In Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism in International Relations Theory, Henderson high-
lighted the centrality of race and racism at the birth of IR in the early twentieth century.
Henderson also demonstrated how racist understandings of notions that remain central
to many IR theories, such as anarchy, continue to reproduce racist understandings of
the world politics that are not historically supported. This raises an important question
about how and why a disciplinary silence emerged around racism, despite racism being
central to IR at its founding.
Henderson, E.A. (2013) “Hidden in plain sight: Racism in International Relations Theory’, Cambridge
Review of International Affairs, 26 (1): 71–92.
The centring of an IR founding story in post-First World War Europe, when the first Chair
of International Relations was established in Aberystwyth in 1919 (Burchill, 2001: 4; de
Carvalho et al., 2011), left a deep imprint on IR scholarship, as many of our debates in
IR have engaged with primarily cases drawn from European history and draws heavily
upon European political theory (Sabaratnam, 2020). Today, there are numerous calls to
decentre research methodology from this largely European and North American experi-
ence (Smith, 2002).
As you will understand from this brief foray into the discipline’s recent past, your
methodological choices will say a lot about what you consider to be important in mak-
ing sense of IR. Therefore, when you embark on writing research papers, you will need
to justify your underlying assumptions about how you interpret the social world. Every
research article you have read within your IR studies, and every research paper you will
write is embedded within a certain methodological framework.
When first introducing the methodological pluralism of IR, it can be helpful
to consider a wide range of choices that will guide your research in the form of a
broad, but fluid typologies of research practice that spans positivist and interpre-
tive work. When categorizing, though, keep in mind that different approaches to
methodology do not exist in isolation. While ideal-type labels are used here for the
purpose of simplicity, this should not be taken to mean that each approach operates
in complete isolation from others, or that these labels constitute some sort of strict
binary divide. Rather, it is meant to help make our methodological assumptions
explicit. This in turn allows for conversations to take place among diverse bodies of
research (Jackson, 2016).
What makes good research? As you will learn in the following pages, different meth-
odological approaches to research have different internal logics that must be consistently
applied in order for your research to produce findings that will be seen as convincing by
your readers. For example, positivist work will be evaluated on how robust your causal
claims turn out to be. Interpretive work could be evaluated on consistency between the
interpretations presented in your work and your sources. However, critical theory,
which will be presented in greater detail shortly, takes as its starting point the pursuit of
knowledge for the explicit purpose of emancipation. In this case, we might ask, does your
work demand a revaluation of assumptions that you have sought to question? Whereas
normative theory, takes as its starting point the study of morality and ethics in IR to
elucidate standards of appropriate behaviour and conduct. Here, we could evaluate your
work on how authentic and complete was your excavation of sources that underlie ethi-
cal standards that you have advanced.
So, methodology matters as it tells you more about what you as a researcher of IR con-
sider to be important and why. It also serves as a signpost for how your research will be
evaluated. Without an understanding of our own assumptions about what is important
to study and why we cannot structure own research in any logically consistent manner,
which brings us to the next section on how methodology matters.
How Methodology Matters

Now that it has been established why methodology matters, we can look deeper into the
question of how methodology matters. In short, it is your methodological assumptions
that will help you navigate the process of designing and carrying out your research pro-
ject. There are many different ways of doing research, or research practices, in IR that all
contribute to advancing knowledge in the discipline (Harvey and Brecher, 2002; Sprinz
and Wolinsky-Nahmias, 2004; Klotz and Prakash, 2008). As noted earlier, these research
practices cannot be treated as a breakfast buffet whereby you simply mix-and-match
various ‘dishes’. Instead, you might approach the buffet as being organized into distinct
affinity groups. Remember the two main groups of work presented here. Positivism and
interpretivism are used as broad labels to help in understanding the logics behind meth-
odology. They are not meant to be read as static -isms in the sense of being rigid and fixed
dichotomies. In order to make sense of these choices and logics, let us now turn to setting
out some key terms.
Key Terms: Methodology, Epistemology and Ontology

Methodological debates within IR have long been at the heart of theoretical contesta-
tions within the discipline as researchers attempt to better make sense of world politics.
As you will now understand from the ‘great debates’ narrative of disciplinary evolution
in IR, and from critiques of this narrative as far too narrow, many of the most significant
debates were not about which theory of the day provided for the best account of world
politics, but rather the question of how we even begin to make sense of the complex
social phenomena that make up IR. Methodology refers to a coherent system of ideas
that allows us to go about acquiring knowledge through a logical structure of inquiry
(Jackson, 2016: 27). Two important building blocks of this coherent system of ideas and
logics are epistemology and ontology (Hawkesworth, 2015: 28). Epistemology refers
to how and what kind of knowledge we value as scholarly, while ontology refers to the
objects that we study. Research methods, on the other hand, refer to the specific tools
we use to collect and analyze data.
It should be emphasized that all three concepts, methodology, epistemology, and
ontology, are important for establishing at the outset the why, what, and how of our
research. Ontology frames the object of study: what is it that we can know. For inter-
pretive research agendas, ontology can also be at the centre of inquiry as interpretive
authors attempt to deconstruct the meaning of entities that we take for granted as
existing in international politics, such as states or organizations. For example, rather
than studying compliance with international law, which could lead you down the path
of a counting exercise of the number of instances of compliance and non-compliance,
you could try to unpack the meaning of international law in one particular context or
several different contexts. Epistemology, or the study of knowledge and knowledge pro-
duction shows how it is we come to know. Thus, it gives us the standards that we use to
evaluate whether knowledge is of disciplinary value or not. Michel Foucault’s critique of

how power structures knowledge focused largely on how power and standards of what
constituted valuable knowledge were interlinked (2002). In the United States, Robert
Vitalis showed how the narrow focus of IR as a discipline in the twentieth century acted
to marginalize a vibrant body of IR scholarship centred around the historically African
American Howard School (Vitalis, 2015). Critiques of dominant approaches to under-
standing the history of IR (de Carvalho, 2011), such as those grounded in critical race
theory (Sabaratnam, 2020), often critique narrow epistemological standards that do
not provide a space for projects that do not conform to the dogmatic epistemological
standards of the day.
As we will go into more detail later in this chapter, positivist and interpretive research
agendas make epistemological claims about what forms of knowledge have value and
employ different standards for evaluating knowledge claims. Are valuable contributions
to scholarship those that involve rigorous testing of variables to explain a certain out-
come? Or are they those that explore the ontology of actors in international politics,
such as states? Taken together methodology, or the systems of knowledge acquisition;
epistemology, what knowledge we should acquire; and ontology, the study of being,
constitute a core foundation upon which we will build our research agendas. Therefore,
a basic awareness of methodology IR will help unlock appropriate research designs and
methods for your particular research project.
Now that we have explored assumptions that underlie how we approach research we
can begin to think about how these assumptions will inform our research choices.
Getting Started: What do you want to know?

Many research essays in IR are empirically grounded in some aspect of, or event in,
international politics, and can encompass issues like inequality, migration, or climate
change. Some research also aspires to be directly policy relevant. As I demonstrated
above, the methodological choices you make will shape your research design you
choose. Table 1.1 uses the topic of climate change to highlight how different research
purposes are intertwined with different methodological worldviews and different
research designs.
Given the examples above (positivist, interpretive, critical theory, and normative the-
ory, which will be explained further in this chapter), you can begin to reflect on what
kind of research project would best align with your own interests. However, keep in
mind that critical and normative theory projects share broader interpretive assumptions
about the relationship between the researcher and the world being studied. Therefore,
when thinking about how you approach your research topic, it can be helpful to think
of your research as being located upon a spectrum of research practices. Table 1.2 takes
as its starting point two distinct basic assumptions that will help elucidate what kind of
research project you would like to undertake and how different questions assume distinct
methodological assumptions.
Table 1.1 Climate Change: Research Purposes, Research Questions, and Research
Design
Research Purpose Research Methodological Research Example of a

Question Worldviews Design research paper
I want to explore Can policy Positivist Causal Maliniak et al.
the role of policy experts in inference, (2020) ‘Epistemic
experts in shaping climate change theory testing, communities and
public opinion on affect public and hypothesis public support for
the climate crisis support for testing the Paris Agreement
particular on Climate Change”,
policies? Political Research
Quarterly
I want to explore What climate Interpretive Discourses and Jernnäs and Linnér
different discourses discourses can meaning, data (2019) ‘A discursive
on climate change be found in visualization cartography
and how these national climate of nationally
might shape policy plans? determined
contributions to
the Paris Climate
Agreement’, Global
Environmental
Change
I want to understand How do gender Critical theory Emancipatory Bhattarai (2019)
how environmentally relations shape research, ‘How do gender
harmful social a community’s discourses and relations shape a
practices are ability to adapt meaning community’s ability
reproduced and to climate to adapt to climate
legitimized in IR so change? change? Insights from
that these practices Nepal’s community
can be exposed and forestry’, Climate and
delegitimized. Development
What moral Who should Normative Normative Vanderheiden
obligations do pay the costs theory research, (2011) ‘Globalizing
members of associated with identification responsibility for
international society anthropogenic of moral climate change’,
have to address climate change, and ethical Ethics & International
common threats such how much standards Affairs
as climate change? should they pay,
and why?
Table 1.2 Mapping Methodologies: Core Aims & Evaluating Claims
How do you go about

answering your research Major Methodological
Basic Assumptions question? Tradition
The researcher is independent of the • Hypothesis testing Positivist

world they are studying and seeks to • Falsification
uncover law-like regularities through
the testing of conjectured relationships
among variables.
How do you go about

answering your research Major Methodological
Basic Assumptions question? Tradition
The researcher cannot be separated from •• Genealogical mapping Interpretive
the world studied as the researcher is part of ideas, concepts and
of the social world. The views and context practices
of the researcher has a bearing on the •• Studying discourses and
analysis of inter-state relations. meanings
•• Investigating how
certain practices in IR
became ‘possible’
Causality in International Relations

It is important to emphasize here that there are no firm boundaries between research
practices, but rather the distance between them can be fluid. For example, causality is not
an exclusively positivist concept. Interpretive research also makes causal claims, albeit
not in the same way positivists do.
For positivists, causal claims are made in the form of hypotheses, or proposed expla-
nations for phenomena. This can take the form of a conjectured relationship between
a causal variable and the outcome being explained. These causal claims come from
observed constant correlations and can be confirmed by studies that identify a causal
mechanism whereby a change in one variable brings about a change in the other.
Where do hypotheses come from? Often you will build your hypotheses from pro-
posed explanations implicit in theory or even from a ‘hunch’ you might have about the
phenomena you are studying. For example, think about the following question: ’What
explains why states voluntarily signed up to join the International Criminal Court?’ Is
there a specific causal factor that we can identify, such as material self-interest or ideas
and norms? And can we, through our research, link this cause to our outcome, the
decision to join the International Criminal Court? How can we be sure that we have
identified the correct cause and not just some correlating factor that has nothing to do
with the outcome?
Although the forthcoming chapters will provide guidance on how to go about explor-
ing the above questions in a positivist sense, we can also ask: ’How did an international
criminal court come about in the first place?’ While such a question won’t give you a
specific cause and effect claim, it will illuminate broader causal forces that could account
for a deepening legalization of international criminal justice. Such an approach would
be drawing you closer to an interpretive methodology and how to go about answering
interpretive causal questions will also be addressed in greater detail. Remember, many of
the concepts that we will introduce such as explanation, causality, and understanding
have cross-cutting usages and meanings. Not all causal research is positivist. To be sure,
interpretive research explains events and processes in IR.
That being said, there are different ways of approaching the world that will lead us
to ask different questions that will have their own distinct assumptions and means of
evaluation. Some of us see ourselves as independent of the world we study, and focus on
researching material outcomes, like ‘do democracies go to war with other democracies?’.
Other questions push us more towards the immaterial and cannot easily be answered
through the compilation of large datasets in any meaningful way, for example, ‘when
and under what conditions is war legitimate’ is a very different kind of question.
IR research practice today is about much more than the study of great power rival-
ries, but rather brings together a wide range of methodological approaches that range
from understanding how lived experiences of international affairs shape how we engage
with the world around us, to philosophy of science-oriented debates over how and
what we can know about our world. Each of these approaches contains its own logic of
research. According to Jackson (2016: 217), this means that there are different philosoph-
ical ‘wagers’ or ‘commitments’ we bring with us when designing our own research.
Philosophy of Science in IR
The Philosophy of Science refers to a branch of philosophical inquiry that focuses on
a number of inter-related questions that include what makes scientific inquiry distinct
from other types of inquiry, what is science, the logic by which scientific claims are made,
the relationship between theory and data, and establishing what scientific fields have in
common (Stemwedel, 2014).
Methodological Choices and Research

Pole and Lampard (2002: 2) define research as ‘a process we use to understand our world’.
With this definition of research in mind, it is not surprising that the preceding question
of our relationship to the world we study has been at the heart of philosophy of science
debates and has also produced a wide range of responses that span from the application
of a natural scientific method to understand the social sciences to a complete rejection
of the scientific method.
Of course, at the very outset of the research process it is important not to get lost or
misdirected. IR’s plurality in methodologies and its diversity in research methods often
generates a significant amount of confusion. This was highlighted by Robert Keohane’s
call for feminist IR scholars to develop a positivist research agenda that would allow
for testable conjecture and hypothesis testing, something explicitly rejected on episte-
mological grounds by many feminist scholars (Tickner, 2005: 1–22). It is essential to
remember that distinct methodological traditions not only deploy different methods,
but also emerge from distinct traditions, theories, and ways of reasoning that have
shaped research in the field. Therefore, they ask fundamentally different questions with
distinct logics of evaluation. If methodology is about logical coherence when it comes to
research choices, we should not evaluate research using logics of evaluation that don’t fit
the methodological worldview of the study at hand (Jackson, 2016). It therefore must be
recognized that it is entirely appropriate that how we answer our questions will differ and
that this will also be reflected in differences in terms of evaluative criteria.
King et al.’s Designing Social Inquiry (1994) makes a case for a single positivist logic of
causal inference and is illustrative of a tendency to adopt a dogmatic view of methods that
discounts alternative logics of reasoning, or ways of asking questions and finding answers.
In order to capture a broader perspective on IR research methods the next section will use
positivism and interpretive research to highlight the plurality of IR research today. This
is not to make a claim that all research fits nicely along this axis, nor should the labels of
positivism and interpretive research be conceptualized as firm, or always mutually exclu-
sive. Instead, it is helpful to think of the positivist-interpretive axis as a fluid continuum
along which researchers use a wide range of methods to collect and analyze data.
In order to determine where your own research falls along this continuum, you should
first establish your research topic. Then, once you have done this, you can reflect upon
the purpose of your research. Ask yourself how do you see your research contributing to
knowledge in the field? Only then, will you begin to make choices about how you will
collect and analyze your data. Will you be collecting data for the purpose of making some
sort of conjecture about cause and effect? Or will you be taking a more hermeneutic, or
interpretive approach, to making sense of your data?
Figure 1.1 presents how these core assumptions will lead you in different directions
in your own work.
Researcher is
independent Researcher and
and detached from the social world
the social world under study are
Positivism Interpretivism
under study interconnected
• Hypothesis testing • Hermeneutics

• Causal inference • Reflexivity
Figure 1.1 Positivism and Interpretivism Spectrum in IR

Your IR reading lists will no doubt contain works adopting divergent methodological
logics, and also a wide range of different ways of doing research. This alone has probably
already led you to understand that IR is defined in part by its inclusiveness of different
methodologies, although at times the perception that there is a certain methodolog-
ical intolerance toward research that falls outside a particular tradition is also visible.
However, overall, IR’s inclusiveness comes at the cost of disciplinary cohesiveness and
is therefore also a source of confusion among those seeking straightforward methodo-
logical guidance, because unlike in other fields within the social sciences where there is
greater consensus regarding dominant methodologies, in IR no such over-arching uni-
tary logic of research exists.
Thus, rather than provide you with a unitary logic of research methodologies or
methods, the following sections will introduce you to choices with which you will be
confronted during the research process. And, it will be these choices, addressed in the
order you are likely to encounter them, that will serve as your guide to both the research
process and research methods. The next sections will therefore provide you with a road-
map to research practice within the context of these contested methodologies and will
act as a basis for choices in research design and method that will be presented in forth-
coming chapters.
Methodological Pluralism in IR Research

In this section positivism and interpretivism will be presented in greater detail. Positivism
refers to work that aims to uncover law-like regularities and generalizable statements through
the testing of observations and experimentation (King et al., 1994), and interpretivism
refers to reflexive research that interrogates ideas, norms, beliefs and values that underlie
international politics (Hollis and Smith, 1990; Linklater, 1992; Yanow and Schwartz-Shea,
2015). In addition to presenting these two positions, there will also be a brief introduction
to critical theory and normative theory research. Critical theory, which contends the-
orizing in IR is never neutral, and normative theory, which advances moral and ethical
arguments in IR, are two theoretical traditions that will be presented independently in this
chapter, and in Chapter 2. This is in part because they are defined by either a critical ethos
towards revealing structures of oppression, or are explicitly not empirical, in the sense that
the focus is more on philosophical reasoning in the context of ethics and morality in IR.
Here this textbook, the labels of positivism and interpretivism are used for simplicity’s
sake. RMIR does not try to subsume all work under these two labels. For that reason,
critical and normative work is also introduced in its own right. Indeed, as you will see
later in this textbook, IR methodology cannot be reduced to simple dichotomies. As
noted earlier, we should be careful not to make distinctions between causal and non-
causal research, because rather than seeing positivist research as causal and interpretive
as non-causal, both do address causality, albeit in different ways (Kurki, 2008). Table 1.3
highlights different positivist and interpretive responses to the questions: How do we
study IR? And, why do we study IR?
Table 1.3 Positivist and Interpretive Research in IR
Positivist Interpretive
How do we study IR? Specification of fixed, given and Objects under study are social
unchanging variables which can be artefacts that are subject to
generalised and allow for law like change, thus context- and time-
causal inference dependent.
Why do we study IR? Discovery of empirical regularities To add to, or challenge, existing
understandings
Finally, we should not confuse labels we are using here with theories of IR. For example,
there is a broad body of IR Constructivist research that employs a positivist methodology
(Finnemore and Sikkink, 2001). Moreover, researchers such as Molloy apply critical dis-
course methods to provide a genealogy of realist thought that challenged many assump-
tions held by IR realists (2006). It is therefore instructive to take a step back from theoretical
debates, and approach questions of methodology and methods from the perspective of
your research purpose. This will in turn guide the formulation of a research question, and
later research design. However, before moving on to research purpose, let us first establish
the core features of positivism and interpretivism.
Positivism
As mentioned earlier, positivism is drawn from the importation of natural science
research practice into the social sciences. It is based on the broad assumption that knowl-
edge can be accumulated through experience. For those who see IR as a positivist social
science, IR should be studied in a systemic, replicable, and evidence-based manner (King
et al., 1994; Gerring, 2012).
Positivism and Research in IR

The topic should be consequential for political, social, or economic life,
for understanding something that significantly affects many people’s lives, or for
understanding and predicting events that might be harmful or beneficial.
Source: King et al., 1994: 15.
For positivists, the study of the social world is analogous to the study of the natural
world. Theories of IR can be generated and tested through careful observation and exper-
imentation. We are to be explicit in specifying our variables when testing causal claims.
There is a rich tradition of positivist research in IR that parallels that of political science
and traces its roots back to founding figures of the discipline, such as Hans Morgenthau,
who argued international politics was governed by ‘objective laws’ and Kenneth Waltz,
who crafted a system structure image of international politics in his Theory of International
Politics (1979). Likewise, neoliberal institutionalists adopted the same positivist method-
ology to studying international politics; however, they reached differing conclusions in
relation to conflict and cooperation in international politics than their neorealist cous-
ins. These theories seek to observe and explain state behaviour while also testing falsifia-
ble hypotheses derived from observations of empirical facts.
There are four core characteristics of IR positivism:
1 international politics can be studied as an objective reality that is a world ‘out

there’ and distinct from the researcher,
2 theories are held to the standard of predictive validity,
3 hypotheses tested in IR research should be falsifiable,
4 ‘good’ research is research that provides for broad law-like generalizations.
At the outset of designing your own research, it is necessary to understand which side of
the divide your own research interests gravitate toward. If you wish to explain specific
outcomes, developments, or the behaviour of actors in international politics to generate
generalizable findings, then you will be designing your research with a positivist meth-
odological logic in mind.
Interpretivism
Interpretive research also draws upon a rich tradition in IR among scholars whose
aim is not to necessarily identify law-like regularities in IRR. Instead, interpretivism,
also referred to as reflexivity or post-positivism, focuses on hermeneutics, or the study
of interpretation. In IR, hermeneutics is associated with the interpretation of meaning
embedded within international politics. If positivist research finds the methods of natu-
ral science applicable to understanding the social world, interpretivist researchers posit
the need for an alternative framework to analyze IR. The social world depends on the
interactions of people, and these can change over time. Interpretivist research agendas
seek to understand identities, ideas, norms, and culture in international politics.
The principal claim advanced by interpretivists is that the distinction between the
researcher and the social world, implied by positivists, should be rejected. This, interpre-
tivists argue, is because the researcher intervenes in, or creates, observed social realities
through their own role in knowledge production and thus alters the object under study.
The experimental environment of the science laboratory in which control experiments
can be carried out to understand the interaction between two or more physical objects
cannot be replicated in the social world where the researcher interacts, and develops a
relationship with, the social objects under study.
Up until now, the implication has been that to study IR – and the two ways to go
about this (positivist and interpretive) – is to study ‘real world’, that is empirical, con-
cerns. IR research is to research what exists out there. In fact, the field is broader than
empirical examples. A researcher of IR might also look to investigate what should be,
by engaging in normative theory. Finally, an additional research agenda, critical theory
work, cuts across these divisions, with its explicitly emancipatory focus. I touch on these
two categories in the following two sections.
Critical Theory
Critical theory in IR draws upon the work of the Frankfurt School and Max Horkheimer
who saw the purpose of social scientific research to be the liberation of humankind
from social processes of domination and oppression (1972). For critical theorists,
knowledge itself is implicated in maintaining existing social orders (Foucault, 2002).
Therefore, methodology and methods cannot be seen as a neutral project (Aradau and
Huysmans, 2013). Today there is a rich body of IR scholarship that has taken on the
critical theory call of exploring how knowledge acts to maintain systems of power
and how reflexive scholarship can better situate these processes so as to expose and
transform them.
Examples of critical theory in IR include groundbreaking contributions by scholars
such as Richard Ashley (1984) and Robert Cox (1981) who cautioned the positivist episte-
mological position that limits acceptable knowledge in the field to empirical observation
fails to question the underlying social and power structures of international politics.
Normative Theory
Normative theory explores and evaluates ethical standards for behaviour in IR. It has a
long genealogy that stretches back to inquiries as to when the use of force could be justly
used by rulers. A seminal example from IR would be Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust
Wars (1977), in which Walzer traced debates regarding ethical standards and the use of
force. Here, the aim of research is not necessarily to provoke social change, as we see with
critical theorists, but rather to engage in ethical and moral inquiry as to the standards of
appropriate action in IR. Normative theory has produced debates of the types of moral
obligations that states have to those living outside their borders and also the extent to
which state sovereignty can act to restrict intervention in the context of the debate over
the Responsibility to Protect (Mills, 2015).
Now that positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and normative theory have
been explored in greater depth, we can begin to use these positions to better under-
stand research design and research methods. Given IR’s focus on international politics,
most student research papers attempt to engage with topical events or issues in the
world today. The topics of events often tell us something about world politics that
is relevant beyond the topic or event at hand. How do we get from a description of
a given topic or event to larger claims about world politics? To answer this question,
we will need to understand how methodology, theory, research design, and methods
come together.
Navigating Research Practice: Methodology, Theory,

and Research Design
Making research choices is really about telling your reader about the why, what, and how
of your research project. This is where making methodology explicit matters the most.
Let’s start with the why. When we think about a particular event or issue in world poli-
tics, such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, or the 2003 Iraq War,
there are a host of theoretical approaches to IR, which would lead down widely divergent
research trajectories and also provide us with distinct theoretical insights. What theories
you engage with, whether grand theories such as neo-realism, or mid-level theories such
as democratic peace theory, will be determined by your understanding of why you are
carrying out your project. For example, you might want to tell your reader about how
processes of state collapse can lead to violent conflict to better inform existing theoretical
debates on the causes of civil wars. In relation to the former Yugoslavia, those who saw
the war as the result of the aggressive behaviour of a select few autocratic leaders seek-
ing to maintain their hold on power came up with theories that focused on how elite
behaviour acted as the catalyst for violent conflict. On the other hand, those who saw
the conflict as the product of an inter-ethnic security dilemma sought to apply concepts
derived from realism to explain the Yugoslav wars.
Alternatively, we could look at the 2003 Iraq War, where competing theoretical claims
on whether or not Saddam Hussein could be deterred from aggressive behaviour as well
as on democratization and democratic peace offered divergent policy prescriptions and
forecasts for the likely aftermath of the initial U.S.-led invasion. Your research on this
topic could aim to contribute to one of the above theoretical debates with the aim to
better inform policy on deterrence or democracy promotion.
How about what you are researching? This will also depend on what your method-
ological and theoretical assumptions tell you about what is important to focus on as the
most appropriate mode of analysis. You could focus on explaining the behaviour of state
actors, ethnic groups, or individual leaders. You can look at documenting the actions of
these actors overtime, or you may focus on what these actors are telling us. Do we look
at instances of violence and record them in a dataset? Or should we look at discourses of
violence and interpret their meanings?
Methods Choices: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

Next, it’s time to think about how you will carry out your research. In order to start think-
ing about methods, it is helpful to recall that research methods are techniques for col-
lecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. These techniques for collecting and analyzing
largely fall into two main categories: quantitative and qualitative. In terms of data
collection, quantitative approaches typically include gathering structured data through
questionnaires, social network research, or analyzing datasets, and qualitative approaches
collect unstructured data, which is typically text-based from interviewing, observing cases,
ethnographic research, or focus groups. Once we have the data, it must be analyzed, and
here a split between quantitative and qualitative methods also applies. Quantitative anal-
ysis often involves statistical analysis of large datasets while qualitative methods allow
research to delve deeper into specific events, places, organizations or personalities. Note
that while qualitative methods and quantitative methods are the subjects of Chapters 5
and 6 respectively, strategies for mixed method designs will also be explored in Chapter 7.
However, before embarking upon data collection it is imperative that the researcher
has a clear idea of what data to collect, why they are collecting it, and how they will
interpret it. This is especially the case now given the massive body of data that is within
easy reach of students of IR.
Collecting and Analyzing Data in IR Research

Data in IR is widely available and rapidly growing. In relation to secondary sources
alone, there are an increasing number of online traditional and non-traditional media
resources, electronic databases, and libraries that are all easily accessible to the
researcher. As such, knowing where to begin data collection is as important as knowing
what techniques are available for the interpretation of data. Data collection and data
analysis thus require the researcher to make choices in terms of research topic, research
question, research design and research method. In short, what data we collect is always
contingent upon what questions we ask.
Crafting Your Own Research Project

Research is about making choices. From the very outset of the research process, you will
be confronted by choices that inform what kind of research essay to write. I suspect that
you will have no trouble identifying topics of interest, such as international terrorism,
human trafficking, or civil conflict, but there may be a gap between your interest and
detailed knowledge of a particular phenomenon, event, or geographic area and the pro-
cess of distillation of that interest and knowledge into a methodologically cogent and
theoretically informed research paper. This can result in essays which fall into the gaps
of either over generalizing – I have studied a particular case and my findings therefore
will explain a certain behaviour across all cases – or making unsubstantiated claims – I
argue X, but have not presented relevant empirical data or scholarly secondary sources,
to substantiate this claim. Both of the above observations you might have encountered
in feedback on essays you may have written for classes in IR.
This is why it is important to be able to understand that research choices that you will
be making in your own research. Good research papers have an internal logic that draws
a red line from research topic and research question to research design and method.
As mentioned earlier, essay or thesis writing often begins with the prospective author
deciding to write on a topical event or issue in international politics. For example, a stu-
dent’s interest could be in the Arab Spring uprisings that began in Tunisia in December
2010 and was followed by a period of political turbulence and conflict across the Middle
East and North Africa. The student, having closely followed media reports on the Arab
Spring, already has a general idea of the topic at hand; however, this broad body of
descriptive data does not provide guidance as to how to shift from collecting information
on the Arab Spring to producing a cogent research essay that contributes to scholarly
literature. In short, at this stage the student remains unsure regarding what questions to
ask, what type of research design to adopt, and what methods could be effectively used.
First, it is essential to narrow down the topic at hand. While Chapter 2 will assist in for-
mulating a research question, before we can think about our research in terms of research
questions, we need to first establish where the project is grounded in relation to the meth-
odological spectrum outlined earlier: positivism and interpretivism. In order to arrive at an
answer, you should ask yourself what is your interest in a given topic? What do you want
to know about it? What kind of knowledge do you want to create? Your response to these
questions will help you make coherent choices in relation to research design and method.
Do you aim to explain some particular development in IR? Are you interested in explaining
why the United States intervened to topple Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya in 2011,
but did not intervene to remove Bashar al-Assad in Syria? Or do you want to identify the
causes of the diplomatic crisis that erupted between Japan and South Korea in 2019 over
historical controversies stemming from the legacy of the Second World War? Perhaps you
are interested in the consequences of the rise of China in global politics. For example, what
role will China play in the emerging global order? If these are topics you wish to explain,
then a positivist approach will allow you to select a research design and methods that will
allow you to begin to tease out causal relationships and explain events and outcomes.
Or is your interest more reflexive? Are you interested in exploring how past atrocities
or wars are remembered or commemorated? Are you interested in how certain taken-for-
granted practices or concepts in IR emerged, for example state sovereignty or national
interest? Or perhaps, your interest in understanding how certain voices and perspectives
have been marginalized within the discipline by a narrow focus on the management of
great power relationships? Or would you like to explore how self-perception of identity
can shape foreign policies? If so, you will find that an interpretivist approach to your
research, and research method selection, will prove most helpful.
Relations between Japan and South Korea

In 2019, relations between Japan and South Korea, two key pillars of the US-led security
architecture in East Asia reached a nadir as both states downgraded military, intelli-
gence, and trade ties with each other. However, just a few years earlier, in 2015, both
states had reached an agreement that was to ‘irreversibly’ resolve one of the most con-
tentious legacy issues of the Second World War, that of the wartime legacy of sexual
slavery, known as the ‘comfort women’ issue. What explains this most recent downturn
in relations? The table below sets out some research topics that you could explore.
Table 1.4 Spotlight on Researching Japan–South Korea Relations
Researching Japan–South Korea Relations:

Positivist, Interpretivist, Normative, or Critical
Positivist Interpretive Normative Critical

I want to explain I want to understand I want to know I want to know how
the reasons why how understandings whether or not the sexual violence is
Japan and South of the comfort 2015 agreement was legitimized in IR.
Korea reached an women issue differ a just agreement.
agreement on the in Japan and South
comfort women issue Korea.
in 2015.
I want to explain I want to understand I want to know I want to know how
Japan–South Korea how perceptions of whether or not the states marginalize
relations in the China as a threat are post-second world narratives that contest
context of a changing understood in Japan war order in East their view of history.
regional security and South Korea. Asia was just.
environment.
I want to examine I want to understand I want to know under I want to know
the role of the United how the United what conditions the how imperial
States in Japan–South States is perceived use of force by the power relations are
Korea relations. as an ally in Japan U.S. in East Asia maintained in East
and South Korea. would be legitimate. Asia.
Table 1.4 helps to integrate how your interest in a given topic, or the questions you
want to answer, will inform your choice in terms of what kind of research you will pur-
sue. At this point, it is then necessary to both interrogate the topic area more deeply and
to attempt to explore what has been written already in the scholarly literature. While
guidance on carrying out a literature review is provided in Chapter 4, here it is impor-
tant to emphasize why a wider awareness of the field is a necessary precondition for any
effective data analysis.
For example, a student wanted to write an essay that would explain the causes of
conflict in the former Yugoslavia. In the end our student argued the wars in the former
Yugoslavia were caused by ancient ethnic hatreds. Such an essay, explicitly positivist and
focused on making a causal argument about the causes of civil conflict, represents a
large number of student research projects in that it is an attempt to explain a salient
question in international politics. Indeed, the essay aimed to be policy relevant
through presenting an explanation of the causes of internal conflicts in the aftermath
of the Cold War to decision-makers, and thus aspired to inform policy responses to
internal conflicts.
However, while the student was aware of the empirical focus of this research and
explicitly set out to explain the causes of a particular conflict, the student narrowly col-
lected data from select media reports and editorials published during the 1990s. The
essay did not make use of more recent literature that forms the foundation of a scholarly
consensus in the field, that the conflict was elite-driven, or in other words was caused by
political elites seeking to solidify their hold on power. Forthcoming chapters on writing
a research design, writing a literature review, qualitative, and case study research will
together offer a guide to avoid such research pitfalls.
On the other hand, another essay on a similar topic: What are the causes of the war in
the former Yugoslavia, failed to make an argument at all. Instead, rather than investigat-
ing causality, a summary of the conflict in the form of descriptive essay was provided.
Thus, it was little more than a timeline of the war in the former Yugoslavia. While both
of these examples aim to impart knowledge of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia to
the reader, neither was an effective research essay. The first was an attempt to explain
the conflict while the latter constituted little more than a descriptive essay. While
both essays were rich in detail, neither succeeded in making an argument, either
causal or interpretive. This is not because of a lack of knowledge of the subject matter,
but instead because of a failure to effectively apply methods tools presented in the
forthcoming chapters.
In sum, in order to avoid falling into the trap of making unsubstantiated causal
claims or writing an essay that is little more than a description of an event, you must
bridge the gap between your interest and knowledge on the one hand and methods on
the other. One way to do this has been presented in this chapter: research interests and
purpose should be first located along the aforementioned positivist-interpretivist divide.
This will allow research essays to carry out two functions. The first is to add to empirical
knowledge about a given topic and the second is to contribute new insights to scholarly
debates within the discipline. Only once the purpose of the research essay is understood
can a research question and research design be constructed that will allow the student
to write a coherent research essay, and thus select relevant research methods presented
in the forthcoming chapters.
Back to Basics: Thinking Critically About

International Relations
For many students engaging with theoretical debates within the field can prove daunting
at the outset of a research project. One way to bridge the gap between theoretical debates
within the discipline and your own research interests is to examine how the particular
issue that interests you relates back to wider theoretical debates. One way to arrive back at
these debates is a simple thought exercise aimed at evaluating claims advanced by states,
international organizations, non-governmental organizations or even scholars. What
do international organizations claim to achieve? What about states? Are they effective?
How do we know whether or not they are effective? There are a host of questions that
come to mind simply by taking a cursory look at any number of these international
organizations’ websites. The box below presents an example drawn from the United
Nations’ International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Thinking Critically about International Relations

States, International Organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations, and Multinational
Corporations all make empirical claims about how they shape international politics
or developments. As students of International Relations, our research should provide
a means to test many of these claims. Take for example the claim put forward by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on its website:
[…] by removing some of the most senior and notorious criminals and holding
them accountable the Tribunal has been able to lift the taint of violence, contrib-
ute to ending impunity and help pave the way for reconciliation. (International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia)
A firm grasp of research methods will allow you to immediately recognize that two causal
mechanisms are argued to lead to three major outcomes.
Causal Mechanisms
• Removing senior criminals
• Holding senior criminals accountable
Outcomes
• Lifts taint of violence
• Contributes to ending impunity
• Helps pave the way for reconciliation
Students with an interest in international justice may attempt to interrogate the claimed
causal relationship between holding persons accused of war crimes accountable before
an international criminal tribunal and the promotion of reconciliation. Already, you should
note that independent and dependent variables can be identified.
Source: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (n.d.) ‘About the ICTY’,
https://www.icty.org/en/about (accessed May 19, 2021).
While the terminology presented above might not yet be entirely clear, there is a
common-sense evaluation of claims that can be made at the outset. What does the
Tribunal claim to achieve and how does it claim to achieve it? Alternatively, the ques-
tion could be posed: what does the Tribunal mean by reconciliation? Or reconciliation
among whom? Individual victims, ethnic groups, states? At this point you should be able
to identify that the first question would lead the researcher down a route of observation
and testing: positivism. While the second question, focuses on the meaning of a complex
social practice, reconciliation, which requires the researcher to investigate the very con-
cept of reconciliation and how it is used by the Tribunal: interpretivism. Alternatively,
what standards of justice should we adhere to and why, is another set of normative ques-
tions that could come to mind. And finally, what role, if any, does the current practice of
international justice play in maintaining processes of domination?
Chapter Summary
IR is a field of study defined by contested methodologies and methodological plurality.
As such, there is a diversity of theoretical approaches to explaining, understanding, or
contesting world politics alongside a diverse range of research methods available to the
student and practitioner of IR. When embarking upon undergraduate or postgraduate
essay or dissertation writing there are a number of questions that should be asked even
before thinking about a research question. These questions are:
• What is your topic of interest?

• What is the purpose of your study?
{{ Is it to explain a certain event, trend or phenomena in world politics?
{{ Is it to interrogate the meaning of a particular discourse or practice in world
politics?
• Where do you fall along the positivist/interpretivist divide?
• Do you aim to contribute to critical theory or normative theory?
Your response to the first question should be fairly straightforward. The second requires
you to think about what it is you want to do. What kind of knowledge do you want to
add to a particular issue? Once you have settled on a response to this question you are
then able to situate your own research along the two broad traditions in IR research
presented in this chapter.
In order to disentangle this divide between contested research agendas, that at times
fail to communicate with one another, the positivist-interpretivist spectrum was pre-
sented to help understand evaluate the utility of each set of methods tools presented
later in this book. It was emphasized that questions of methodology are best approached
from the perspective of your own interests and research topic. Start from your topic and
purpose and ask yourself do you want to explain events in the world ‘out there’? Or do
you want to question the social meaning of a particular practice in international politics?
Once you have established your research topic and purpose, you can then go on to think-
ing about your research question with an awareness of the how the question you pose
will in turn determine which methods are most appropriate for your research.
Suggested Further Readings

1 The following article provides a critical theory introduction to methods that moves
away from positivistic neutral understandings of methods and methodology
towards a more critical understanding of both: Aradau, Claudia and Huysmans,

Jef (2013) ‘Critical methods in international relations: The politics of techniques,
devices, and acts’, European Journal of International Relations, 20 (3): 596–619.
2 This second article provides an overview of how the foundational myths of IR
continue to perpetuate a narrow understanding of the discipline: de Carvalho,
Benjamin, Leira, Halvard and Hobson, John M. (2011) ‘The big bangs of IR: The
myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919.’, Millennium: Journal of
International Studies, 39 (3): 735–58.
3 Choi, Selmeczi and Strausz highlight how critical methods can contribute to our
understanding of world politics. The following text will be of interest in particular
to students who are interested in more critical research designs: Choi, Shine,
Selmeczi, Anna and Strausz, Ersébet (2019) Critical Methods for the Study of World
Politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
4 In particular for an overview of a positivist perspective on science see ‘Chapter 1:
A unified framework’ pp. 1–23: Gerring, John (2012) Social Science Methodology: A
Unified Framework (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5 See Chapter 1 for a discussion of how the term ‘science’ has been used and
understood in the study of politics and IR: Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2016) The
Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications
for the Study of World Politics (2nd edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
6 This edited volume includes numerous concise and helpful essays on critical methods
in security studies that reflect upon a wide range of topics from methodology to
research design and research practice: Salter Mark B. and Mutlu, Can E. (eds) (2013)
Research Methods in Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
TWO
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND
RESEARCH DESIGN
learning objectives
• Identify elements of a good research question

• Understand different modes of reasoning in IR research
• Understand and explain differences in logic among positivist, interpretivist, critical
theory, and normative theory research questions
• Explain both positivist and interpretivist research approaches to causality
• Explain the logic of positivist, interpretivist, critical theory, and normative theory
research design
• Apply self-reflection to overcome obstacles to formulating a research question and
research design
Asking a research question might at first glance seem like a very straightforward task.
However, as you will see, coming up with a research question will require you to think
carefully about what you would like to know about your topic, and how you will go
about carrying out your research. Undergraduate and postgraduate students of IR are
expected to write research papers that go beyond deep description or rich anecdotal
insights. Academic papers in IR should not resemble Wikipedia entries. Instead, as a
student of IR you are encouraged to pursue what can be described as question-based
research. Question-based research refers to research in which you pose a question that
will be responded to during the course of an essay, thesis or dissertation.
As we know from Chapter 1, IR is a field of study defined in part by its plurality of
approaches to explaining and understanding the world around us. This means that there
is no single template for research questions. Questions can assume many different forms,
and different questions can produce different kinds of knowledge for different purposes.
For example, you might wonder why states go to war in the hope that a better under-
standing of the causes of international conflict might serve to mitigate the outbreak of
conflict. Alternatively, your interest might be in how international courts function in a
world of states? Your interest in international courts could emerge from a sense that if
international dispute settlement mechanisms were strengthened than states would be
less likely to fight and more likely to litigate. These two examples illustrate how our
research questions often reflect a broader quest for knowledge that goes beyond descrip-
tion. However, it is this broader quest for knowledge that sometimes complicates our task
of honing our research interests into concise questions.
Question-Based Research: A Definition
Question-Based Research
Question-based research is research in which the researcher poses a question that
typically attempts to explain an uncertain relationship between two or more variables
to find law-like generalizations (positivist research) or one that highlights the rele-
vance of the meaning and observable implications (such as ideologies) behind actions
(interpretive research).
This chapter provides you with a practical guide to research question formulation and
research design that highlights the plurality of research agendas and practices in IR. How
to transition from topic selection to crafting a research question will be discussed first,
with special attention to how distinct questions demonstrate an affinity for distinct
types of research designs and methods. The interaction between methodological assump-
tions and research design will also be illuminated through examples that will guide you
through the research process with an emphasis on how research purpose is closely linked
to choices that you will later make in relation to research methods.
Research Questions and Research Design 39
In addition to understanding where your research question is situated along a spec-

trum of research methodologies, you should keep in mind that your research question
will also determine what kind of research skills you will rely upon during the research
process. Will you be working with a big picture question that requires you to interpret
information derived from large data sets? An example of a topic that would assume a
certain degree of quantitative literacy would be a project that sought to explain under
what conditions an inter-state crisis will escalate into armed conflict taking into account
all major inter-state crises in the 20th century. Or will you be reading primary docu-
ments looking for changes in official discourse over time? For example, do you want to
look at how just war rhetoric, or the language used to justify armed conflict was used
by particular leaders in a particular conflict such as the U.S. led ‘Global War on Terror’?
Alternatively, will your research require you to go out into the field and access research
sites in a foreign country? Among the many things that you will need to consider, which
are addressed in Chapter 8, is the question of whether or not you have the linguistic
ability to communicate with your potential research subjects in their native language, or
whether or not they will be able to communicate with you in English.
These are questions you will need to reflect on while thinking about your research
question. In some cases, you might find it helpful to play to your strengths. And, if
pressed for time, do not pose a question that will require you to invest significant
amounts of time to acquire a particular skill, that you have not yet encountered. While
you may have the opportunity to take specialized methods classes to develop such skills
or enrol in language training to acquire linguistic skills, such training can take months
or years to develop and is more suitable for longer-term research projects. For exam-
ple, if your question lends itself to working with and interpreting large data sets, yet
you are not comfortable with advanced statistics you might consider rethinking your
question. Perhaps instead of attempting to look at all inter-state crises and attempting
to gain insights from such a large dataset, you can look at one or two crises to draw
knowledge out of the processes that led to either armed conflict or to de-escalation.
However, before discussing the skills needed to respond to your research question in
greater detail, let us first turn to how to bridge the gap between interest in a particular
topic and formulating a research question.
A Good Research Question

• is short, precise and simple
• is open-ended
• is researchable
• is rooted in scholarly debates
• is theoretically informed
• refers to general concepts
• states the research goal
• implies the research approach
From Research Topic to Research Question

Chapter 1 concluded with a demonstration of how you can identify a specific research
topic from a broad area of interest. Here, we will move from your research topic to a
research question. Recall that the boundaries between research approaches do not func-
tion as border fences keeping various approaches apart and in isolation. Concepts like
causality are not exclusively positivist, and neither do positivist researchers monopolize
an interest in the empirical. Keeping this in mind, this chapter will now explore different
ways of coming up with research questions that will inform different strategies for doing
research. It will begin from the premise of the research puzzle, or something that has
confounded you about your research interest or something that you would like to learn
more about. Next, research questions that approach causality from the perspective of
identifying specific causes of international events will be discussed. This will be followed
by a discussion of interpretive research questions and interpretive research design. Then,
critical theory and normative theory will be addressed.
From Research Puzzles to Research Questions

One effective tool to arrive at a research question is to uncover an empirical or theoret-
ical puzzle within your topic. Usually something about your topic puzzles or confounds
you. In essence that is what makes your topic interesting. There is something you have
observed that appears to cut against common sense, or the scholarly consensus, on the
topic. For example, Gustafsson and Hagström (2018) describe research puzzles as state-
ments of ‘why x despite y?’ or ‘how did x become possible despite y?’.
Let’s turn to a few examples of research puzzles. Before the Arab Spring, scholars
focused on explaining authoritarian resilience in the Arab world (Brownlee, 2007). In other
words, scholars focused on explaining the strength of autocratic regimes and their ability
to snuff out potential sites of resistance and political challengers. Yet, in January 2011, a
relatively non-violent protest movement in Tunisia was able to send Tunisia’s long-time
autocrat, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, into exile in Saudi Arabia with little warning. To be
sure, few had predicted Tunisia was on the cusp of revolution. Here, you might ask your-
self, why (revolution in Tunisia) despite (assumed authoritarian resilience)?
Research Puzzles
Puzzle 1: Despite an assumption in the literature that autocratic regimes in the Middle
East and North Africa were impervious to democratization, Tunisia’s 2011 revolution set
Tunisia on course to become the Arab Middle East’s first democracy.
Puzzle 2: Despite an assumption in the literature that European Union enlargement

would help lock-in democratization processes in new member states, Hungary and
Poland have become less democratic since joining the EU in 2004.
Puzzles can come in many different forms. They might not only come from past events
that defied general predictions, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, or the collapse
of the Soviet Union in 1991. They can also emerge from theoretical debates. Because
theoretical statements make assumptions about what is likely to happen under certain
conditions, they tell us what they expect to happen under certain conditions. For exam-
ple, will Euro-Atlantic integration processes continue to promote stability in Europe (as
they are argued to have done in the past)? This could lead to you posing the question of
what are the effects of NATO’s eastward expansion to include more countries that were
once part of the Soviet Union? How will European Union enlargement processes towards
states in the Western Balkans, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Northern
Macedonia or Kosovo, impact regional stability? Here, instead of attempting to explain
a puzzling past event, we project our understandings of current events and trends into
the future. Here the puzzling question juxtaposes the lessons of the past against the
shadow of the future. Will EU expansion contribute to widening the geographic area of
Europe that enjoys pacific relations or will expansion contribute to a renewed Cold War
by antagonizing Russia?
Research Puzzles and Modes of Reasoning

When thinking about your research puzzle, you might also want to consider the under-
lying mode of reasoning that your puzzle suggests. Research questions and research
design draw upon diverse modes of reasoning. For example, you may rely on induc-
tive reasoning, to generate theoretical propositions out of empirical observations
(Bryman, 2008: 366; Yanow and Schwartz-Shea, 2015). This is helpful for generating
new theories or hypotheses. On the other hand, deductive reasoning-based research
would assume that you already know all the variables that you would be testing at the
very beginning of your project. Here, if you are engaged in theory-testing of hypotheses
that are predefined, you would be engaged in a deductive exercise. So, if your project is
one where you aim to theory-build generalizable statements about international affairs,
then your project would be inductive. If on the other hand, you wish to take into
account a theory that already is out there, such as Democratic Peace Theory, and test
its assumptions against empirical data to see if the theory holds, the project would be
one that is deductive.
You could also consider abduction and retroduction as modes of reasoning.
Abduction, in its broadest meaning refers to when researchers start with observations
and propose the most likely explanation for these observations. In IR, abduction has
been used to describe a process whereby you make a conjecture about a probable conclu-
sion on the basis of what you know, and you build upon this knowledge pragmatically
during the course of your research (Friedrichs and Kratochwil, 2009). This is most useful
when encountering a new issue area in which there is comparatively little theoretical
groundwork that has already been done – think about the impact of Artificial Intelligence
(AI) on IR, for example. Instead of trying to start from generalizable propositions (induc-
tive theory-building), or evaluating fixed theoretical propositions against your new data
(deductive theory-testing), the researcher starts collecting observations and applying

relevant concepts to help make sense of these observations (Friedrichs and Kratochwil,
2009: 709). In other words, an exploratory educated guess.
On the other hand, retroduction goes in the other direction, you work backward
to explain what must exist for what you have observed to be possible. This resonates
with what we have just discussed in the context of deductive reasoning. You might
think of a central concept in IR like sovereignty. We can observe how this concept is
understood and practiced in the twenty-first century and explore how this concept
assumed its contemporary features and form.
Table 2.1 Modes of Reasoning in Qualitative Research
Mode of Reasoning Engagement with Theory Evaluative Criteria
Induction Theory-building research; generate Generalization, external

theoretical propositions from empirical data validity of findings
Deduction Theory-testing and evaluation of theoretical Hypothesis falsification or
proposition against empirical data corroboration
Abduction Theory-building on the basis of new, Advance pathways for further
unexpected or surprising data research
Retroduction On the basis of observed practice, explore Justification of explanation
how observations became possible
What does all of this mean in the context of our own research? Let’s look to a more
familiar example. Take the following question: what explains student performance in
exams? Let’s say I have a theory that posits there is a direct causal relationship between
the number of hours a student studies and exam performance. If I start from the assump-
tion that there is a correlation between the number of hours a student studies and their
exam grades, I could test this assumption deductively by collecting quantitative data
from students on the time they spent studying for exams and compare this with their
exam grades. I could then make use of statistical tests to see if there is a correlation
between study time and grades. This data would either simply confirm or falsify my the-
ory. However, such a deductive approach would not help me uncovering other variables
that I might not have considered when I first designed my study, such as a student’s
socio-economic background.
On the other hand, an inductive approach would allow for those who participate in
your research to identify phenomena that you might not have considered through data
collection techniques, such as interviews. Since qualitative methods have the potential
to shed light on relationships among social phenomena or practices, they are well suited
to helping researchers come up with new theoretical propositions.
Abduction is basically starting from surprising or unexpected data to build new theories
and open up new avenues for research. For example, we can try to shed light on student
performance and a new method of assessment. We can assume that assessment results are
not random, and we want to make sense of student performance. Are there concepts and
frameworks we can borrow and begin to explore against the new observations we are col-
lecting? Such an approach does not require you to set out a generalizable theoretical model
as mentioned in the context of inductive reasoning. Instead, it allows for you to build a
conceptual framework through empirical analysis in a manner that is mutually reinforcing
(Friedrichs, 2008: 16). For example, Friedrichs used abduction to study decision-making in
European states in regard to international policing (Friedrichs, 2008).
Meanwhile, retroduction has us start from the point of creating models and causal
conditions that allow for an event of phenomena to exist (van Ingen, 2020). This means
that in our research we will start from observed conditions that help us understand the
conditions that we wish to explain and then work backward. Later in this chapter, in
reference to constitutive research and broader notions of causality, we will be discussing
modes of reasoning that draw upon retroduction. In sum, retroduction makes proposi-
tions about an observed reality in the present to work backwards to explain how that
observed reality came into being.
Positivist Research Questions and Causal Inference

Now that we have worked through different modes of reasoning that can help you estab-
lish your research aims, we can now turn to examples of different typologies of research
questions. The first of which will be positivist. Table 2.2 presents you with the example
of a research project that explores Japan–South Korea relations. Here we see how the logic
of causal inference is operationalized through the types of questions we ask. In the first
Table 2.2 Positivist Research: Japan–South Korea Relations
Researching Japan–South Korea Relations: Explaining Outcomes
Modes of
Topics of Interest Research Questions Analytical Logics Reasoning
I want to explain the •• What factors explain the •• Identify and test Deductive
reasons why Japan and 2015 comfort women conjectured factors
South Korea reached agreement concluded suggested by various
an agreement on the between Tokyo and theories in IR to see
comfort women issue Seoul? which can account for an
in 2015. outcome
I want to explain •• Is the breakdown in •• Demonstrate that Deductive
Japan–South Korea Japan–South Korea the regional security
relations in the context relations the result environment (and not
of a changing security of changing regional some other factor
environment. balances of power? like domestic politics)
explains the state of
Japan–South Korea
relations
I want to examine •• Does U.S. foreign policy •• Attempt to build a Inductive
the role of the U.S. in account for reconciliation generalizable theory
promoting reconciliation among U.S. allies? on the basis of your
among allies. observations
column you will see three research topics mapped into three questions with a similar
underlying causal logic that will require you to identify a specific explanatory varia-
ble or a factor that leads to an outcome that you wish to explain.
In the table above the first topic issue was ‘I want to explain reasons why Japan and
South Korea reached an agreement on the comfort women issue in 2015.’ Here, the stu-
dent has a broad interest in how Japan and South Korea came to an agreement on the
contentious issue of wartime sexual slavery, but at this point the topic remains too broad
to simply restate as a research question. Rephrased as a research question, what factors
explain the 2015 comfort women agreement concluded between Tokyo and Seoul, will
allow you to begin thinking in terms of variables.
Let’s take a step back here and recall that your question might have come from an empir-
ical puzzle. This means that an outcome did not conform to what you would expect would
happen under a certain set of circumstances. In this case tensions between Japan and South
Korea were high when it came to historical issues, yet the two governments came to a rela-
tively short-lived agreement in 2015. What factors could explain this? In thinking through
your puzzle you have already begun to come up with testable hypotheses. A hypothesis
is a conjectured relationship between two variables. Was it a changing regional security
environment, marked by a rapidly rising China, that explains the agreement? Or was it
U.S. pressure applied to both governments by the Obama administration that explains the
agreement? Restated in sentence form: a changing regional security environment explains the
2015 agreement or U.S. pressure explains the 2015 agreement are both getting you to think
about your research question in a manner that will allow you to evaluate different conjec-
tured causes. Your explanatory factors, or variables, will likely be drawn from theories of
IR that suggest competing explanations for reconciliation over historical issues. Because of
this, such a project would likely be deductive and theory-testing. Alternatively, if you are
starting from the 2015 agreement and wish to theory-build on the basis of this and similar
agreements more generalizable statements, as suggested by the third example in Table 2.2,
then such a project would be inductive and theory-building.
How do you go about identifying variables, and which ones should you focus on?
These variables should come up during the process of your review of the literature, which
will be covered in Chapter 4. On the basis of existing research on your topic you can
begin to identify how existing theories might explain the 2015 agreement. You might
even come up with additional variables: was it the result of domestic politics in Japan and
South Korea? In short, it is during the process of thinking through your research question
that you will begin to frame your question in a manner that lends itself to coming up
with explicit hypotheses.
Sometimes, your topic of interest can be so broad that it is difficult to come up with
a concise research question. In addition to thinking about different factors that account
for an outcome, you might also want to consider establishing temporal boundaries for
your study. For example, will you go back to the 1965 Japan-Republic of Korea treaty, or
will you focus on a particular period of time, such as Japan under the second Abe admin-
istration, thus from 2012?
Once you have come up with a research question and have broken your research
question down into variables, we can now turn to the question of how you will structure
your hypotheses.
Understanding Cause and Effect: Hypotheses

Let’s say you have now read a lot on the role of the United States in bringing South Korea
and Japan together in 2015 in order to prevent a breakdown in relations between two key
U.S. regional allies. On the other hand, others emphasize the role of domestic political
actors in both South Korea and Japan seeking to resolve this contentious issue between
the two countries. In order to assess these two competing claims, you will need to break
them down into what is being advanced as a cause and what is the effect, or outcome. In
doing this, you will come up with hypotheses. As mentioned in the previous section, a
hypothesis is nothing more than a concise statement that posits a conjectured relation-
ship between variables.
How to Formulate Hypotheses

In coming up with your own hypotheses, you should first return to your research ques-
tion. Take the following for example: ‘What role did the U.S. play in bringing about the
2015 comfort women agreement?’ This question has a clear dependent variable, or an
object that requires explanation, the 2015 agreement. It also has an independent var-
iable, something that is conjectured to cause the dependent variable. Your response
to this single question will juxtapose two competing claims encountered in the literature
with each other.
H1: The United States played a decisive role in bringing about the 2015 comfort
women agreement.
H2: Domestic politics played a decisive role in bringing about the 2015 comfort
women agreement.
Now that you have a research question and two testable hypotheses, or contested
responses, you can begin thinking about research design, which is discussed in the next
section of this chapter.
But what if your interest is broader? You don’t have a narrowly defined variable
through which you can approach the international relations of Northeast Asia, such
as the 2015 comfort women agreement. Instead, you are looking to explain how
Japan and South Korea are responding to a transforming regional security environ-
ment. In other words, your stated interest is: ‘I want to explain regional security
policies in East Asia.’ Your purpose is to observe a range of factors that have been
offered as potential explanatory variables instead of isolating a single agreement as
your dependent variable.
Because question-based research assumes that we will be able to arrive at some sort of
meaningful answer that will shed some light on an apparent puzzle, we should articulate
our research questions in a way that allows us to most effectively test conjectured rela-
tionships. In the case of Japan–South Korea relations, the statement, ‘I want to explain
a breakdown in relations between two regional U.S. allies’ can be rearticulated in ques-
tion form: ‘What explains the breakdown in Japan–South Korea relations?’ In relation to
these questions, you might try to grapple with the puzzle of how in 2015 an agreement
was reached between Tokyo and Seoul that was to be ‘final and irreversible’, but instead,
broke down in 2019. Alternatively, you might be puzzled by how is it that two of East
Asia’s largest democracies with significant trade interdependency have such bad bilateral
relations?
In just the same way as presented earlier in this section, you will need to specify which
independent variables you will be examining in your study. Note, that your hypotheses
often will not be mutually exclusive positions, and your conclusions might make the case
that one explanatory variable mattered more in this particular study than the other. Also,
you will need to consider how your hypotheses relate back to IR theory. Theory, as you
will recall from Chapter 1, helps us structure our understanding of IR in a manner that
allows us to draw connections between cases and in the case of positivist theory, make
generalizable statements.
For example, you might consider more realist balance of power explanations. In this
case, your potential explanatory variables, or independent variables that explain a
specific event, would be the regional security posture of the U.S. and China. Given the
wide universe of potential explanatory variables, one way to begin generating hypoth-
eses that you can test in your research is to begin thinking in terms of categories of
explanation. Remember that some theories of IR aim to explain system structure (neo-
realism, Marxism), and as such do not account for individual state’s foreign policy-mak-
ing processes. The focus here will be understanding how great power transitions will
shape regional security environments, and by extension relations among states. On the
other hand, foreign policy analysis, as a sub-field within IR, focuses on the decision-mak-
ing processes of states. Here you could test liberal assumptions about how foreign policy
preferences are negotiated by domestic actors (Moravcsik, 2000). When beginning to
think about variables you might want to create a list of potential explanations, then cat-
egorize these lists into broad categories such as internal and external factors.
Explanatory Categories: The Agent-Structure Debate

You might have come across scholarly debates in which authors debate the effects of
structure versus individual agency. This debate essentially boils down to divergent
views on the scope individuals have to effect change in their societies. Is individual
action conditioned by institutional or socio-economic structures? Or can individuals
radically alter the political trajectories of their countries through their policy choices?
Thinking About Variables

In positivist research your focus is on explaining the relationship between two objects
in order to uncover wider patterns or inform our understanding of a specific object. You
will therefore be thinking in terms of variables in order to explain relationships.
The dependent variable is the object under study, or the object you wish to explain:
for example, democratization.
The independent variable is the object that you hypothesize has a causal relation-
ship with the dependent variable: for example, economic growth.
Given the above two variables you could hypothesize that: economic growth leads
to democratization.
Of course, how you test this hypothesis will require you to design your research in a
way that would allow you to either affirm or falsify the above statement.
Variables are what help us make if x, then y statements. In the thinking about variables box
above, we wanted to explain democratization. Democratization would therefore be your
dependent variable and you will need to come up with a measure of ‘democracy-ness’, for
example, you could turn to the Freedom House’s annually updated Freedom in the World
report, which tracks global trends in political rights and civil liberties (Freedom House,
2021). Next, you will need to account for what causes democracy. The above example men-
tioned economic growth. Here, you would also need to find some indicators that meas-
ure economic growth over time, such as the United Nations Human Development Index,
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or a composite of indicators. Now that you have come
up with your variables, next comes the challenging part of research – demonstrating a
relationship between them. This will be discussed in greater detail under ‘Research Design’
later in this chapter, but for now it is helpful to acknowledge that there are different strate-
gies for doing this. You might look for constant conjunction. If economic growth increases,
so does the level of democracy. This would lead you towards more quantitative forms of
analysis, as you would be doing statistical tests on a large number of countries over a wide
span of time. You might on the other hand want to look at specific processes, and conduct
a case study on, for instance, Taiwan. This would lend itself to more qualitative methods
for research. Here you would establish whether or not there is enough empirical evidence
to demonstrate that economic growth in Taiwan lead to democratization.
Of course, the variables that you identify may not be internal to the country or coun-
tries that are the subject or subjects of your research interest. For example, let us say
that you are interested in explaining the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’ revolutions. Your interest
in the international politics of the Arab Spring might lead you to pose questions about
revolutionary diffusion among countries affected by the Arab Spring, or what effect did
protest movements in one country have upon protest movements in another country.
Or your interest may lead you to examine the role of an outside state or international
organization during the revolutions.
For example, if your interest was in European Union external policy, you could pose
the question ‘What role did the European Union play in the promotion of democracy
in North Africa before and after the Arab Spring revolutions?’ Or you might have a
broader interest in, ‘What role can external actors play in facilitating Libya’s transition?’
(Boduszyński, 2013). Note that Van Evera (1997: 19) argues that while a good research
question should be parsimonious, in that it is not overly long, it also does not need to be
too specific. This means that if you are very specific in your research question, for exam-
ple looking at how the Croatian Democratic Union won Croatia’s first post-communist
elections in 1990, your ability to generalize beyond this case will be limited. That is not to
say that the above would not be a good research question, but rather you will be focused
on telling a more descriptive story of one party’s electoral performance in one election.
But, if you look at the electoral performance of nationalist political parties across the for-
mer Yugoslavia, you will have taken a step back from reality in the sense that you have
created a category of political parties, nationalist, which would allow you to conduct a
cross-country analysis, and present findings that are more broadly generalizable.
While the Arab Spring is an example of a topic area that is naturally bound in time,
beginning with the Tunisian revolution in January 2011, some topic areas might not be.
For example, if your interest in explaining inter-state armed conflict, without a partic-
ular conflict in mind, you should consider the period of time you wish to examine. For
example, inter-state conflict after the Second World War, inter-state conflict after the end
the Cold War? Doing this allows for you to both maintain a broader focus, if you wish to
avoid exploring only a single case, and allows you to limit the period of time, and thus
the number of inter-state armed conflicts you study.
Before moving to interpretive research, it is important to point out that positivist
research questions can also be approached from the perspective of what kinds of ques-
tions are being asked. For example, while all the examples above are explanatory, your
explanation can be used to elucidate a past or on-going event or process, or predict what
is likely to occur given certain existing circumstances or trends. Both descriptive and
predictive questions will inform both policy and theory.
Interpretivist Research Questions

Now let us turn to questions that would derive from an interest in interpretivist
research. Unlike positivist researchers, who evaluate theory by testing a given theory’s
basic assumptions against what can be empirically observed by testing hypotheses, Yanow
and Schwartz-Shea (2015) point out that for interpretivists theory can be developed induc-
tively and assessed against research contexts for the purpose of advancing our understand-
ing of a particular concept. In our discussion of interpretive research questions, critical
theory and normative theory questions will also be discussed at the end of this section.
As noted in Chapter 1, interpretive research starts from a different epistemological
understanding of how international politics can be studied. Interpretive research is not
driven by formal hypotheses in which variables are isolated for testing, but rather focus
on meaning-making. Interpretive methods come into play when we focus on questions

like ‘how do people or actors involved in making policy make sense of the world around
them’. To be sure, in order to test an outcome in a positivist sense, we must already know
it. For interpretive researchers the world of possibility is unknowable at the time of a
particular policy intervention because of complex processes of feedback and learning.
Therefore, the task of identifying a single cause for an event in international relations is
one that interpretive researchers see as less productive than exploring how certain taken-
for-granted policy responses became possible in the first place.
In short, while positivist researchers focus their efforts on explaining specific events
in international politics through explicitly referenced causes, such as Japan–South Korea
relations, interpretive research includes a broad range of research questions that take a
broader view of how causality works in IR and that sees social forces as not malleable to
the language of dependent and independent variables.
Beyond this, the label of interpretivism has been applied to a very broad range of
research designs. Some work is more focused on hermeneutics in that the aim of
researchers is to illuminate social representations, or shared meanings, that are derived
from discourses that underlie how actors perceive each other and themselves.
Others are interested in illuminating how ideational concepts emerged so as to
account for major developments or practices in IR. Such work is more constitutive. What
is meant by this? Let’s take the subject of international law. If we want to study how
international law matters in international relations, rather than trying to account for a
specific outcome, you will work backwards to understand what ‘international’ means to
specific actors and how and why they make recourse to legal claims. Of course, constitu-
tive work often relies on hermeneutics and hermeneutic projects can also be constitutive.
Here we can also use the strategy of articulating a research puzzle in order to bridge
the gap between a research topic and research question. For example, you might consider
why do states generally accept their international legal obligations?
Let us now return to the question of historical legacy and Japan–South Korea rela-
tions. For South Korea, the historical experience of having been colonized by Japan prior
to the Second World War, has become an essential part of understanding South Korean
identity. Meanwhile, in Japan, wider civil society has not confronted the nation’s war-
time past in a manner similar to that seen in post-war Germany. Nor has Japan come to
grips with its own history as a colonial power in the region. There are a number of ways
interpretive research could help you design research projects that would dive deeper into
understanding the topic of Japan–South Korea reconciliation.
For example, how do the ways in which those who live in South Korea and Japan
understand their own histories shape the ways in which these two states interact with
each other? In this case you will asking a question about how history accounts for the
current state of Japan–South Korea relations? This in turn will lead you to examine
the question of how can we better understand these perceptions? Do we look at repre-
sentations in film, media, or perhaps online digital activism? Or do we look at history
textbooks, or how the recent past is presented to the public in museums?
Causality and Interpretive Research

Interpretive research questions are therefore often focused on the ‘how’ or ‘how-possible’
of a research topic. If exploring how certain conditions that exist today between Japan and
South Korea became possible, you would work backwards and establish the conditions
which brought about the current state that you are trying to explain. Other questions you
might consider are how contemporary border policing practices came about? Or, concepts
like citizenship and immigration policies? How did concepts such as the state, borders,
nations, play a role in this?
Of course, it should be noted here that while interpretive causality is understood in the
context of how and how-possible questions it is not the same type of cause and effect cau-
sality that is assumed in positivist research. In the literature, ‘how possible’ questions are
seen as asking questions of emergent causality, or how certain ideational conditions
emerged that made a certain range of actions possible (Connolly, 2004: 343). This is not
the positivist efficient causality where because a occurs, b results (Kurki, 2008: 174).
Interpretive Research Questions and Modes of Reasoning

When thinking of interpretive questions, keep in mind that positivist inductive and deduc-
tive reasoning, in the sense described earlier in this chapter, are not how you will structure
your question. Instead, modes of reasoning will not require you to fix testable hypotheses
up front or come up with a generalizable theory on the basis of your observations.
As you will note from Table 2.3 there is not a unifying causal inference that ties
together these analytical logics. In the first example, you would explore how digital
spaces and online activism impact Japan–South Korea reconciliation. Here you would
start with trying to organize your observations and apply conceptual frameworks that
Table 2.3 Interpretive Research: Japan–South Korea Relations
Researching Japan–South Korea Relations: Understanding
Modes of
Research Topics Research Questions Analytical Logics Reasoning
I want to understand •• How do digital •• Explore how digital Abduction
how digital activism spaces and online spaces and online activism
and Japan–South Korea activism affect on questions related
impact reconciliation? Japan–South Korea to Japan–South Korea
reconciliation? relations and generate
frameworks through which
to improve understandings.
I want to understand the •• How have •• Examine how nationalist Retroduction
symbolism and uses of perceptions of symbols are perceived in
Japan’s ‘rising sun’ flag. the rising sun flag post-war Japan and South
changed in Japan and Korea.
South Korea during
the post-war period?
Researching Japan–South Korea Relations: Understanding
Modes of
Research Topics Research Questions Analytical Logics Reasoning
I want to understand how •• How have museums •• Explore similarities Retroduction
the comfort women issue in Japan and South and differences in
is understood differently Korea portrayed representations of the
in Japan and South the comfort women comfort women issue in
Korea. issue? museums in both Japan
and South Korea.
would help you sort through this question, and therefore, this could be considered an
abductive, or exploratory study. In all of the above, the purpose is not to account for
a particular outcome or test an explanatory theory. But rather, the focus is often on
understanding basic ontological assumptions that underlie the objects and categories that
we study. On the other hand, positivists often take these ontological assumptions, or
categories, for granted.
One common strand of interpretive research is that research often focuses on the
representations through discourses, symbols, or events. To begin, you will want to
think in terms of unpacking meaning from events, symbols or even individuals that have
assumed taken for granted quality in popular culture or society. In relation to the Arab
Spring, your interest may be in individuals who have assumed a certain symbolic status
in contemporary national mythology. Take for example Libya’s Omar al-Mukhtar, a rev-
olutionary anti-colonial leader from the early twentieth century, who has now become
a twenty-first century symbol of national unity in post-revolutionary Libya. Or you can
look to a more modern figure, such as Mohammed Bouazizi, whose self-immolation
touched off the Tunisian revolution in December 2010. In relation to the latter, Rozen
(2015) explored the contestation of revolutionary death narratives in post-revolutionary
Tunisian classrooms.
Critical Theory
As noted in Chapter 1, positivist and interpretive methodologies include a broad spec-
trum of research. When thinking about interpretive projects, one of the directions that
you can travel pulls in the direction of critical theory. Critical theory traces its origins
back to the early twentieth century Frankfurt School, under the directorship of Max
Horkheimer. Horkheimer argued that the principal aim of critical theory was that of
human emancipation. This line of reasoning had a tremendous influence on twentieth
century sociology. For critical theorists, human emancipation can be achieved by iden-
tifying how social structures act to create conditions of exploitation and oppression. By
shedding light on how these social processes work, these structures can be challenged on
the grounds of their own internal normative ideas (Bohman, 2021).
In recent years there have been numerous contributions to IR that draw inspiration
from Frankfurt School theorists, from critical postcolonial theorists and critical race theorists.
If your own research, in the tradition of the Frankfurt School, aims to uncover oppressive
structures in IR, your research will aim to contribute to the emancipation of people from
this condition by drawing attention to these structures. Central to this is understanding
how subjectivity and our own self-consciousness are constructed through language. Thus
language acts to situate us within defined social groups and communities which exist in
unequal relation to one another.
Table 2.4 Asking Critical Questions
Analytical Logics Examples

How does discourse create and reproduce How do discourses of terrorism legitimize practices
inequalities among groups? such as targeted killing while delegitimizing acts of
non-state violence?
How do power and interests operate to How do global trade frameworks protect the
marginalize groups? interests of the industrialized North while
marginalizing the Global South?
For example, Vitalis explored how late twentieth century IR scholarship erased its own
racist and imperialist origins, and also how a narrow positivist framing of what constituted
good research in methods training served to erase the contribution of thinkers such as
W.E.B DuBois to understanding IR (2015: xi). Vitalis’ research question emerged from the
puzzle of why IR scholarship was once openly framed by race, but by the late twentieth
century race was made almost invisible in mainstream IR research. Rather than leaving it at
this, Vitalis illuminated how these deep-rooted intellectual commitments reproduce prac-
tices like targeted killing and armed intervention to this day (2015: 181).
Another example is Bartolucci’s (2010) study of elite discourses on terrorism. While not
using positivist research terminology or independent or dependent variables, Bartolucci
approaches discourses as structuring understandings of terrorism in a manner that allows
the state to use its security apparatus against potential political challengers. Bartolucci
argued that the Moroccan government used its discourse on terrorism to target specific
political opponents. Her focus is therefore on how discourses of terrorism are not neutral,
but rather serve political aims.
Normative Theory
Until this point we have been largely discussing empirical research in IR, but there
is also a rich body of normative theory. Recall that the aim of normative theory is
to question not what is but what should be. Normative theory seeks to establish and
assess rights, duties, or standards of ethical behaviour in IR. Take for example the
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which posits that states have an obligation to
intervene to protect citizens of other states who are subjected to crimes against human-
ity or genocide by their own governments (Mills, 2015). R2P is often contested on the
grounds of state sovereignty (Aboagye, 2012). Where does state sovereignty end and
the duty to intervene begin?
Another example of a field of inquiry for normative theorists in IR is Just War Theory.
Walzer (1977) takes as his starting point for inquiry in Just and Unjust Wars the question
of whether morality and law have a place in the conduct of war. In doing this, Walzer
provides a systemic assessment of morality and war in order to highlight the tensions
that exist among distinct paradigms.
Table 2.5 Normative Questions in IR Research
Analytical Logics: Examples:

Assessment of ethical standards •• Under what conditions is the use of force justified?
•• Is it ethical for states to engage in targeted killings?
Specification of rights or duties •• Do states have a responsibility to protect the citizens of other
states from their own governments?
•• Are human rights universal?
Just War Theory has generated a broad body of scholarship that explores normative
questions of under what conditions is the use of force in international relations morally
defensible?
Crafting Your Own Research Question

Now that you have been presented with examples of research questions from positivism,
interpretivism, critical theory, and normative theory, and now that you also understand
the analytical logics that these distinct sets of questions imply, we can begin to explore
the question of research design. You will probably have guessed by this point that the
underlying logic of your question will dictate the strategy for your research design. If
your research question is positivist, you will make your research choices on the basis of
causal inference, if your question is interpretivist, your focus will be on examining how
ideas and meanings are produced and reproduced in society, and in some cases you may
find yourself making a broad causal argument in terms of emergent causality. Meanwhile,
if your question is one that is critical, you will likely focus on uncovering hidden power
relations maintained by particular discourses, or on how the discursive representations of
events, symbols or individuals maintain unequal or oppressive conditions. Finally, if you
are instead focused on reflecting on rights and duties in international affairs or ethical
standards of action, your question is normative.
Once you have chosen your research question, you can now begin thinking about
research design.
From Research Question to Research Design

After choosing your research question, you will be confronted with questions about
research design and methods. Looking back at the aforementioned research questions it
is apparent that each set of questions would imply distinct research designs. Some ques-
tions seek to examine developments in a single country, others in two or more. Many
would imply case study research design whereas others would require quantitative
methods. In addition, just as it was helpful to remember where your interests were
located on our methodological spectrum when thinking about your research question,
it is also necessary to keep this in mind when thinking about research design. However,
while the next section offers an introduction to research design in the context of a broad
positivist-interpretive spectrum, it is important to emphasize that these are not meant
to be seen as entirely separate research silos, but rather they help you draw connections
between the underlying logic of your research question and how you go about designing
your research project.
You can think of research design as setting out the steps you need to take in order
to complete your research essay. Below are seven steps that will guide you through the
entire research process that are presented in the forthcoming chapters.
Table 2.6 The Research Process and Research Design
1 Choose a topic area that interests you (Chapter 2)

2 Formulate your research question (Chapter 2)
3 State and justify your research design (Chapters 2 and 11)
4 Situate your research question along a methodological spectrum and select appropriate methods
(Chapters 1, 2)
5 What ethical considerations you should consider before undertaking research? Conducting
interviews? Surveys? Questionnaires? Traveling to the field? (Chapter 3)
6 Data collection and analysis (Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)
7 Writing Up (Chapter 10)
However, before turning to methods, or data collection and data analysis techniques, let
us first explore positivist and interpretive research design in greater detail.
Positivist Research Design

Positivist researchers draw some form of proposition out of a relationship between two or
more variables. In fact, for positivist researchers, this proposition defines positive theory.
Van Evera’s (1997: 7–8) definition of theory quoted in the previous chapter defines the-
ories as general statements that describe and explain causes and effects is what is meant
by positive theory. These theories consist of causal laws that offer law-like propositions,
hypotheses, explanations, and antecedent conditions.
In short, positivist theories describe or explain causes or effects. For those trained in polit-
ical science, this is likely how you will understand theory. Theories, from the perspective
of a positivist researcher, lend themselves to empirical testing and are falsifiable. There
are two broad strategies that you can employ to test your theory: observation and experi-
mentation. The most frequently used strategy in IR is observation. When designing your
empirical research as a study grounded in observation, you have two further choices: you
can observe a large number of cases, which usually would mean more than a dozen, or just
a few. Here the dividing line between large-n and small-n is not fixed, but often in under-
graduate research papers, you would have the ability to go into depth on more than just a
few cases. When looking at a large number, this is referred to as large-n research. When
looking at just a few, this is known as case study research.
Experimentation is less common in IR and assumes that you can test a proposed rela-
tionship by exposing one of two equivalent groups to a particular stimulus in order
to affirm or falsify a predicted, or hypothesized, relationship. Most hard sciences rely
heavily on experimentation; however, in IR, outside of computer assisted simulation
modelling, we are unable to easily experiment upon our objects of study (Van Evera,
1997: 28–9).
Thus, when embarking on research design you will first revisit your research ques-
tion. For example, you could start from the general question: ‘What role does social
media play in protest mobilization during revolutions?’ From this you will infer a
relationship: social media plays a significant role in protest mobilization during revo-
lutions. Now you need to think about how you will subject this relationship to testing.
For narrow questions that attempt to explore an event in a particular country or geo-
graphic setting, adopting a case study will allow you to explore in rich detail how your
variables relate to one another and uncover underlying causation. In short, if your
interest is in understanding the how and why of an event of phenomena, case study
research is well suited to helping you respond to your research question (for more on
case study research see Chapter 11).
Research Design: Research Question to Case Study
What factors
explain the Case Study:
Tunisian Tunisia
revolution?
Figure 2.1 Research Question to Case Study
If, on the other hand, you are examining a wider category of events, such as what explains
the outbreak of war, which has long been a central question within the field, you will
need to engage with a large data set that can help you observe correlations between
variables over a large number of cases. In these types of studies your interest is not in
a particular armed conflict per se, such as explaining the Vietnam War, but rather is in
explaining the outbreak of war itself. Such big picture questions do not fit well against
the backdrop of a single case study because of limitations on your ability to generalize
beyond a single case. Instead, you will rely on some form of large data set that attempts
to catalogue all events that fall under the scope of your study. For example, if your argu-
ment is about democracies not going to war with other democracies (the democratic
peace theory), you will need to rely on a large dataset that catalogues instances of war
and codes for democracies and non-democracies. You could think of this as an example
of this kind of research that relies on large datasets. You will also notice that many of
these studies have temporal boundaries because of the inability to either interpret mas-
sively large data sets or the inability to collect reliable data beyond a certain date.
Below are some questions that have been explored in IR that lend themselves to
quantitative research (for strategies for quantitative data collection and analysis see
Chapter 6).
Table 2.7 Research Design and Quantitative Research: Explaining the Big Picture
Research Topic Example(s)
Relationship between regime types and Gaibulloev, Khusrav et. al. (2017) ‘Regime types and
terrorism terrorism’, International Organization
Relationship between trade flows and Mansfield, Edward D. and Pevehouse, Jon C. (2000) ‘Trade
war blocs, trade flows, and international conflict, International
Organization
Relationship between external threats Johnson, Jesse C. (2017) ‘External threat and alliance
and military alliances formation” International Studies Quarterly
Under what conditions do strategic Maoz, Zeev and San-Akca, Belgin (2012) ‘Rivalry and state
rivals choose to support non-state support for Non-State Armed Groups (NAGs), 1946–2001’,
armed groups that target their rivals? International Studies Quarterly
Do alliance choices made by states spill Maoz, Zeev (2011) Networks of Nations: The Evolution,
over into other cooperative networks Structure and Impact of International Networks, 1816–2001
such as trade and institutions?
In sum, positivist research design will help you explain a puzzle, either in relation to a
single case such as the outbreak of revolution in Tunisia or the decision of the U.S. to go
to war in Vietnam, or in relation to a wider phenomenon, such as explaining the out-
break of war more widely or explaining why states cooperate. Now that we have estab-
lished two broad strategies for research design in positivist research, which will be further
elucidated in the forthcoming chapters, we can now turn to interpretive research design.
Interpretive Research Design

Interpretive research design does not necessarily always start from a cause-and-effect puz-
zle, but rather can also engage with a very different type of puzzle that can be described
as an ontological puzzle. Indeed, as noted in Chapter 1, the very purpose of interpre-
tive research diverges from that of positivist research. Here Clifford Geertz’ claim that
social science should not be ‘an experimental science in search of law, but an interpretive
one in search of meaning’ is instructive (1973: 5). Interpretive researchers have different
conceptions of what constitutes a theory from positivist researchers. While positivist
researchers view theories as general statements that explain cause and effect, interpre-
tive researchers see theory as statements concerned with understanding the properties of
those objects that we study. These differential views on what constitutes theory have also
been described as a divide between explanatory or causal theory (positivist) and interpre-
tive theory (Smith, 1995; Wendt, 1998).
Case studies that focus on the use of particular discourses in a given context, or repre-
sentations of particular individuals or events, are also common in interpretive research.
For example, if you want to explore the symbolism of particular public individuals, such
as individuals indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY), you could select one or two indicted war criminals who are of
significant public stature.
The focus of an interpretive research design, using the example above, would not be on
explaining why states cooperated, or did not cooperate with the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Instead, we would turn to understanding how par-
ticular taken-for-granted notions are constituted and contested. A focus on narratives or
constructed memories of past events such as wars or political struggles, can be helpful in
illustrating contested notions such as justice (Pavlaković, 2008). For example, Pavlaković
(2010) argued that the case of Croatia’s indicted General Ante Gotovina highlighted how
Croatia’s relationship with the EU became bound up in a highly emotive debate on con-
tested narratives of the past that did not coincide with rational models of decision-making.
Another example of interpretive research could be a researcher’s exploration of evolv-
ing, or contested, conceptions of international justice. If your interest is in the dispute
between the International Criminal Court and the African Union over the Court’s exercise
of jurisdiction over the continent, your interest might not lay in explaining the relation-
ship between the ICC and the AU, but instead you might want to unpack the language
of justice. Does international justice mean different things in different social contexts?
Likewise, is sovereignty a concept with malleable meanings that can be explored from a
number of perspectives?
Critical Theory Research Design

Just as interpretive researchers have a specific view of what constitutes theory, so to do
critical theorists. As noted earlier, the focus of critical theory is on shedding light on
power relations that are created and maintained through discursive practices. Critical
research will therefore likely have you focus on exploring discursive processes of oth-
ering or domination in particular cases. This can be done through a reflexive use of a
broad range of tools that situates the researcher and acknowledges the researcher’s own
privileged position in knowledge production. Case study research is not uncommon in
critical scholarship. For example, how are imperial, or colonial, relations between for-
mer imperial powers and former colonies reproduced in international relations today?
Moreover, tools used in critical work often rely on genealogy whereby the researcher
traces the origins of a particular discursive practice or relies upon excavation, whereby
the author critically reflects on existing scholarship or historic texts. One method of
excavation used widely by postcolonial scholars is contrapuntal reading, a method
developed by Edward Said (1977) that examines colonial texts from both the perspective
of the colonizer and the colonized.
Normative Theory Research Design

What are the elements of good normative research design? As noted earlier, normative
research focuses on exploring ethical standards for appropriate conduct in international
affairs. As such, it is preoccupied with moral and philosophical considerations. Basic
questions about what is just or unjust in today’s world are explored through tools of con-
ceptual analysis. This requires you to first explicitly set out the concept that you intend
to examine, be that justice, war, or inequality. There are different strategies for doing
this, you may wish to focus on how a particular concept was theorized by a single author
or assess how a particular concept was treated by several authors over time. In terms of
contested doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect, you would explore how this
doctrine was articulated and the moral and legal basis for, and the extent of, the obliga-
tions and duties of states to intervene.
Summary: Logics of Research Design

These divergent views on theory lead researchers operating within these distinct
approaches to adopt distinct forms of research design, although at times overlaps in
method are visible. For example, one can look to explanatory or causal studies that view
discourse as a causal or explanatory variable. Table 2.8 presents two examples of research
questions and categorizes them in terms of positivist or interpretive and in terms of what
kind of theoretical traditions they are likely to engage. Since you have now almost com-
pleted this chapter, try to add your research question to Table 2.8.
Table 2.8 What is Your Question? Positivist and Interpretive Research Questions
and Research Design in International Relations
Positivist, Causal (Explanatory),

Interpretivist, Critical, Interpretive, Critical,
or Normative Research or Normative Research
Example Research Question Question? Design?
Example: What are the causes of European Positivist Causal (Explanatory)
integration after the Second World War?
Example: How do political actors make use Interpretivist Interpretive
of narratives of the Second World War in the
2014 war in Eastern Ukraine?
Example: What role does race play in Critical Critical
maintaining inequalities in International
Relations?
Example: Do states have a responsibility to Normative Normative
protect?
Overcoming Obstacles
While the preceding pages have set out a general process and choices you will make in
going from research topic to settling on a research question and research design, you will
often encounter challenges in coming up with a research question. Usually, if you are
finding it difficult to follow those steps outlined in this chapter, you might want to ask
yourself the following two questions.
Is what I want to research too broad for the purposes of my

essay or thesis?
Oftentimes a problem that you will encounter is that you simply have not narrowed
down your topic enough. For example, does your interest lie in studying the impact of
national human rights commissions on human rights? If so, do you want to explore
national human rights commissions more globally? If so, have you thought about how
a country’s national human rights promotion and protection bodies might differ signif-
icantly? Perhaps it might be easier to focus on a specific country case study in order to
tell the story of the work of one national human rights commission? Have you thought
about narrowing down the period of time you aim to explore? When you begin to ask
these questions, you will often help yourself sharpen your research question and also
reflect on questions of research design.
What is it about my topic that I think is important for my

readers to know?
This question gets to the heart of your own interest in your topic. Let’s say your inter-
est is what motivates states to engage in humanitarian interventions. After reading
about the U.S.-led intervention in Libya in 2011, you might be left with a strong
curiosity about the topic, but what is it about the intervention that you want to learn
more about? In this case you will work through whether your interest lies in under-
standing why Libya’s efforts to build a post-war state ended in failure and civil war, or
is your interest to better understand what led states to intervene in Libya in 2011 in
the first place?
If you are interested in the latter, you might be wondering why the U.S. chose to
intervene. Was the U.S. motivated by oil interests? Was the U.S. motivated by a desire
to remove a former rogue adversary from power? Or was the U.S. motivated by a
desire to protect Libya’s civilian population from being victimized at the hands of an
autocratic leader? As you ask yourself these questions, you should write them down and
then try to go back to asking an overarching research question: What factors led the U.S.
to intervene in Libya’s civil war in 2011?
By asking yourself questions about what is it about your topic that drew you to it, you
will begin to map out your own research interest in your topic and overcome obstacles to
coming up with your own research question. By doing this, you will also be able to better
map out your own research design.
Chapter Summary
This chapter traced the process of generating a research question and establishing a
research design. As mentioned in Chapter 1, research is about making choices. In this
chapter you were confronted with choices about your research question. Will you pose a
question that is positivist or interpretive? Will your question be narrow or wide in scope?
Depending on the type of question you ask, you will open up distinct strategies for
research design and also direct your research toward a particular set of methods and tools
for data collection and data analysis. For example, if your research question is narrow and
aims to find set reasons, or variables, that resulted in a specific outcome, such as explain-
ing the U.S. decision to go to war in Vietnam, it is likely a positivist question and lends
itself to being answered through a single case study. If on the other hand your interest is
in explaining U.S. decisions to go to war in general, your work will remain positivist, but
you will need to engage with a larger body of case studies to respond to your question,
and likely will employ quantitative research to analyze a larger dataset.
If on the other hand, your research question is interpretive, or focused on ideas, con-
cepts or meaning, you will eschew research designs suited towards hypothesis testing
and instead your research will focus on particular cases that allow for in-depth qualita-
tive analysis. Interpretive research requires you to engage deeply with the question of
meaning. Critical and normative theory questions also have their own distinct logics
of research design that are either focused on shedding light on unequal power relations or
establishing standards for appropriate behaviour in IR.
In sum, research questions and research design are closely intertwined and should be
addressed in relation to each other. Once you have established your research question
and settled upon a research design you can begin thinking about tools for data collection
and data analysis; however, two important steps remain before going on to discuss these
tools. The first is thinking about research ethics and will be addressed in the next chapter,
and the second is your literature review, which will be discussed in Chapter 4.

1 The following article provides an overview of how deductive and inductive
reasoning has played a role in IR theory development and theory testing. It makes
the case for a creative deductive mode of reasoning that maintains space for
inductive logic: Blagden, David (2016) ‘Induction and deduction in International
Relations: Squaring the circle between theory and evidence’, International Studies
Review, 18 (2): 195–213.
2 Gustafsson and Hagström’s accessible article presents the research puzzle as means
to generating research questions in IR: Gustafsson, Karl and Hagström, Linus (2018)
‘What is the point? Teaching graduate students how to construct Political Science
research puzzles’, European Political Science, 17: 634–48.
3 In this article, Kurki aims to deepen and broaden our understanding of causality
beyond narrow positivist terms: Kurki, Milija (2006) ‘Causes of a divided discipline:
Rethinking the concept of cause in International Relations Theory’, Review of
4 The following article provides a good example of normative theory in the context
of a discussion of international justice: Nardin, Terry (2006) ‘International Political
Theory and the question of justice’, International Affairs, 82 (3): 449–65.
5 This article provides a survey of research on gender in IR that adopts positivist
research design: Reiter, Dan (2014) ‘The positivist study of gender and International
Relations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59 (7): 1301–26.
6 Shim’s article on how comics narrate geopolitical events to public audiences provides
a recent example of interpretive work that relies on innovative visual methods: Shim,
David (2017) ‘Sketching geopolitics: Comics and the case of the Cheonan Sinking’,
International Political Sociology, 11 (3): 398–417.
7 This chapter provides an overview of the core elements of positivist research in IR:
van Evera, Stephen (1997) ‘Hypotheses, laws and theories: A user’s guide’, in S. van
Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press. pp. 7–48.
THREE
RESEARCH ETHICS
learning objectives
• Explain concepts of positionality and reflexivity

• Gain an awareness of dilemmas of research funding
• Understand plagiarism and how to avoid its different forms
• Identify examples of data fabrication and an understanding of how research fraud
undermines public confidence in research
• Reflect upon the potential for harm to participants in your research project
Research ethics are a part of every step of the research process. While the question of
ethics often arises in the context of securing permission from an ethics review board to
conduct your fieldwork (Jacobsen and Landau, 2003: 185–206; Bryman, 2008: 112–36),
this chapter will emphasize that research ethics are a much broader area of concern that
goes beyond data collection and analysis. Failure to reflect upon ethics, or engagement in
unethical behaviour on the part of a researcher, can result in at best considerable embar-
rassment, or at worst an irreparably damaged professional reputation.
When thinking about research ethics, the first question to consider is where do we
draw the boundary between ethical and unethical research practices? In the social sci-
ences more broadly, and in International Relations in particular, we will find that while
some practices, such as the falsification or distortion of data, always fall outside the scope
of acceptable research conventions, other practices, such as securing interview consent in
writing, may not in all cases be a viable course of action. One central guiding principle in
your research should be absolute transparency about your research choices.
When you first pick up a text on research ethics or do a quick literature search on the
topic, you will often flip through pages of examples drawn from the medical sciences,
where medical doctors or psychiatrists carried out experiments under circumstances where
even the most casual observer would raise serious ethical objections (Brandt, 1978: 21–9;
Herrera, 2001: 245–56). While many of the more notorious of these cases of research mal-
practice are often trotted out as examples of gross misconduct, here the focus will be on
ethical questions of most direct relevance to your research. In order to explore the wide
range of ethical dilemmas you are likely to encounter, this chapter will reflect upon ethical
dilemmas that arise when you embark upon your research, at the data collection and anal-
ysis stage of your project, and at the writing-up stage of your research. Therefore, first, we
will reflect upon ethics in the context of research reflexivity and positionality. This will be
followed by a discussion of research ethics as they relate to human subjects. Last but not
least, we will examine clear ethical transgressions, such as plagiarism and data falsification.
Introducing Ethics: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?

All research is built on trust. Without it, there is no reason for published research to be
read, for findings to be believed, but also there is no reason for anyone to participate
in our research, agree to interviews, or provide us access to archives. Research ethics is
what allows us to maintain this trust through guarding standards of academic integrity
which emphasize honesty, transparency, and not doing harm to those we interact with
during the course of our research.
All ethical codes of conduct in the social sciences will in some way make reference
to these core principles, and each of these are explored in greater detail in this chapter.
As you will note from the following sections in this chapter, many of the ethical dilem-
mas you are likely to encounter are interlinked and require you to critically evaluate, and
constantly reassess, the ethics of your work.
Research Ethics 65
Reflexivity and Positionality in Research Questions and

Data Collection
At this point, you might still wonder how ethical questions or dilemmas relate to you,
a student of International Relations, particularly if your research interest is in exploring
questions related to international peace and security. Here, it is helpful to remind our-
selves that our research interests in the world around us will always require us to reflect
on the ethics of how we pursue research and how we communicate our research to a
broader audience. If we take a step back from our research project, we might ask ourselves
a question that comes from feminist IR.
Let us take, for example, our own positionality as a researcher in IR. Feminist IR
questions how underlying power relations sustain practices in international politics and
how this shapes scholarship in the discipline (Ackerly and True, 2008: 693–707). In order
to shed light on these power dynamics, for example how a senior researcher from a pres-
tigious institution might be perceived by more junior research participants, we need to
reflect on how who we are might shape how we are perceived by those with whom we inter-
act during the course of our research. This also requires us to be more attune to reflexive
questions about our own biases and interests. Ackerly and True (2008, 693–707) point out
that IR feminism’s reflexivity creates a research ethic standard that allows researchers
to resolve ethical dilemmas in their own research.
Reflexivity refers to the practice of reflecting on our own personal biography and
biases with respect to our research. Are there implicit power relations between you, the
researcher, and those who are participating in your research project? What do you hope
to gain from your research project? Does our research privilege certain groups while fail-
ing to engage with others?
Positionality and Reflexivity in Fieldwork in China

Lian (2019) reflected on her own positionality in the context of a study of local gov-
ernment officials and farmers in China who had seen their land expropriated. Lian first
reflected on how her own biography would affect how she would be seen by her inter-
locutors in the field as a female researcher in remote regions of the country and how this
might affect her personal safety (2019). Next, Lian took into account how her personal
background as an educated researcher might shape how she is perceived. First, she
reflected on how this positionality would matter in the context of farmers:
[…] they would bear in mind my status as a modern and educated person. Once
I am seen in this way, there must be some unavoidable distance between me and
the land-lost farmers due to our marked differences. For example, the land-lost
farmers, who are mostly undereducated, are not used to participating in such a
(Continued)
contrived research setting as an interview, and thus they are not adept at elabo-
rating upon their ideas and feelings. Some of them may even be too anxious to
collaborate with me as a researcher who seems much more educated and higher
positioned than them (2019: 4).
However, when it comes to government officials, Lian noted some advantages:
To some extent, I can gain trust from government cadres because they think that
I can advance suggestions to solve problems concerning land expropriation.
When I approach officials, I am always asked to show my researcher identifica-
tion. Maybe they are afraid that I am a disguised journalist intending to publicize
information received from them and about them. Hence, the status of being a
researcher, though not wholly welcome, at least means that some of the research
participants provide credible opinions once I have been accepted (2019: 4).
These dilemmas not only shape the level of access we might enjoy when conducting
research, a topic that will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9, but they also shape
our research findings and the kinds of data that our research participants are willing to
share with us. Often there is little we can do to change how we are perceived in the field
and the best we can do is to be open about how positionality will affect our research.
Dilemmas of Research Funding

Researchers within the social sciences are increasingly confronted with the task of going
out and securing external funding to conduct research. As sources of funding become
more diverse, we need to think about questions such as whether or not there is a con-
flict of interest between research funders and our potential research findings. Research
findings in the social sciences are often perceived as authoritative, and many groups
have an interest in promoting research findings that might advance their interests, and
such groups are often willing to fund such research. Let’s take the non-IR example of
tobacco companies funding research on the health consequences of cigarette smoking
(Harris, 2008). Alternatively, consider the fact that large oil companies funded research
questioning the link between carbon emissions and human induced climate change
(Keane, 2020). In both cases research funders – tobacco and oil companies – have a clear
interest in research findings. In both cases we can agree that failing to make explicit
where research funding was coming from would be inappropriate on the part of the
researcher given a clear conflict of interest between the research funder and potential
research findings.
Of course, these are clear-cut examples of conflicts of interest between the research
funder and the researcher. In IR this particular dilemma is more nuanced, yet at the same
time, major journals in the field ask scholars to disclose potential conflicts of interests
that may arise from research funding. For example, scholars of IR often rely on various
Research Ethics 67
government funded research bodies for research funding. In the United Kingdom, you
have the Research Councils, while in the United States, government funding, which is
dispersed through numerous agencies, makes its way into academic research.
Knowing what is at stake in research ethics makes us better researchers and better con-
sumers of research. Ethical questions need to be addressed even at the very outset of your
research. As an IR researcher, research questions and research design are often entangled
with questions of ethics. In particular, as a student of IR who aims to contribute to our
understanding of international affairs, you will be confronted with ethical dilemmas at
every stage of the research process.
Human Subjects: Institutional Review Boards and

Ethics Committees
For researchers in IR across the globe, even before the research process begins, you will
be asked to seek out ethical clearance from your institution before carrying out research
on human subjects. The need to receive ethical clearance is increasingly common in IR.
With more and more students and scholars of IR going into the field, including regions
torn by conflict, questions of research ethics, and how they interact with different codes
of ethics from personal ethics to institutional and professional ethics, require greater
attention to research ethics.
There was a renewed focus on ethics in research that involved human subjects after
the Second World War and the horrors of Nazi-era scientific experiments carried on
people were widely publicized in the context of the Nuremberg Trials (Shuster, 1997:
1436–40). Indeed, the trial of medical doctors for experiments carried out on human
subjects resulted in the drafting of the Nuremberg Code for medical research ethics,
which was described as ‘the most important document in the history of the ethics of
medical research’ (Shuster, 1997: 1436). Furthermore, within the medical sciences, the
ethics of using data from Nazi experiments continues to cause controversy decades after
Nuremberg (Moe, 1984: 5–7; Bogod, 2004: 1155–6).
The Nuremberg Code’s focus on medical ethics did not prevent many of the core prin-
ciples found within it from making their way into social science codes of research ethics.
As you will note, many of the core principles of the Nuremberg Code, such as informed
consent and not doing harm, are included in most codes of research ethics in the social
sciences. Of course, the focus of these codes is on research involving human subjects, and
social scientists often rely on human subjects for collecting data and experimentation.
It was noted how the social sciences diverge from the natural sciences in Chapter 1:
of primary interest to the social scientist is the social world, made up of, and expe-
rienced by, people – a community which the researcher is part of. This is normally
juxtaposed against the natural world. However, even in the natural sciences we have
seen how bias can produce false and misleading conclusions (Šimunić, 2013). If we
return to IR, when two countries go to war with each other, images of this event broad-
cast on television or seen on websites, evokes a number of emotions, which preclude us
from merely watching as an unbiased observer. Some social scientists use this to argue
that experimental methods, such as those conducted in the natural sciences or even
medicine, are more difficult to operationalize within the field. For example, we cannot
instigate a war between two states to see whether the outcome would match what we
have hypothesized (Moses and Knutsen, 2012: 53). Nevertheless, Moses and Knutsen
point out that in the social sciences, ‘experimentation today has become increasingly
mainstream’ (2012: 54). One example is Mintz et al’s recent work on understanding
the representativeness of experiments conducted with university students (Mintz et al.,
2006: 757–76). Given the fact experiments involving human subjects are increasingly
common within IR, the Nuremberg Code’s emphasis on informed consent on the part
of research participants is of increasing relevance to the field. Therefore, the Milgram
experiment, (Milgram, 1963) which is commonly taught as an example of how deception
in research can result in harm to research participants, has become increasingly relevant
to students of IR. In this experiment, Stanley Milgram wanted to test the willingness of
research participants to obey an authority figure’s commands to harm other research
participants. In short, Milgram was exploring the question of would ordinary people
obey the commands of an authority figure to the point of inflicting severe harm on
others? While no actual physical harm was actually caused by the experiment, research
participants were deceived into believing that they were inflicting severe harm on other
research participants (Baumrind, 2015).
Thus, while it goes without saying that laboratory experiments to instigate armed
conflict isn’t possible, either in an ethical or material sense, qualitative methods
offer tools to conduct small scale experiments with targeted groups of people in order to
improve our understanding of specific populations. For example, Roman David (2011)
did just that in order to better understand the social impact of divergent approaches to
dealing with the shared legacy of an authoritarian communist past in three countries in
Central and Eastern Europe. In sum, experiments are increasingly common. In partic-
ular, experiments help us to understand reactions to certain fictional or non-fictional
scenarios. Nonetheless, no matter how benign we may perceive our experiments to be, as
researchers in IR, we have a responsibility to provide full disclosure to participants in our
research and not to harm those with whom we interact.
The Milgram Experiment

The Milgram experiment is commonly referenced in the context of discussions of ethics
and experiments in the social sciences. Milgram attempted to study destructive obe-
dience through a laboratory experiment which required some participants, through
deception, to believe that they were harming others.
Reference:
Milgram, S. (1963) ‘Behavioral Study of Obedience’, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
67 (4): 371–8.
Research Ethics 69
Full disclosure means that those who participate in our research must freely consent
to do so, and they must be able to revoke that consent at any point in time. They also
cannot be pressured or coerced into participating in research. In addition to this, we
also must disclose to participants how any data we gather will be used. For example,
you need to let participants know if the research is being used for an in-class assign-
ment or for a publication. This also will require you to let research participants know
whether, and to what extent, their anonymity can be protected. If you do promise
confidentiality, you must ensure that you take appropriate steps to protect the identity
of research participants.
The principle of ‘do no harm’ has also taken on greater importance as interest in ethno-
graphic research methods has grown in IR and has, among other things, helped generate
a significant body of empirical research on a number of topics. However, IR researchers
also found themselves coming into closer contact with research dilemmas that have pro-
voked significant debate in closely related fields, such as anthropology. In the first decade
of the 2000s, the U.S. Army Human Terrains System Project’s funding of social science
research in places like Iraq and Afghanistan set off a vigorous debate among members of
the American Anthropological Association. In the end, the Association concluded that
government funded research funding in an on-going conflict area posed manifold risks
for researchers and their interlocutors (American Anthropological Association Executive
Board, 2007).
Research Ethics and Digital Methods

To be sure, the digitalization of research has expanded the realm of interaction with
human subjects. This has created new and increasingly fraught questions of how digi-
tal data can be accessed and used by researchers and how practices like informed consent
can be translated into the digital realm. Digital data is generated anytime we use an
app, communicate digitally, read an article on the web, post to social media, or perhaps
even when we seek medical advice. In our daily lives we are generating massive amounts
of data, or big data, that are not just of interest to marketers, but also to social science
researchers. And in turn social scientists are generating more data digitally by depositing
material generated in their own research into digital data archives, such as Harvard’s
Institute for Qualitative Social Science (Hesse et al., 2019). Where do we draw the line
between digital data that is of fair use for researchers and that which should be off limits?
When it comes to research ethics in the digital realm, many of the same concepts that
you were introduced to earlier in relation to not doing harm to research participants con-
tinue to apply. Therefore, you might want to consider, just because you are able to access
certain digital data, does it mean you will want to use it in your research? One helpful
principle to keep in mind is that of consent. Do you have explicit consent to use social
media postings that might be shared within certain communities or groups but are not
available to the general public? Also, will the nature of the information contained bring
harm to those who have posted it?
Many students have used digital platforms like Twitter and Facebook as rich resources
for essays on activism, about simply gathering data from publicly available data that peo-
ple generate through social networking sites: can we use statements extracted from these
sites for our research without the consent of those who maintain personal or professional
profiles on these networks? This is what Rambukkana (2019) refers to as ‘gray data’. Grey
data occupies a place between published texts, which do not require explicit consent to
be used in research, and data that is provided by a research participant, which would
require consent. For example, if you were to have a conversation with someone offline,
you could record the conversation and write a transcript, or take notes during the con-
versation, with the consent of the research participant. But, if we shift this conversation
to the digital realm, we have comment texts that captured – and can be studied, perhaps
without the consent or knowledge of the research participant. Here, the consensus at this
point is that ethical decisions in digital research will often be a judgment call that will
factor in multiple considerations – such as the principle of do no harm, but also whether
or not those communicating in a digital environment believe that their communication
is private (Rambukkana, 2019).
For researchers following political or social activists on social media, Facebook pro-
files may provide a potentially rich resource for those seeking to understand activist
communities. But, just because a Facebook friend has posted something you might wish
to use in your research does that mean this person has consented to having this post,
intended for a community of friends, reproduced in your publicly available research?
Could this bring harm upon the said activist? These are questions you should ask your-
self; however, keep in mind, always ask those whose words you are using, if derived from
a private or restricted medium whether or not you can use their social media activities
for research purposes.
Another thing to consider is whether or not those who are participating in digital
research are aware that they are doing so. One case that involved Facebook saw research-
ers manipulate data to see if the emotional state of that social networking site’s users
could be negatively affected by the content of what users were viewing (Kramer et al.,
2014). This research design provoked widespread criticism as it entailed the manipula-
tion of user content for the purpose of an experiment without the knowledge or consent
of participants (BBC News, 2014).
Ethical Codes of Conduct

Keep in mind that even if we aren’t conducting interviews or relying upon data generated
by users of social media sites, we are always interacting with people during the course
of our research. As the American Anthropological Association notes in its Statement
on Ethics Principles of Professional Responsibility, ‘As a social enterprise, research and
practice always involve others – colleagues, students, research participants, employers,
clients, funders (whether institutional, community-based or individual)’, (American
Anthropological Association, 2012).
Research Ethics 71
Given the complexity of research ethics, a number of professional and funding bodies
have drafted codes of research conduct to provide researchers with guidance on some of
the dilemmas and challenges they might face during the course of their research.
There is no shortage of ethical codes of conduct out there that you can turn to for guid-
ance on research ethics. For example, this chapter has referenced the International Studies
Association and American Historical Association’s statements on plagiarism, and the
American Anthropological Association’s statement on ethics. Given the wealth of codes
of ethics, it is helpful to distill key points that these often lengthy documents address. One
major research funder in the United Kingdom, the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC, 2015) does just that through what it sets out as six key principles of ethical research
that are listed below, with some explanatory notes added for clarity:
• Research should be designed, reviewed and undertaken to ensure integrity and

quality (transparency in sources, does not contain plagiarism)
• Research staff and subjects must be informed fully about the purpose, methods
and intended possible uses of research, what their participation in the research
entails and what risks, if any, are involved. Some variation is allowed in
very specific and exceptional research contexts for which detailed guidance
is provided in the policy guidelines. (You must disclose to those who are
participating in your research, the purpose of your research, what you are asking
them to do, what you will use the information for, and any risks that might
result from their participation.)
• The confidentiality of information supplied by research subjects and the anonymity
of respondents must be protected. (If a participant asks not to be referenced by
name in your research, you should make sure that you protect their anonymity and
not ‘out them’ in any published work or submitted theses or dissertations.)
• Research participants must participate in a voluntary way, free from any coercion.
(You cannot threaten or intimidate people into participating in your research.)
• Harm to research participants must be avoided. (You should make sure that
participants are not harmed during the research process or as a result of your
research.)
• The independence of research must be clear, and any conflicts of interest or
partiality must be explicit. (Who is funding your research? What is your affiliation?
These facts should be disclosed to research participants.)
At first glance, these six principles may appear to be an inviolable set of rules, analogous
to the Ten Commandments in the Christian tradition. However, in point two, you will
notice that some exceptions are permitted in ‘very specific and exceptional research con-
texts’. Yet, how do we define what these specific and exceptional contexts are? What is
important to remember for now is that many professional associations draw their own
ethical red lines on such questions in slightly different places. Therefore, it is of utmost
importance that you familiarize yourself with the ethics codes or norms of your university
or place of employment.
Perspectives on Ethics
Often institutions, in addition to having distinct ethical codes of conduct, also have
distinct cultures in relation to how they implement their respective ethical guidelines.
Bryman (2008, 116–17) set out a useful typology of ethics cultures, the universalist, situ-
ationalist, violationalist, and anything goes approaches. This typology provides a useful
roadmap to chart these divergent approaches to implementing codes of ethics.
The first, universalist, is the perspective that you will most likely encounter as a start-
ing researcher in IR enrolled in an undergraduate program. In the absence of years of
experience working with research participants, and being new to the research process,
faculty members you encounter will probably insist that you adhere strictly to ethical
codes imposed by your institution. In most cases, starting researchers lack the appro-
priate training to work directly with vulnerable or traumatized groups of people, such
as victims of war crimes or minors. Universalist approaches to research ethics are often
applied to protect the institution for which a researcher is conducting research from
potential legal liability for harm or to protect the researcher from doing harm to them-
selves. Universalists thus hold firm that ethics codes cannot under any circumstances
be violated.
If, however, you are being asked to present your proposed research to an institutional
ethics review board, you might find yourself encountering a more situationalist approach
to research ethics. In such cases, you will be asked to justify your proposed research in
writing and submit what may look like an application to conduct your research project
to a panel of researchers who will evaluate the ethical implications of your proposed
course of action. Situationalist approaches emphasize a case-by-case evaluation of poten-
tial transgressions and may even consider whether or not significant new knowledge
will be created through your proposed research and whether that new knowledge would
outweigh harm.
The next two approaches to research ethics are worth mentioning, but are approaches
that you are not likely to encounter when seeking institutional ethical clearance to
conduct research. A violationist approach assumes all research includes some minor viola-
tions. In short, such an approach assumes social science researchers are unable to avoid
engaging in behaviour that can be defined as unethical. In a similar vein there is the
anything goes approach put forward by Douglas (1976). Those who subscribe to such an
approach argue that the kinds of deception that we can engage in as social scientists can
hardly be considered serious when taken against the backdrop of the types of activities
routinely engaged in by the state police or security services (Bryman, 2008: 116).
In short, what you have been presented with thus far are both diverse codes of
ethics and diverse ways that these codes can be implemented that range from strict
adherence to the rules, to the allowance of deviance from them, to the outright rejec-
tion of the rules. When thinking about the ethics of your own project it is imperative
to comply with the ethical guidelines of your own institution and to also engage in
your own ethical self-reflection. Below are some questions you might want to consider
asking yourself.
Research Ethics 73
Self-Reflection on Ethics
1 Are there any underlying ethical questions posed by my research question?
2 (In the event you are conducting funded research) Is there a potential conflict of
interest between my research funders and my research?
3 Is there a potential conflict of interest between me, the researcher, and my research
question?
4 Does my research design require me to interact with human subjects?
There are very few research questions that would allow you to answer no to question one
in the self-reflection. Indeed, as noted earlier in this chapter, more critical approaches to
IR often critique research agendas in the discipline as being carried out ‘for someone and
for some purpose’ to quote Cox (1981) once again. However, one does not have to be a
critical theorist to reflect upon the underlying ethics of their research. Question two is
a question you should ask yourself in the event your research is funded by a third party,
while Question three is something that one should always keep in mind. Sometimes a
researcher might find themselves with a personal interest, in terms of financial or pro-
fessional interests that may constitute a conflict of interest. Finally, if you answer yes to
Question four, you should try to think about what kind of people you will be interacting
with, such as members of a particular profession, employees of a particular organization,
members of a certain political party. As noted earlier in this chapter, all research partici-
pants must be fully informed of the nature of the research that they are participating in
and how any data gathered will be used in order to give informed consent. More guid-
ance on how to provide informed consent and how to protect participants from harm
will be provided in Chapter 9. If you are likely to find yourself working with children or
vulnerable adults, you should consult closely with your institutional ethics committee to
ensure that you have the appropriate permissions and training to carry out your research.
Plagiarism and Fabrication of Research Results

At all stages of the research project, from desk research to writing up your research pro-
ject, keep ethical considerations in mind, particularly to avoid plagiarism and the fab-
rication of evidence. Let us take on the question of plagiarism first as this is something
that you are likely to have warned about in class syllabi. Yet, despite such warnings
against plagiarism being ubiquitous, often you might still wonder where the line can be
drawn between plagiarism and sloppiness.
Research Ethics and Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else’s words or ideas and presenting them
as your own. Often this is done by copying and pasting text from other sources and
placing them directly in your own essay without attribution. Other times, this includes
attempts to submit work, as your own, that has been written by others. As will be dis-
cussed below, plagiarism can also result from a simple failure to provide references. A
related offense, self-plagiarism includes the republishing or resubmitting of work that
you have already written as a new piece of work. Examples of this include submitting
the same research essay, or substantial parts of the same essay, for assessment for two
different classes.
It is important to remember plagiarism can be both intentional and unintentional. It
can result from an intentional effort to deceive, or it can result from sloppy note-taking
and inadvertent mistakes during the writing-up process. In order to guard against the risk
of accidental plagiarism it is important that you always record a bibliographic refer-
ence along with any notes you might take from a piece or research or any other source
of information. It is helpful to include the full bibliographic information, so you do not
have to search for this information again later. You may decide to record this informa-
tion on paper, notecards, or through the use of widely available bibliographic software.
This will significantly reduce your risk of committing unintentional plagiarism. After all,
any research project entails reading large amounts of texts on a subject, and without
careful note-taking, it is very easy to reproduce someone else’s words or ideas in your
own text without providing a reference. Therefore, whenever you read a scholarly article,
book, news article, or blog post, relevant to your research, always take notes. With careful
note-taking, it is easy to cross-reference your notes for ideas that appear you in own work.
You may even choose to catalogue readings into distinct perspectives on a given topic, in
addition to by author. For example, you can create a bibliographic reference list of authors
who have taken a particular theoretical approach to a question. In sum, coming up with
your own system to organize your notes, whether on paper or digitally, is necessary to
ensure that you give appropriate credit in your own work to the ideas and words of others.
Despite plagiarism often being unintentional, plagiarism is one of the most serious
offenses that you can commit as a researcher. Indeed, in the words of one of the largest
professional association of IR scholars, the International Studies Association, plagiarism
constitutes, ‘a serious breech [sic] of professional and academic ethics’ (International
Studies Association, 2021). Furthermore, the American Historical Association points out
that the consequences of plagiarism go far beyond harming the academic endeavor of
expanding our knowledge of the world:
In addition to the harm that plagiarism does to the pursuit of truth, it can also
be an offense against the literary rights of the original author and the property
rights of the copyright owner. Detection can therefore result not only in
sanctions (such as dismissal from a graduate program, denial of promotion, or
termination of employment) but in legal action as well. As a practical matter,
plagiarism between scholars rarely goes to court, in part because legal concepts,
such as infringement of copyright, are narrower than ethical standards that
guide professional conduct. The real penalty for plagiarism is the abhorrence of
the community of scholars (American Historical Association, 2019).
Research Ethics 75
In sum, the consequences of plagiarism are manifold. However, resources such as the
Internet have made both the act of plagiarism, and its detection, easier. As was noted in
The New York Times:
Digital technology makes copying and pasting easy, of course. But that is the
least of it. The Internet may also be redefining how students – who came of age
with music file-sharing, Wikipedia and Web-linking – understand the concept of
authorship and the singularity of any text or image (Gabriel, 2010).
Indeed, with websites such as Wikipedia, which offer instant access to multi-authored
summaries of key theories, concepts, events, individuals, the temptation to rely on
such resources for independent research is great. However, as will be pointed out in
Chapter 4, the reliability of information that you can access on the Internet is far from
consistent, as barriers to scholarly publication, such as peer review, are absent. One
rule of thumb for digital research is that nothing, except maybe a direct quote taken
from a reliable source, should be copied and pasted into your essay. It is also impor-
tant to remember to provide the full URL address for any web-based sources, and also
include the date you accessed this information. All standard referencing styles will
require you to include this information in your bibliographic information.
Referencing and Quoting

As mentioned earlier, the best way to avoid inadvertent plagiarism is to take good notes
and provide in-text references. When expressing another author’s ideas or argument in
your own words, referencing is essential. There are a number of standard referencing
styles available to students of IR, and as a rule of thumb, you should consult your course
guide, or your publishing outlet, for their preferred referencing guidelines. Two that are
most commonly used are in-text, or what are commonly referred to as Harvard style ref-
erences, or footnotes, which often follow the Cambridge style.
Harvard and Cambridge Referencing Conventions

Harvard (in-text) references
Example of a direct quote in-text: ‘The states that emerged from the former Yugoslavia
followed divergent paths of regime change in their first decade of post-communist
transition, only to converge on the road to Europe in the second.’ (Boduszynski,
2010: xi).
Then the full reference is provided in your bibliography:
Boduszynski, M. (2010) Regime Change in the Yugoslav Successor States: Divergent Paths to a New
Europe, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
(Continued)
Cambridge Footnotes
‘The states that emerged from the former Yugoslavia followed divergent paths of
regime change in their first decade of post-communist transition, only to converge on
the road to Europe in the second.’1
Mieczyslaw P. Boduszynski, Regime Change in the Yugoslav Successor States: Divergent Paths to a
1
New Europe (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010) xi.
What if I reference the same source twice in the same paper? Do I need to provide
the full reference again in my footnotes?
Boduszynski argues that although the states of the former Yugoslavia all had differ-
ent experiences of regime transition after the fall of communism, later these countries
shared the goal of joining the European Union.2
Instead of providing the full reference again, you can use the author name and the
relevant page numbers.
Bodusznyski, Regime Change, xi.

2
Remember, if you are making use of a direct quote, referencing is not enough. For short
quotes, of three lines or less of text, quotation marks must be provided to indicate to the
reader that the words that are quoted are not yours. For longer quotes, you may indent
the quoted lines to again make explicit to the reader that the text that is indented is not
your own.
Fabrication and Distortion of Evidence

Alongside plagiarism another ethical transgression of an equally egregious character is the
distortion of data. In some extreme cases, researchers have even falsified or fabricated data.
While it goes without saying that falsifying evidence is a serious breach of research ethics,
in recent years there have been a number of serious cases involving academic dishonesty
on the part of scholars in both the social and natural sciences in recent years. For exam-
ple, stem cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk’s scientific achievements were later proved to be
fraudulent (Bhattacharjee, 2013). While this example is an extreme one, it is illustrative of
the fact that as a scholarly community, we must be alert to the risk that some members of
this community may attempt to abuse the trust of fellow scholars to falsify data or produce
fraudulent evidence. In the Netherlands, fraudulent research has also made headlines, and
forced the resignation of prominent scholars (Bhattacharjee, 2013; Margry, 2020).
Although simply inventing data or falsifying results is clearly an outrage against
the scholarly community, sometimes researchers inadvertently alter their research data
through sloppy note-taking during interviews or through coding errors. In relation to
interview data, one tool to ensure your transcripts are accurate, and to provide for an
additional level of transparency, is to secure the consent of your interview subjects to have
the interview recorded. If you would like to record an interview, always secure permission
Research Ethics 77
to do so in advance. If this is not possible, written interview consent forms will provide
evidence that you have actually conducted your interview. In the absence of a consent
form, make sure you record as much information about your interview as possible. Things
like the location, date and time of the interview, in addition to recording with whom the
interview has taken place, all serve to provide you with evidence that your interview actu-
ally took place, should you be asked to produce such evidence.
Finally, in addition to misrepresentation of data occurring as a result of outright fraud-
ulent behaviour or sloppy record-keeping, sometimes students might find themselves
tempted to distort another author’s argument. Often this takes place early in the essay
or article when constructing a theoretical framework or setting the stage for your own
theoretical contribution. It can be tempting to over-simplify an argument to construct a
strawman argument. A strawman argument is a distortion of an opposing argument
to make it easier for you to counter in your own writing. While this might help the read-
ability of your essay, this kind of distortion does nothing to advance theoretical debates
and undermines your credibility.
Chapter Summary
Research ethics inform every step of the research process, and should be approached
holistically on the part of the researcher. Each step of your essay or dissertation writing
process poses potential ethical dilemmas that you should be aware of. Here, you have
considered how reflexivity and positionality, which were initially addressed in the con-
text of early IR feminist work, are not just concepts that are important to critical theory
or normative perspectives, but rather help us to better engage with, and understand, our
research subjects. Most importantly, we should be especially careful when interacting
with human subjects. Whenever we approach people to participate in our research, we
should be transparent about our research purpose and secure their informed consent.
We also need to maintain the principle of doing no harm to our research participants.
Finally, we also need to remember that transgressions such as plagiarism and data falsifi-
cation need not always be intentional and can easily result from sloppy note-taking or a
failure to accurately transcribe interviews.
Now that we have reflected upon the ethics of what we will do during the research
process, we can begin our essay or dissertation writing in earnest. The next chapter will
help us to begin this process by introducing the literature review.

1 This article provides a concise introduction to questions of power and ethics in
research: Ackerly, Brooke and True, Jaqui (2008) ‘Reflexivity in practice: Power and
ethics in feminist research on International Relations’, International Studies Review,
10 (4): 693–707.
2 This second article provides an accessible introduction to how reflexivity and

positionality impact fieldwork: Lian, Hongping (2019) ‘Positionality and power:
Reflexivity in negotiating the relationship between land-lost farmers and the local
government in China’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18: 1–19.
3 Rambukkana explores the ethics of ‘gray data’ – or online comments on social
media – in digital methods research: Rambukkana, Nathan (2019) ‘The politics of
gray data: Digital methods, intimate proximity, and research ethics for work on the
“Alt-Right”’, Qualitative Inquiry, 25 (3): 312–23.
4 Soedirgo and Glas provide insights into how researchers should respond to the
complexities of positionality during the research process: Soedirgo, Jessica and
Glas, Aarie (2020) ‘Toward active reflexivity: Positionality and practice in the
production of knowledge’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 53 (3): 527–31.
FOUR
WRITING A LITERATURE
REVIEW
learning objectives
• Identify the purpose of a literature review

• Understand what makes a good literature review
• Implement strategies for carrying out an effective literature search
• Explain the basic structure of a literature review
• Gain proficiency in writing literature reviews
Every IR research paper or dissertation aims to engage with a topic on a more substantive
level than simple description. Research in IR contributes to a wider conversation among
a community of researchers. In order to be part of this conversation, you will need to be
aware of, and engage with, previous studies relevant to your own. In short, it is part of
your task as a researcher to start by investigating what others have already written about
your topic. An awareness of how other researchers have grappled with your subject, per-
haps in different contexts, is essential to help you to begin thinking about how to design
your own research and the ways in which your own research could add to the academic
body of knowledge. Essential for gaining this awareness is the literature review.
Whatever your topic, there will always be some relevant work that you will need to
explore and evaluate during the course of your literature review. The importance of crit-
ically evaluating pre-existing work cannot be overstated. It is likely you will both agree
and disagree with some of the arguments presented in the existing literature. An open
mind is necessary when embarking on the literature review, but it is essential to see this
as a review, rather than summary, of existing work. That is, to critically evaluate what is
currently out there – which works do you find convincing, and which you not? Think of
the literature review as an analytical survey of the existing work, and a core component
of your research project.
In order to help guide you through the process of writing your own literature review,
this chapter first outlines what a literature review is and why it is essential for research.
Subsequently, the chapter offers a step-by-step guide to conducting and writing your
literature review, covering where to go for information, and what to look out for when
critically evaluating the state of the literature.
Why Write a Literature Review?

Because of the literature review’s importance, it is essential that it is both thorough in
coverage and well structured. In doing this, you may encounter difficulties in knowing
just what to include, or leave out, when writing your literature review. In fact, it is not
uncommon for students to ask how broad their literature review should be. Many of
these practical questions arise from confusion over the purpose that a literature review
serves in a research paper or in a longer piece of research like a dissertation, thesis, or
book. Here, I will point to three major purposes of a literature review, to situate, to eval-
uate, and to justify, that will later help guide you in setting the boundaries of your own
literature review.
Situate your Research

The first purpose is to situate your research question in the context of existing schol-
arly literature on your topic. How does your research question relate to major debates
in your field? What do theories of IR tell us about your research topic? For example, if
you are studying the rise of China, what do different theories of IR suggest about how
China’s rise will impact upon international relations? Here, you will want to break down
your specific question in order to understand the underlying logic of what you hope to
explore, in this case the rise of a great power challenger.
Situating your research in existing literature is an essential step to avoid readers later
pointing out that your research question has already been answered by others and does
not add anything new to existing debates, or that the theory you have tested is one that
has already been widely debunked in the literature using the same tests you have carried
out in your own research.
Evaluate the Literature

The second purpose is to understand just how your question engages with the existing
literature. How have others answered questions similar to that of your own? For exam-
ple, what have other authors argued as to what we can expect from China’s rise? How
did they reach their conclusions? Did they rely on a case study or quantitative large-n
study? Did they explore a specific theoretical concept such as the security dilemma, or
a situation in which anything one country does to make itself more secure will be per-
ceived as more threatening by neighbors? At this point you will begin to map different
strands of argumentation. Going back to our example of China’s rise, you might group
literature that makes a realist argument that China’s rise is likely to result in conflict with
the United States (Mearsheimer, 2010) and others who perhaps make a more liberal argu-
ment that China’s rise will be tempered by a growing Chinese middle class and liberal
trade interdependence (Lake, 2014). Once mapped, you will begin to assess both sides of
this argument for their strengths and weaknesses.
Justify your Approach

The third purpose is to justify why the question you posed remains at the centre of a
scholarly debate or why it is of policy interest. For this purpose, you should go back to
the initial puzzle that triggered your research question. How did you identify this puzzle?
Why did it remain puzzling even after a cursory survey of scholarly literature? Why is
answering your question important? What will answering your question tell us? Your
responses to these questions should be able to take into account the limits of existing
literature and gaps within existing literature.
Organizational and Analytical

Purposes of a Literature Review
1 Situate your research question in the context of existing scholarly literature on your topic.
2 Understand how your research question engages with this scholarly literature.
3 Justify the importance of knowing the answer to your research question, and why it
matters for existing scholarly or policy debates
Remember, the three purposes of a literature review are both organizational and
analytical. They are organizational in the sense that to situate your research in the con-
text of existing literature you will need to categorize different types of responses that
you find in the literature. For example, if you are writing an essay that explores why
the U.S. intervened in Libya in 2011, you might find papers that provide reasons that
are largely based on material interests, such as access to natural resources, and on the
other hand arguments that emphasize humanitarian motivations. Literature reviews
also have an analytical role. In order to understand how your own research will engage
with existing work, you will point to gaps in arguments in the literature or questions
that remain to be explored. In order to do this, you will need to critically engage with
existing work.
Understanding the purpose of a literature review and also writing a literature review
in a well-organized and analytically coherent manner is necessary to prevent the reader
either not understanding the contribution your research hopes to make or dismissing
your piece as uninformed at the outset. Keep in mind, the literature review, while often
placed early on in your essay, is distinct from the Introduction of your essay, which has
a narrower purpose, and will be dealt with in Chapter 12 on Writing Up. A well written
literature review will help your reader place your academic writing in wider context of
literature on your topic, will demonstrate your familiarity with existing scholarship, and
it will help you to avoid simply reinventing the wheel in your essay through exploring
a question that has already been addressed at length or in a manner that does not add a
new perspective to the particular question.
In sum, your literature review is an essential component of any research essay, thesis, dis-
sertation, or scholarly publication. Indeed, a thorough literature review is the foundation
upon which your data analysis and your conclusions will be built. It also demonstrates, the
relevance, importance, or novelty of your research question. Without a literature review
none of these things will be visible to your readers. Now that we have established why you
need a literature review, it is time to say a few more words about the types of literature, and
also literature reviews, that you are likely to encounter in your readings.
Types of Literature and Literature Reviews

A literature review is an analytical overview of existing scholarly research on a certain
topic of scholarly or policy interest that establishes, organizes and identifies gaps in
existing arguments, positions, concepts, or theoretical debates for the reader. It provides
your reader with a concise snapshot or state of the art of existing scholarly engagement
with your research topic and establishes major theoretical debates of relevance to your
research question and the methods others have used to respond to your research ques-
tion. It is a component part of every piece of scholarly writing. Depending on the length
of your research project, it may constitute a few paragraphs after your introduction, and
before you go into justifying your methods, or it could be its own stand-alone chapter in
a large thesis or dissertation project.
Literature reviews can take on many different forms. In some cases, papers will go
straight into the literature review by setting the stage for theoretical debates that will be
addressed. In other cases, literature reviews will be contained in a stand-alone section
within a paper. And as noted above, in longer pieces of writing, a literature review can
comprise an entire chapter.
You are most likely already somewhat familiar with literature reviews as they are part
of almost every peer reviewed journal article that you will have read up to this point. In
fact, if your classroom professor has assigned review articles in your course reading lists,
you will have read what amounts to a lengthy literature review. Alternatively, if you have
read a research monograph, you will notice that one of the first chapters usually covers
how others have approached a particular topic in the past. Individual chapters in schol-
arly edited volumes or introductory chapters to edited volumes are also places where you
might have encountered literature reviews.
Key Terms
Peer Reviewed Article: This refers to a research article that offers an original contri-
bution to the field. Articles undergo peer review prior to acceptance for publication
by experts in the field, who make an assessment as to whether a given article, and its
research findings, merit publication in a scholarly journal.
Review Article: This type of article provides a survey or synthesis of important, or

recent, works on a given topic to give the reader an overview of new or existing de-
bates. Review articles do not present new research findings but can present you with
a very useful birds-eye view of existing debates.
Monograph: Specialist, book-length works of around 80,000–100,000 words pub-

lished by scholarly presses. Monographs provide an in-depth and original research
contribution on a single topic and are usually written by a single author.
Edited Volume: This refers to a collection of scholarly papers, published as indi-

vidual chapters in a book, that are usually centered around a single topic or theme.
The editors of the book have commissioned, reviewed, and edited the chapters for
inclusion in the book.
You probably also have noticed that literature reviews assume many different forms and
can be organized in a number of different ways. Indeed, given the breadth and extent of
literature on pretty much any topic of interest in IR, and the diverse forms that literature
reviews sometimes assume, the task of condensing potentially massive bodies of litera-
ture into a concise literature review may at first appear to be daunting. Remember your
task in writing a literature review is not that of a librarian. You do not need to catalogue
everything ever written on your topic. Instead, you need to highlight to most important
or relevant works on your topic and tell the reader how they relates to your research, and
what your research will add to this body of work.
Often, when tasked with writing a short essay your literature review will need to
be very concise. In this case you should not dwell on describing in detail the argu-
ments of others. Instead, you will need to distil their contributions into one or two
key sentences that highlight their perspectives to the extent they are relevant to your
own research question. When undertaking a lengthier piece of writing, your litera-
ture review should provide a more comprehensive overview of how scholars have
addressed your wider topic area, in addition to highlighting how their works interact
with your own. I discuss the nuts and bolts of how to do this in practice below.
How to Begin: Familiarizing Yourself

with the Literature
Now that you have a clear picture of the purpose of a literature review, we can turn to
the question of how to get started on your own literature review. There are a number of
resources – keyword searches, textbooks, research monographs – that will help you find
relevant literature.
Even your course syllabi can be a helpful resource because professors will often assign
exemplary readings that present different perspectives on a single topic. Of course, your
syllabus readings should only be a starting point. For example, in a class on human
rights you might be assigned readings with different perspectives on the universality of
human rights. This can be a good place to go in order to familiarize yourself with how
major debates have been structured in the literature. You can do this by looking at the
references cited in your assigned readings. You will then be able to quickly identify other
relevant readings.
Perhaps the first place beyond your course syllabi that you will visit as part of your lit-
erature search will be your own university’s library catalogue. While you may be familiar
with searching the web for any number of things, it is important to remember that when
searching scholarly literature you can make your search more effective by taking into
account some of the tips noted in the section below.
Keyword Searches
When visiting your university library, your first place of call will usually be your univer-
sity library’s webpage. Just like any other search engine that you have used to search the
web, you will need to learn how to use your library’s online catalogue in order to find
those holdings that are most relevant for your own project. While more about this is
covered in the box on keyword searches, one additional word of advice would be not to
restrict your search to your library catalogue search page. You can make use of websites
like academia.edu or researchgate.org to search for work on your topic, and you may also
choose to make use of Google Scholar.
Keyword Searches
Being able to conduct effective keyword searches is an essential skill for any researcher.
Using the example of cyber warfare try to conduct your own keyword search using
Google Scholar. Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) is a helpful electronic resource
that catalogues a wide range of scholarly articles of varying quality from a wide range
of sources. Often access to these articles will be restricted, but if using a computer on
a University network, of if subscribed to major electronic journal and book databases
through your Library, you should be able to access works you find on Google Scholar.
Nevertheless, a word of caution is in order. Unlike electronic journal archives such as
JSTOR, or EBSCOhost, you cannot be sure what you are accessing through Google Scholar
has always been peer reviewed. There are number of journals of dubious quality that cut cor-
ners on academic rigor, and are commonly referred to as predatory journals, that will appear
in such searches. Such content can also be found on sites like academa.edu or researchgate.
org. One way to avoid falling into the trap of dwelling on such work is to familiarize yourself
with the major peer reviewed journals that publish on your topic (see Table 4.1).
Try to practice your own keyword search for scholarly literature. You can start by
using the keywords provided on cyber security: cyber security, cyber wars, cyber war-
fare, cyber terrorism, cyber attacks, and cyber defense/defence in addition to these you
should also look for variations of ‘cyber’ such as: Internet threats, hacker, and InfoSec,
to name a few examples.
Now think about your own topic. What other keywords can you think of that might
help guide a keyword search of the literature?
Table 4.1 Selected Major Journals in International Relations
Journal Subfields
International Organization Global Governance
International Studies Quarterly IR Theory, Global Governance
International Security Security Studies
World Politics Global Governance
European Journal of International Relations IR Theory, Global Governance
Journal of Conflict Resolution Security Studies
Review of International Studies IR Theory, Global Governance
Finally, don’t formulate your final reading lists on the basis of a single keyword search.
Different authors might have used different terminology to describe the same phenom-
ena as shown in the box above. Moreover, different online databases have different ways
of organizing their contents, and therefore it is always better to try to conduct multiple
keyword searches with different combinations of key terms and also to make sure of mul-
tiple scholarly journal and book databases. For more on keyword searches, see the box
on Keyword Searches.
Popular Scholarly Databases

Academic OneFile
Academic Search Complete
JSTOR
Project MUSE
ProQuest Central
Sage Research Methods
Science Direct
Web of Science
When carrying out your literature search on any given topic, the sheer number of search
returns might be daunting. Make sure that you don’t give up. There are many ways to go
about identifying the most important arguments on your topic and literature that is most
impactful. One is to look for work on your topic that has been widely cited. This infor-
mation is visible on many e-journal or scholarly search engines such as Google Scholar.
Another is to find an article on your topic and look at how arguments have been mapped
in existing literature reviews.
Textbooks and Monographs

Introductory textbooks by their nature are designed as introductions; they rarely if at
all offer an original intervention to the field. As such, textbooks alone are unlikely to be
relevant as a source to critically evaluate in your literature review. That said, textbooks
are invaluable in offering an initial survey of the knowledge in a given topic area. See
your textbook as a jumping off point, to signpost where to go next as a point of depar-
ture. Particularly useful are further reading lists of key works on particular topics found
in many textbooks.
You can also use scholarly monographs written on your topic as a resource. These
books preface their own main arguments with a literature review which in turn intro-
duces the state of the art at the time of publication. For example, if you are writing an
essay on International Political Economy, you could organize competing approaches into
liberal, realist or Marxist approaches (Gilpin, 2001). You will be familiar with the main
authors from each theoretical perspective, and you can sum up their arguments in a few
short concise sentences. Or, if writing on international justice or international human
rights, one could contrast realist-based explanations that see international human rights
commitments which are only being made to the extent that they reflect underlying
national interests, or constructivist norm-based approaches that reflect changing under-
lying norms of appropriate behaviour (Lamont, 2010).
Remember that you can always turn to your thesis or dissertation supervisor, or your
classroom instructor, if you find yourself lost in the literature review process. In fact, it may
be best for you to consult with your supervisor or professor early in the literature search
process in order to ensure that there are no major gaps in your survey of the literature.
What to Include in Your Literature Review?

One thing you should glean from other scholars’ treatment of their literature reviews is
that a literature review is not a literature summary. As mentioned earlier, the point is not
to find and catalogue everything ever written on your topic. You will need to make deci-
sions about what key arguments your work engages with and how it does so. In doing
this, you are expected to critically evaluate the existing literature and not simply provide
short article summaries of various works that you have read.
A Literature Review is NOT:

1 A list of everything written on your topic
2 A summary of articles and books written on your topic
Given a literature review’s scholarly focus, you should target your background reading
toward scholarly research outlets such as peer reviewed journals, scholarly edited vol-
umes, research monographs, and other peer reviewed academic publications. Here you
might want to closely consider those works that appear consistently throughout schol-
arly literature reviews on your topic – these are likely seminal texts that should be refer-
enced in your own literature review. Knopf highlights three priorities that are helpful to
keep in mind when thinking about what to include in your literature review. The first is
how widely a source is cited. This is a good indication that it is a seminal text as noted
above. The second is to focus on more recent work from highly esteemed journals or
academic presses. This is a good indication of what cutting edge scholarship says about
your topic. The third is to spend more time on those works that are most closely related
to your own topic and research design. If you drew inspiration from a particular study, it
should be highlighted in your literature review (Knopf, 2006: 131).
For more policy-focused projects, you may also search for how different policy ana-
lysts have addressed your topic and what kinds of policy recommendations have been
made in the past. Here you may look for policy briefs and other policy papers. Similar
to seeking out scholarly work published in highly esteemed outlets, you might want to
consider closely those policy reports published by prestigious think tanks or by govern-
mental authorities as having greater weight for your literature review.
Literature Reviews on New or Innovative Topics in IR

Sometimes when beginning a literature review, the aforementioned useful starting point
of first turning to prominent scholars who have addressed your topic or the seminal
works in your field might not be an option because you have chosen to write on a rel-
atively narrow topic, or a relatively new phenomena such as artificial intelligence (AI)
in IR, which lacks a long history of scholarly debate due to the relative newness of the
phenomena or technology under study. When, as in the case of artificial intelligence,
the topic is both entirely new to you, and you are not familiar with those scholars who
have written on your topic, you might want to consider how these new developments
impact upon existing practices in IR, like peacekeeping or warfare. Below is one example
of how scholars have sought mapped existing debates in the context of a topic which is
still relatively underexplored:
This article is not the first to take up the challenge of problematizing and
analyzing the coming impact of AI on international relations. […] Work in
this vein has tended to focus on critical questions along four lines. First, will
AI fundamentally change either the character or nature of warfare? Second,
will intelligent agents incorporated into military or societal processes affect
the stability of international relations during crisis periods? Third, might AI,
given effective international cooperation, reinforce peacekeeping mechanisms
currently present in international affairs? And, fourth, can AI be harnessed, and
can benefits be accrued safely, without serious risk of negative externalities that
emerge from failures in development and adoption (Jensen et al., 2020: 529).
Jensen et al. clearly map out four questions around which there is disagreement on AI
in International Relations that allow you to visualize some of the contours of debate
on this topic. You see here how Jensen et al. do not try to provide a mapping of AI in
IR more broadly, but instead zoom into four analytical questions around which there is
disagreement. When looking at issue areas like AI, one good place to turn beyond the
scholarly literature are think tank reports and policy briefs on your topic. For example,
in relation to AI, the United States published an extensive report on the challenge of AI
for US national security (National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, 2021).
Writing a Literature Review

At this stage you might also rethink your initial research question. Remember, academic
research is not a linear process. It is perfectly OK to revisit choices you made earlier in the
research processes on the basis of what you encounter while carrying out your research.
In some cases, you might find that the question you posed initially might be too broad.
It could be that the concept or phenomenon in IR that you wish to explore might need
further refining.
For example, you might have started your project with a desire to explain the causes
of conflict. However, once you began your background readings, you discovered that
conflict has been addressed in the literature on two distinct levels: inter-state conflict
and intra-state conflict. Explanations for intra-state conflict point to different explan-
atory variables than explanations for inter-state conflict. These include, for example,
state failure, internal ethnic divisions, and resource allocation. Or perhaps you wanted to
write on cyber security. Once you started your readings you might have discovered there
are distinct bodies of literature that deal with inter-state cyber warfare, cyber terrorism
by non-state actors, and cyber crime. Each of these have triggered their own distinct set
of policy responses, and you might find that focusing your essay on a particular subset
of issue areas within the broader issue of cyber security will help you to more effectively
write a cogently argued piece of academic writing.
As you will note from the above, conducting your literature review will also help you
to better structure the logic of your own research question and research design as you
encounter more and more work by others. While more on writing up your literature
review will be presented in Chapter 12 on Writing Up, here we can begin to sketch out
the structure your literature review will take.
Structuring Your Literature Review

When mapping the literature on your topic, it is helpful to identify: what major ques-
tions are points of disagreement centred around? What major theoretical debates are
relevant to your topic? Who are the main authors and works you have identified in the
context of the above? Once you have answered these questions you might choose to vis-
ualize how these arguments relate to one another and which authors take which position
in either a table or other visualization for your own reference. Doing this will help you
better structure your own literature review once you begin writing.
There is a basic structure common to most literature reviews. This includes an
introduction, where you justify your literature review’s analytical and organizational
focus. The body of the literature review, that reflects the organizational structure you
have decided upon, and a summary which makes clear the rationale for your research
project. If you are writing a longer literature review, you will need to provide an intro-
ductory paragraph in which you clearly set out the focal area of literature for your
review, and how this relates to your topic. For shorter literature reviews, which are part
of research essays or journal articles, you will provide this information in a sentence
introducing the review.
For example, if writing an essay that aims to explain why states voluntarily signed the
Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, you should introduce
your topic in a manner that makes clear to the reader that you have explicitly addressed
existing scholarship on this question:
Scholars have long sought to understand why states, once assumed to jealously
guard their own sovereignty, would voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court.
Once you have introduced your literature review, you will move on to the body of the
review. Literature reviews are typically organized around the areas the existing scholar-
ship has in common or the points of significant divergence. In most cases you will find
that your research question addresses a topic or issue that allows you to nicely organize
literature into competing theoretical perspectives on your topic. However, you might,
depending on your research question, find another organizational criteria for your liter-
ature review such as contestations over methods, methodologies, interpretation of data,
or conclusions.
For example, using the example of a research question closely related to expla-
nations of why states join international criminal courts: What explains the causes of
cooperation or non-cooperation with international criminal tribunals, we find that IR the-
ory offers three potential explanations for why states cooperate. These could range
from more realist approaches that would argue that states cooperate because they are
coerced to do so by more powerful states, to liberal approaches, which argue states
cooperate out of self-interest rather than coercion, to constructivist approaches, which
emphasize the role of norms of appropriate behaviour dictating compliance. All three
of the above explanatory pathways reference to their own distinct bodies of literature
which you can review.
Another common second strategy for organizing a literature review is to attempt to
discern how others might have attempted to answer your question in the past. Are there
substantial disagreements in terms of method? For example, if your interest is in demo-
cratic peace theory, you might find that depending on the methods used, scholars arrive
at different conclusions. Have one group of scholars relied primarily on large-n datasets?
Has another used more qualitative case study methods?
Once you have mapped the body of your literature review, you will provide a con-
clusion that will constitute the core analytical take home message for your reader.
Highlight here your own evaluation of the existing literature. There are two opposing
tendencies that students sometimes fall into when evaluating existing literature. The
first is being overgenerous towards existing scholars and offering only platitudes.
The second is being overly dismissive and suggesting that you are the first who has
discovered anything worthwhile on your topic. In relation to these two tendencies,
with regard to the first, there will always be room for criticism, no work is perfect,
and with regard to the second, it helps to be humble and recognize the achievements
of those who have gone before you.
In sum, your literature review should conclude by making responses to the following
questions explicit to the reader. What key points of contestation have you identified?
What have we learned about your topic thus far? What points have been clarified by
existing scholarship, and what points remain obscure? And, most importantly, what gaps
remain in the literature?
Avoiding Pitfalls: Strawman Argumentation

Now that we have covered the process of conducting a literature review, it may be helpful to
look at a few common obstacles that are often encountered in the literature review process –
and how to overcome them. The first is that you will be doing a lot of reading. You may have
many tabs opened at once on your web browser as you scour the literature. Make sure you take
good notes and you read to understand, not for speed. This not only will help you go back
and find your sources later, but it will also help you to organize the literature more quickly.
Given the breadth and depth of background reading for your literature review, it is
important to ensure that you carefully read the texts you are coming across. Don’t just
zoom into a couple of paragraphs without reading the entire piece to get a good sense of
the argument, and its core components. This is necessary for you to be able to accurately
convey these arguments in your own literature review. Indeed, it is essential that once you
begin writing your literature review you accurately relay key arguments raised by other
authors to your readers. It is also important that you do not oversimplify these arguments
into ‘straw men’ that you tear down in the course of your argumentation. The deliberate
misrepresentation of an opposing view on a topic not only harms your own credibility
before the reader, but also devalues your own contribution, as it will do nothing to advance
scholarly debates in your field of interest.
Things to Avoid: Straw Man Argumentation

A straw man in scholarship is a reference to the misrepresentation of another scholar’s
argument in order to make it easier to undermine or disprove. Given that you are con-
fronted with the task of summarizing complex arguments in relation to your research
topic in the literature review, it is important that you do not oversimplify another schol-
ar’s work to the extent that you leave out important characteristics or key observations.
How can good note-taking also help guard against this? First, ensure you record the full
bibliographic reference of the work your notes are from. Then, record the author’s key
arguments, broader theoretical perspective or commitments, and how they went about
responding to the question. This will give you a baseline on the work itself. Then look
for how the author(s) position their work in relation to other scholars. Is there someone,
some perspective that the author(s) take issue with? This question will help you identify
the next important component of good notes, record-keeping on how the work relates to
your own piece of writing (Berg and Lune, 2012). This will also help you to begin think-
ing analytically about the literature you are reading.
Chapter Summary
The literature review is an essential component of any piece of academic writing. It is
both organizational and analytical in purpose. The aim of your literature review is to
provide scholarly, or policy, context that situates your work in existing debates, but cru-
cially moving beyond a descriptive summary to offer an analytical evaluation of existing
research, offering judgments on the existing contributions made by other scholars.
The literature review research and writing process will in the end help improve your
ability to critically evaluate scholarly literature. Through your critical reflection on how
scholars have addressed your topic in the past, and through your evaluation, or weigh-
ing, of arguments advanced by these scholars, you will approach the literature with a
much more critical eye.
Finally, the literature review process helps you guard against rehashing stale debates
or collecting data that has already been collected. On the other hand, it also helps you
identify important gaps in the literature, and if your research question is well thought
out, you may find that the research project that you have embarked on will serve to fill
an important gap in the scholarly literature.

1 This following is an example of a review article on literature on international
democracy promotion in the Middle East and North Africa: Abbott, Lucy M. (2018)
‘International democracy promotion and democratization in the Middle East and
North Africa’, Democratization, 25 (1): 178–84.
2 This article provides an example of how a review of the literature on the topic of
state-building and legitimacy can be organized and structured: Andersen, Morton
Skumsrud (2012) ‘Legitimacy in state-building: A review of the IR literature’,
3 In this concise article, Knopf offers guidance to new graduate students on how to
write a literature review: Knopf, Jeffrey W. (2006) ‘Doing a literature review’, PS:
Political Science & Politics, 39 (1): 127–32.
4 This comprehensive study skills guide provides you with a number of valuable
insights into reading, writing, and organizing your literature review: Ridley,
Diana (2012) The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students (2nd edition).
London: Sage.
FIVE
QUALITATIVE METHODS IN
learning objectives
• Understand the advantages and limitations of qualitative research in IR

• Explain and apply basic qualitative data collection techniques: interviews, focus
groups, archival or document-based research, digital research and visual methods
• Gain familiarity with triangulation, thick description and process tracing
• Explain and apply qualitative data analysis strategies: content analysis, discourse
analysis, visual analysis
The next five chapters of this book will turn to research methods for data collection and
data analysis. This chapter will examine qualitative methods for data collection
and analysis, while quantitative methods will be addressed in Chapter 6, and mixed
methods in Chapter 7. Following these chapters, we will then turn back to explore in
greater detail: fieldwork (Chapter 8), interview methods (Chapter 9), and discourse
analysis (Chapter 10).
Qualitative methods are data collection techniques and data analysis strategies
that rely upon the collection of social artefacts, such as textual, verbal and visual forms
of communication, and the interpretation of social phenomena, action, or events.
Qualitative methods include a wide range of research tools that allow us to engage with
sources as varied as written documents and interview transcripts to film and visual
imagery. While qualitative methods in International Relations is sometimes conflated
with case study research design (Levy, 2002: 132), which will be addressed separately
in Chapter 11, qualitative methods actually describe a highly diverse set of tools and
strategies that you can draw upon to collect and analyze data that comes in expressed
in natural language or in the form of other artefacts of social interaction such as
films, photographs, or physical spaces and monuments. Qualitative data can therefore
come in many forms.
Qualitative Methods
Qualitative Methods are data collection techniques and data analysis strategies that
rely upon the collection of non-numeric social artefacts and the interpretation of social
phenomena, entities, or events.
Qualitative Methods and Philosophy of Science

Qualitative methods have both positivist and interpretive applications. One of their prin-
cipal advantages is that they allow us to zoom in and explore social interactions in a
more granular manner, but they should not be conflated with a particular methodolog-
ical worldview. Indeed, they have been used widely in positivist and interpretive work
alike (Klotz, 1995: 451–78; Campbell, 1998; Risse et al., 1999).
Because of this, it is important to revisit an observation from Chapter 1 before going
into our next three chapters on Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods: do not
conflate research methods with methodologies. Remember, research methods are tools to
collect and analyze data, methodologies are the philosophical commitments that under-
pin your research project. What does this mean in the context of choosing practical
research methods for data collection and data analysis?
Jackson shows how the research methods you select, such as qualitative and quantita-
tive methods, are better thought of as technical considerations as to how to best gather
data (2016: 77). Jackson notes:
Qualitative Methods in International Relations 95
Whether one uses numerical or non-numerical data, or whether one considers

a small or a large number of empirical cases, is either a technical consideration
or aesthetic preference: either the relevant data is not available in a quantitative
form, or the researcher finds words more compelling than numbers, or vice versa
(2016: 77–8).
In short, methods are the tools you use to gather the data you need. Different research
questions require different tools of data collection and analysis. Thus, the choice of
methods is a technical rather than philosophical question.
Therefore, although some methods texts, such as Bryman’s Social Science Research
Methods present qualitative methods as interpretive, and in contrast to ‘a natural scien-
tific model in quantitative research’, (2008: 366), qualitative methods in fact encompass
a wide range of techniques that can serve a wide range of research purposes and are
used in both interpretive and positivist research. Of course, if the purpose of conducting
research is to make claims of causal inference, then quantitative tools can be helpful
in understanding whether or not correlations are observable across a large number of
cases. However, quantitative methods are not the only tools available for understanding
causality in IR. Qualitative process tracing, for example, can be used to demonstrate how
a change in one variable caused a change in another.
King et al. (1994) develop this point by arguing in their seminal text that the logic
of inference, or positivism, unites qualitative and quantitative approaches to research.
Yet, this understanding of qualitative methods is their take: not all agree. To be sure,
qualitative research in IR is favoured by a broad spectrum of interpretive, positivist and
normative scholars. Therefore, data collection and analysis methods described in this
chapter will include methods that are used across methodological traditions.
In the same way, different theories of International Relations also aren’t intrinsically
bounded to any particular method of data collection or analysis that will be presented in
the forthcoming chapters. (See IR Theory and Qualitative v. Quantitative Methods Box). Let’s
take, for example, constructivism, which is sometimes perceived as a more qualitative-
oriented research program. However, while in many instances we see constructivist argu-
ments being made through the use of qualitative methods, there are also constructivist
authors who rely on quantitative methods to make similar observations (Klotz, 1995: 451–78;
Kim and Sikkink, 2010: 939–63). On the other hand, IR realist scholars have also made
use of a wide range of both qualitative and quantitative methods in advancing theoretical
claims on power politics in international affairs (Richardson, 1960: Lane, 1994: 5–49).
IR Theory and Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methods

In one of the early important contributions to IR constructivism, Audie Klotz ana-
lyzed a wide range of qualitative documentary sources that included statements
of activists, media reports, and official pronouncements on the part of states in
(Continued)
her single case study which examined U.S. sanctions against apartheid-era South
Africa (Klotz, 1995: 451–78).
On the other hand, Hunjoon Kim and Kathryn Sikkink relied upon quantitative
methods to analyze a dataset that included human rights prosecutions in over 100
transitional countries to make a constructivist argument in which they argued that both
normative and material factors contribute to human rights prosecutions having a deter-
rent effect on human rights abuses (2010: 939–63).
Meanwhile, Christopher Lane used three comparative case studies to process
trace competing causal mechanisms that were advanced by democratic peace theo-
rists to challenge the underlying logic of democratic peace theory on realist grounds
(1994: 5–49).
Now that we have established the diverse methodological and theoretical contexts in
which qualitative methods have been used in IR, we can turn to a discussion of qualita-
tive data collection and analysis techniques. Then, you will be provided with a practical
guide to major qualitative data collection and analysis techniques used within the field
of IR with examples from recent scholarship.
Collecting Qualitative Data

Principle strategies for collecting qualitative data include interviews, digital research,
archival or document-based research, or focus groups. It should also be noted
that visual methods are also an important tool that allows us to interpret non-textual
artefacts such as monuments, photographs or other physical spaces to help illuminate
how we perceive and understand the world around us (Shim, 2014; Bleiker, 2018).
In addition to a diverse range of data collection tools available to the researcher, there
are also a number of qualitative tools available for data analysis. Some of the most fre-
quently used are content and discourse analysis. However, before moving on to data
analysis, we first must turn to how we collect qualitative data. The next few sections
will explore five common data collection strategies used in IR: interviews, focus groups,
archival or document-based research, digital research, and visual data.
Interviews
Interview data can provide a rich resource for qualitative analysis and provide new
insights into just about any aspect of International Relations. Researchers conduct inter-
views to gain data about a particular phenomenon, event or object, to elicit the opinions
or perspectives of an interview participant, or to learn more about their behaviour (Scott
and Garner, 2013: 280–1). Interviews are widely used and as such are introduced in full
detail in Chapter 9. Thus, we will now turn to focus groups.
Focus Groups
Focus groups can be characterized as a form of group interviewing. Focus groups generally
involve bringing together groups of six to ten research participants in order to discuss a
particular topic or question (Bryman, 2008: 479). Focus group research always includes
more than just one group as the researcher aims to gather information on how people
perceive certain information in the context of social interaction. Bryman notes while the
number of focus groups used in particular studies range from eight to fifty-two, generally
studies that make use of focus groups use between ten to fifteen groups (Bryman, 2008:
477). There are also examples where researchers have carried out focus groups that are
much smaller in size. For example, Sokolić carried out a focus group-based study of war
narratives in Croatia with a minimum focus group size of three (2016).
Focus groups can take on many different forms. All focus groups are led by a mod-
erator, who has a list of issues, or questions, to complete; however, the moderator can
choose to be more interventionist, or use a more observational approach. In some cases,
the moderator may opt to be less interventionist so as to ensure that focus group par-
ticipants are free to speak for themselves, in a manner in which the moderator offers
few cues. Such a design is argued to be more objective, and therefore, more useful for
positivist research (Harrison and Callan, 2013). Keep in mind that unlike the other qual-
itative data techniques presented earlier, focus groups generally will not be something
that you can carry out on your own. Focus groups often require a team of research assis-
tants. This is because the task of identifying focus group participants, convening multiple
focus groups, and transcribing focus group data is one that can be very labor intensive.
However, this is not to say that individual researchers cannot successfully carry out focus
group-based fieldwork. Because of this, if you are interested in carrying out a focus group
in your own research, it is important to first take into account the extent to which your
available resources can support this exercise.
Archival and Document-based Research

Archival and document-based research is the backbone of many research projects in
qualitative IR. Very few research agendas would not include some form of archival or
documentary research. Any attempt to study international conflict, international organi-
zations, environmental politics, or human rights requires us at some level to engage with
written texts and to make judgments about their content. Whether these documents are
interstate treaties, official reports, policy statements, legislation, or media reports, we
almost always reference documents in our research.
Archives refer to both accumulations of unpublished historical records of an insti-
tution or individual, and the institutions which hold these accumulations (Lee, 2015).
Archives can contain a wide range of documents, from personal correspondences, to
official government or corporate records, to documents compiled by organizations such
as political parties, civil society organizations, or even non-state armed groups.
While you might have a preconception that archives are the exclusive domain of his-
torians, this is certainly not the case. Many research questions and studies in IR require
us to consult archival sources (Darnton, 2018). In fact, Larson (2017) points out that
because analysis of foreign policy decisions that make use of process tracing aim to
uncover causal mechanisms that account for these decisions, archival research is essen-
tial. Archives can be very helpful in terms of finding evidence of causal mechanisms by
giving you a behind-the-curtain insight into a policy process (Larson, 2017).
Before setting out on archival research it is important to first conduct background
research on which archives are likely to hold the documents that you are looking for
and whether or not these documents are accessible to researchers. The next step is to
try to locate your archive’s catalogue of holdings. Many archives will be cavernous in
terms of size and content, and unlike a library, you will often not be able to simply
walk the halls and pick up those resources that you think might be helpful. Instead,
you will need to request those specific documents or resources you are looking for
from an archivist. Sometimes archivists can also be helpful in guiding you to the right
sources if you are in doubt; however, you would be advised not to count on this as
many archivists are usually busy with assisting numerous researchers at any given
time. Finally, once you have accessed your documents, you will need to consider
how you will record them for your own research purposes. Some scholars use digital
cameras and take copious amounts of digital images of archival documents. In other
cases, archives will allow you to make digital photocopies of archival documents for
a small fee.
Types of Documents
Documents come in many different forms. For the most part, our research requires us to
access primary sources. Primary sources are original documents, authored by individ-
uals who had direct access to the information that they are describing, or directly expe-
rienced a particular event. Secondary sources are those documents which reference
and analyze primary sources. So, for example, if you cite U.S. President Barack Obama’s
2014 State of the Union address, you would be engaging with a primary source, whereas,
if you have instead referenced an article about the speech, you would be relying upon a
secondary source.
We often rely on a particular kind of primary sources, official documents. Official
documents are documents that are published, or are publicly released, by a state, orga-
nization, or business. They are therefore distinct from the personal libraries and records
of senior officials. Official documents come in many different forms. They can include
lengthy research reports, policy statements, interview or speech transcripts, records of
memoranda or official emails, budgets, staffing, or personnel files. Official documents
can give us a detailed insight into a particular organization; however, in most cases, you
will not have unlimited access to an organization’s documents. While most organiza-
tions archive their records, access to these archives is often restricted.
Overcoming Obstacles in Archival and Document-Based

Research
In the field of IR, it is rare to have full access to an organization’s official records. While
more on the question of access to archives will be discussed in Chapter 8 on field-
work, here we will focus on some of the things you will need to consider more broadly.
Remember, just because a document was found in an archive, does not make its con-
tents any less biased than any other sources, such as interviews, that we may consult.
It is always important to take into account the broader social context of your archival
sources. Who were the authors? What kind of organization are you studying? What were
its interests?
In addition to these questions you should also consider, for example, a bias towards
what kinds of documents that are preserved or collected in the first place. Researchers of
topics such as sexual violence in armed conflict have noted an absence of data collection
of certain kinds of violence resulting in their corresponding absence or undercounting in
official records (Leiby, 2009). Scholars of colonialism have also pointed out biases within
the archives of former imperial powers (Sato, 2017), which privileges a particular under-
standing of the colonial past that is curated by the former colonizer.
In the absence of access to a central authoritative archive on your topic of interest,
which you could methodically and systematically go through to conduct an exhaustive
search for documentation on your particular topic, we should guard against focusing too
narrowly on a few documents that could give us a distorted picture of the topic under
study. One way to do this is to be transparent about the documents you have used and
also those that you have not used. Clearly define the scope of documents you set out to
collect and those that you have examined.
In addition to the above limitations, some research projects in IR explore topics that
actors have an interest in concealing. A student wanting to explore topics such as illicit
trafficking would, for example, not be able to easily access many documents that would
reveal important factual details, actors, and decision-making processes. At the same time,
there are a wide range of documents that are publicly available, from primary official law
enforcement documents to a wide range of data rich research reports or policy briefings.
Yet, these documents are dispersed across a number of governmental or international
organizations, media outlets, and non-governmental organizations. In some cases,
however, digital archives have been compiled on specific topics such as The Cold War
International History Project or the National Security Archive, which includes among many
other subjects, archival material on the practice of torture in the context of the U.S.-led
post-9/11 Global War on Terror. Indeed, in recent years, more and more archives have
digitized their holdings and made them freely available and searchable online, which has
allowed archival research to become much more accessible to researchers. The box below
provides some examples of digital archives that you might find helpful for your research.
The databases above include databases maintained by institutions, such as the
Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington D.C., that compile
digital archives on a wide range of U.S. national security topics. Such digital archives that
contain declassified governmental records can be an invaluable resource for researchers,
particularly if your interest is in understanding or explaining a past event in IR.
Digital Archives and International Relations

The Cold War International History Project: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/program/
cold-war-international-history-project
Nuclear Proliferation International History Project: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/

program/nuclear-proliferation-international-history-project
National Security Archive (US): https://nsarchive.gwu.edu
Foreign Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office records from 1782 (UK):
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/
foreign-commonwealth-correspondence-and-records-from-1782/
Vietnam War Digital Archive: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/87/

vietnam-war
Iraq War 2003 Digital Web Archive: https://www.loc.gov/collections/iraq-war-

2003-web-archive/about-this-collection/
All URLs accessed May 26, 2021.
However, what if there is no authoritative archive that deals with your research topic? Well,
many research questions that are asked by students don’t have specific archival resources
that contain authoritative records readily available, in part because many of the salient
questions in international politics we are interested in are related to topics that are at the
focus of ongoing foreign policy decision-making processes. This means that states, or inter-
national organizations, have a need to conceal much of their internal day-to-day activities
and decision-making processes in the context of a world populated by competitive external
actors who might use such information to accrue some form of competitive advantage.
This will particularly be the case if you are researching a topic that is plucked from the
headlines. For example, for a researcher writing in the Spring of 2021 who was interested
in Japan’s foreign policy toward Myanmar following the February 1, 2021 military coup
would not be able to rely on the types of archives highlighted in the box above. In order
to compensate for a lack of access to documents that may be authoritative in relation to
our research topic, we will need to consult a wide range of documents, such as press con-
ference records or public speeches, and media sources during the course of our research.
Therefore, a familiarity with different kinds of documents that you will encounter in
your research is essential. And, in order to access these documents, more often than not,
you will rely on tools of digital research.
Digital Research
In addition to using the Internet to access traditional scholarly materials, such as schol-
arly journal articles and books through digital databases like JSTOR, we often find our-
selves relying on the Internet to gather all kinds of information about our research topic.
Today, we are not limited to media or official sources if we want to understand what is
taking place in countries experiencing conflict like Libya. We can follow Libyan scholars
and activists on social media, we can read web blogs published by Libyans, in short, the
information potential unlocked by the Internet is difficult to overstate.
Yet, just like any other source from which we gather information, with the Internet
we should always check the veracity of the source we are using. False information dis-
seminated on the Internet is now ubiquitous. Fake news websites, social media bots, and
other agents of disinformation make negotiating the web as an information source both
fascinating and challenging. On the one hand, digitization has made a massive amount
of information freely available to us – as seen with the move to digitize more and more
archival holdings. On the other hand, it is not always easy to assess the source and verac-
ity of that information.
Assessing your Internet Source: A Checklist

• Can you identify the author, either by name, or reputable media outlet?
{ In some cases, media outlets do not provide ‘bylines’ so it can be difficult to
identify an individual journalist who might have worked on a piece. If this is the
case, move to the next step, evaluating the publisher.
• Can you identify the publisher?
{ If the website you are visiting is one that you are unfamiliar with, try to find an
‘about us’ link.
{ Also, check to see if your website is a .gov, or .edu site. If the website you are
consulting is part of a broader organization or agency, this can assist in assess-
ing the veracity of its contents.
{ Be wary of websites with little information about their publisher, unrecogniz-
able web addresses, or web addresses that mimic reputable organizations.
• Is the source timely and current?
{ The web contains a lot of information that is no longer timely, always try to
identify a time stamp or date that would indicate when the content you are
consulting was published.
• Does the article contain hyperlinks?
{ Often, web publications will contain hyperlinks that act as evidence to back up
assertions made. These hyperlinks should be able to direct you to official or
reputable media sources.
Webpages, and their content, can be created by anyone. There are no gatekeepers or
peer review processes which those who publish on the Internet must go through before
their work is made publicly available. This has created a rich resource for us as research-
ers in the form of blog entries and social network sites where we can read the unfiltered
perspectives of activists and bloggers on the ground in the country we might be study-
ing. However, it is difficult to assess whether or not what we are reading is widely held
sentiment, or simply represents the views of an individual, or is false information being
maliciously spread.
Types of Digital Resources

As suggested above, there are many potential sources that you may consult on the web.
Sometimes, it is unproblematic, such as accessing scholarly journal of book databases
for a peer reviewed article or book. In other cases, you might be accessing media reports
from well-known media outlets such as The New York Times. In this case, while the media
outlet may have an editorial position, generally speaking you can access and rely upon
news stories published by major news outlets online much the same way you would as if
they were published in print.
In addition to these sources, we have also seen the emergence of virtual encyclopae-
dias from which we can gain a wealth of information on places, individuals, events,
theories, and concepts. Wikipedia is a source that students often make use of in order to
gain instant access to concise background information on a topic of interest; however,
given that Wikipedia relies upon users to generate content, content can be added that is
intentionally false or misleading. It is therefore dubious at best to rely upon a Wikipedia
entry for an academic essay or thesis. Nevertheless, Wikipedia can still function as a use-
ful starting point from which you can access other sources. In fact, it is recommended
that you use references provided within a particular Wikipedia entry to confirm the
veracity of the information you have gathered.
Digital Sources
Online News Media
Examples: The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, The Diplomat
Social Media
Examples: Twitter, Facebook
Digital Archives
Examples: National Security Archive, National Archives of Japan Digital Archives

Digital Encyclopedias
Examples: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, Wikipedia
Digital Scholarly Databases
Examples: JSTOR, Project MUSE, Science Direct
Blogs & Personal Websites
Examples: These can be hosted by a variety of commercial webhosts and individuals

(such as university faculty members) who often blog or host their own personal web-
sites, as do their institutions (one example is the LSE blog: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/).
Social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook, can also provide a rich source of qualita-
tive data. Sometimes your research design might even make social networks your primary
source for data collection. For example, Duncombe (2019: 409–29) drew on the Twitter
feeds of world leaders to explore how Twitter can both represent emotions and provoke
them, and therefore, online activity on Twitter could be seen as having consequences
offline. Indeed, while the quantity of online data, or what is referred to colloquially as
‘big data’, is suited to more quantitative methods of analysis, qualitative tools that we
will cover later in this chapter, such as discourse analysis and content analysis can also
be applied to analyzing texts and images gathered during the course of digital research.
Overcoming Obstacles to Digital Research

One use of the web is to simply gather background information on your topic or infor-
mation about particular events you wish to address in your work. Assuming that your
research topic explores current events, you will likely find yourself consulting media
websites. While many of these sites require subscriptions to access their information, you
may consult with your university’s library to see whether your institution holds digital
subscriptions to digital media websites. Some news websites, like Foreign Policy or The
Diplomat, will allow you to read a limited number of articles per month before charging
you a subscription fee. In the event that you do not have access to paid sites, you can
make use of freely available news sites such as BBC News or The Guardian.
You might also encounter a similar ‘paywall’ obstacle in relation to accessing schol-
arly research through digital research databases that are maintained commercially.
Again, while your university library will likely subscribe to many of these databases, you
might need to access an article held in a e-journal that your library does not subscribe
to. In this case, you may find websites like academia.edu or researchgate.net a useful
place to turn to if you can find the author of the article’s personal page on these sites,
because many academics will upload early drafts of their work which would be accessible
without having to pay for access. In the event that you are unable to locate another copy
of an article that you are looking for, you may also try to email the author to ask if you
may have a copy of their work for your own research.
Finally, in your Internet search, you are likely to find many more potential resources
on your topic then you will be able to read during the course of your project. When
accessing any digital search tool, whether Google Search or the search function within
JSTOR, you will need to gain a familiarity with the keywords that turn up the most
relevant results for your research purposes. (See box ‘Keyword Searches’ in Chapter 4.)
This will take a bit of trial and error, but once you have a better sense of how to conduct
searches that provide you with the most relevant responses, your digital research will be
able to progress much faster.
Visual Data
In addition to relying on textual resources for your qualitative analysis, you may find that
certain images act as important means of communication in IR. Bleiker (2018) observed
that visual methods are now used with increasing frequency in IR. How do visual media
and artefacts, such as war photography, film, or even statues frame our understandings
of events in world politics? Shim explored how visual images shape our understanding
of North Korea (2014), while Petrović (2015: 367–85) focused on an iconic image of war
crimes committed in the Bosnian war to highlight how images impact how war and
atrocity were understood. Meanwhile, Pavlaković and Perak (2017: 268–304) explored
how physical monuments and public spaces shape narratives of memory.
Visual images can have an impact upon us that goes beyond that normally evoked by
the written word (Bleiker, 2015: 875–6). Bleiker writes:
No matter how diverse and complex visual images and artefacts are, they all
have one thing in common: they work differently from words. That is their
very nature. They are of a non-verbal nature, but we as scholars need words to
assess their political significance. Something inevitably gets lost in this process
(2018: 24).
Images are therefore a powerful tool through which knowledge and emotion are commu-
nicated in IR. In terms of how to collect data, in many respects, we can replicate some of
the same processes drawn from searching for and selecting documentary sources. Much
like textual data, when setting out to collect images, you will need to select what types
of images you are looking for. Images are defined by Scott and Garner as ‘a conveyer of
information’ (2013, 328). According to Scott and Garner, images can include both static
photographs, pictures, or paintings, and visual analysis can also include film and video
(2013: 328). In order to carry out your own visual research project you would start by
selecting a particular image or film or set of images or films.
You might as in the case of Petrović select an iconic image from a conflict and set about
investigating the circumstances under which the photograph was taken before examin-
ing the meanings that the photograph communicated (2015: 367–85). Alternatively, you
may look for specific monuments, or physical spaces, that commemorate a particular
event and attempt to interpret the feelings these monuments evoke through their phys-
ical characteristics (Pavlaković and Perak, 2017: 268–304). As with textual artefacts you
will set out to examine your social artefact on the basis of what you know about the
intended purpose of the visual artefact. This means what perceptions or emotions did the
photographer, or publisher, aim to evoke through a particular image? Or what feelings or
impact was a monument or film designed to communicate? In addition, you may look
at how these visual artefacts were received by audiences. What impact did a photograph
have on a viewing public? How did it achieve this impact?
Tools of Qualitative Analysis: Triangulation, Thick

Description, and Process Tracing
Once you have gathered your qualitative data you will be confronted with the task of ana-
lyzing it. When looking over your interview transcripts, official documents, or web-based
resources, you will no doubt realize that qualitative data lends itself to many different
interpretations and means of analysis. When making use of any of the above qualitative
data collection techniques, you may find it useful to triangulate your data among them
in order to cross-reference your findings. Very few studies will rely solely on a single type
of qualitative data – more often you will mix document research with interviews or focus
groups. Visual data can also be complemented by other forms of textual data.
Triangulation
Triangulation is often carried out to assess the veracity of data that has been collected.
Was an interview respondent correct in their assertion? Do other document-based sources
corroborate what was said? This means that if you find a new observation in one of your
interviews, you may want to check this observation against media reports, or if possible,
archival sources to see if you can find any additional confirmation of this observation.
Triangulation helps establishes the veracity, or accurateness of your qualitative data, and
it is useful to guard against misinforming your readers on the basis of an interview in
which the participant knowingly provided misleading answers.
For example, when I conducted field research in Croatia, during the country’s tur-
bulent transition in the early 2000s, I interviewed members of political parties on their
positions and perspectives on Croatia’s recent past. Often, when the contents of the
interviews were compared with media reports or other official party documents, incon-
sistencies emerged that would not have been visible in the absence of triangulation of
data collection.
Triangulation can also allow you to gain a deeper insight into your topic that goes
beyond what a single qualitative source, such as documents or interviews, can tell us.
This gets us to the next tool that emerged from ethnographic methods – that of thick
description. Thick description, a term coined by Clifford Geertz, (1973) describes not
the technical side of qualitative data collection, but rather its interpretation and meaning.
It is therefore, often associated with interpretive qualitative research as thick description
does not seek to make law-like causal statements, but instead is aimed at revealing ‘webs
of meaning’ (Geertz, 1973: 5).
Thick Description
Ethnographic methods have become increasingly popular in IR scholarship (Vrasti, 2008;
Wilkinson, 2013). Thick description is often discussed in the context of interpretive stud-
ies of IR because of its central aim of situating a researcher’s observations within its
broader social and political context. MacKay and Levin (2015) point out that Geertz’
thick-description was not just about qualitative data collection techniques, or the ‘how
to’ of collecting data, but it also describes a particular research ethos, which focuses on
untangling meaning over attempts to uncover social scientific laws. This is because
Geertz (1973) viewed the social world as consisting of webs of meaning, and the purpose
of research is to help understand these meanings.
Thick description is well-suited to help guide interpretive qualitative data collection
and analysis because of its focus on context-specific knowledge. It allows you to dive
deep into your particular case and illustrate how actors understand their own actions and
each other. It is of particular relevance to interpretive research questions where concepts
such as identity, gender, race and ethnicity are explored.
To carry out thick description you will need to first attempt to gain as much knowl-
edge about your research context as possible. Thick description is also often associated
with intensive fieldwork, which will be discussed in Chapter 8. To clarify, your research
context will usually be your fieldwork site, so for example, prior to conducting fieldwork
in Croatia, you might need to enrol in language classes to gain as much linguistic and
cultural competence before you embark on your fieldwork as you can. Reading up on the
country and its history would also help you develop deeper background and contextual
knowledge that would better allow you to interpret newspaper articles, conversations, and
interviews you would read or conduct during the course of your fieldwork.
Process Tracing
Process tracing, which will be discussed again in Chapters 7 and 11, allows you to tell a
compelling narrative or causal story in your research in which you link a causal variable
to an observed outcome. Process tracing is defined by Bennett and Checkel in reference
to the latter as ‘…the analysis of evidence on processes, sequences, and conjectures of
events within a case for the purposes of either developing or testing hypotheses about
casual mechanisms that might causally explain the case’ (2015: 7).
Process tracing is about telling an empirical story in a systematic way that highlights
causal processes in the context of a sequence of events. According to Collier, process
tracing offers four principal advantages for qualitative analysis:
1 It helps to identify and systematically describe novel political and social phenomena.
2 It assists in the evaluation of pre-existing explanatory hypotheses, and also helps
generate new hypotheses and assess new causal claims. It can therefore be used
deductively or inductively.
3 It helps you gain insight into causal mechanisms.
4 It provides a complementary means of addressing limitations posed by statistical
tools for causal inference (Collier, 2011: 824).
As the above four points illustrate, process tracing can be incredibly illuminating and
provides you with a way to systemically study a specific case using qualitative tools. And,
it is important to keep Point 4 in mind for our discussion of process tracing in the context
of mixed methods research, which we will return to in Chapter 7.
Process tracing requires you to set temporal boundaries for your study. In other words,
where in time to begin and where to end your process tracing. Here, the first step is know-
ing where to start your story. If you want to explain the Tunisian revolution in January
2011, you will probably want to trace back from the event that you are trying to explain
to a suitable starting point, which could be Tunisian President Ben Ali’s seizure of power
in 1987. Though this event takes you back more than two decades, the characteristics of
the regime Ben Ali established may be central to your causal story. The challenge is to
find a convincing starting point. It is always possible to think of reasons why you might
want to push your starting date back. For example, why not start your story with Tunisia’s
independence in 1956? Remember that it is also not helpful to go too far back. The focus
of your writing is on explaining a particular political event, and while historical and con-
textual background may be helpful to provide, our process stories will more often than
not start closer in time to the event that we are trying to explain. Going too far back risks
making your process story impossible to tell within the scope of a research paper or thesis.
In addition to knowing where to start, another important step in process tracing is
finding the evidence needed to show that a particular event or decision was the likely
cause of an outcome. Causal mechanisms, which are the conditions or pathways that
link a causal variable to an outcome, are often abstractions. For example, you might
think of coercive power or norms of appropriate behaviour as potential causal mecha-
nisms. As such, you will not find ‘smoking gun’ evidence of the causal mechanism itself,
but you will find qualitative data that points to a specific causal mechanism at work.
For example, if interviewing someone working in finance as to why international
financial institutions comply with international regulatory regimes, you might find your
respondents consistently making reference to the high material cost of non-compliance.
Here, you might then take this as evidence that points to the high material cost of non-
compliance as working to link your causal variable, a regulatory regime that imposes high
costs, to your outcome – compliance.
Another example is Marošková and Spurná’s (2021) study that sought to explain
why Albania and Montenegro aligned their sanctions policies with the EU after the EU
imposed sanctions on Russia in response to Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Marošková and Spurná identified three potential causal mechanisms, the first being an
external incentive model, which is a rational choice model that holds in this case that
states will align with sanctions if the costs of alignment are sufficiently offset by rewards.
The second is ‘role-playing,’ which posits states are aware of social expectations and they
act in a manner that conforms to these expectations. And the third is that of socializa-
tion, whereby state action reflects internalized norms and values. Here states don’t act
because it is what they are expected to do, but rather because it is the right thing to
do (Marošková and Spurná 2021). Marošková and Spurná were then able to evaluate
hypothesized observations that would illustrate one, or another, causal mechanism at
work and tests these observations against primary source documents gathered during the
course of their research to conclude that while in the case of Montenegro, the empirical
evidence points to role-playing, in the case of Albania, sanctions alignment is argued to
provide evidence of socialization (Maroškova and Spurná 2021).
Your qualitative evidence that you will make use of in process tracing will inevitably
come from data gathered using techniques described in the preceding sections of this
chapter such as interviewing or document-based research. When reading your interview
transcripts or poring over primary documents, you might find that respondents have
provided you with data that either supports or contradicts a proposed causal process
story. You will use this to try to identify whether there is empirical support for a specific
causal mechanism. When evaluating this data, you will find that evidence, e.g. inter-
view data, that supports one causal mechanism over an alternative causal mechanism
provides greater weight and confidence in the causal mechanism that is supported. This
is also true for data that you are collecting from textual sources such as media sources or
primary source documents.
Interpretive Process Tracing

In addition to process tracing being applied to tell a causal story linking an explanatory
variable to an observed outcome, process tracing also can be useful in the context of
interpretive research. This is known as interpretive process tracing (Guzzini, 2012). As
noted in Chapter 2, interpretive research can have an interest in causality, although not
in the same way positivist researchers do. While the positivist researcher is interested
in process tracing to help find evidence that variable a causes variable b, interpretive
researchers can have an interest in process tracing in relation to how ideational processes
and meanings can shape how dynamic social processes play out such as, for example,
ethno-religious conflict (Magcamit, 2020).
Interpretive process tracing is therefore an analytical tool that can play a valuable
role in interpretive accounts of causality. It does not begin with identifying hypotheses
derived from theoretical assumptions to be tested, but rather begins from the bottom
up (Norman, 2015: 6). This means first learning how individuals attribute meaning to
specific events and actions (Norman, 2015: 6). This, in turn, means that more abstract
arguments about social structures and meaning will are grounded at a more individual
level in order to show how these structures and meanings play out in a specific con-
text and how such actions create macro-level outcomes (Norman, 2015: 6). Discourse
analysis, which we will return to later in Chapter 10, will play an important role in the
interpretation of meaning, as will thick description, which was discussed above.
Qualitative Data Analysis: Content Analysis, Discourse

Analysis and Visual Analysis
Whether you aim to provide thick description or carry out process tracing, you will need
to analyze the qualitative data that you have collected. This can be done through dis-
course analysis, content analysis or visual analysis. Although content analysis is some-
times described as a quantitative method (Lowe, 2004: 25–7), it in fact includes a variety
of methods for analyzing text that includes counting, comparing, categorizing, and
interpreting, so in this sense it is not strictly quantitative or qualitative (Bryman, 2008:
499–511; Berg and Lune, 2012: 354).
Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is a form of qualitative analysis that focuses on the interpretation of
linguistic forms of communication that is helpful for projects that aim to provide thick
description. It can be performed upon either spoken or written forms of communication.
It is because discourse is what allows us to make sense of practices in IR, from border
control to armed conflict, that discourse analysis sheds light on how and why specific
discourses emerge and become dominant. How to carry out discourse analysis will be
presented in greater detail in Chapter 10,
Content Analysis
Some scholars view content analysis as the breaking down of textual data into numeric
form, or some sort of counting exercise, and, therefore, have a tendency to view content
analysis as a quantitative method. This is because content analysis allows researchers to
examine large amounts of data through categorization and coding. However, as noted
above, content analysis is neither purely quantitative nor qualitative. Content analysis
is best defined as an activity in which ‘researchers examine artefacts of social communi-
cation’, (Berg and Lune, 2012: 353). As such, it can include textual data, photographs,
television programs, films, and other forms of art (Berg and Lune, 2012: 353).
In order to conduct a content analysis, you should first explicitly specify the scope of
your analysis. For example, you may be interested in a content analysis of news coverage
of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in Eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Perhaps
you want to contrast Western coverage with coverage from Russian news outlets. Given
that number of media outlets that covered the incident is far too large for you to systemi-
cally cover, you may choose a couple of representative news outlets, BBC News and Russia
Today, which both maintain extensive websites, and both covered the event in English.
However, even after narrowing your scope to two manageable sources, you also need to
create a timeframe, let us say the first month following the incident, so from July 17–
August 17, 2014. You would then be able to create a catalogue of news stories from both
websites. However, at this point, you still need to categorize these stories.
Categorization can be a complex task and can be approached in two different ways.
The first, a deductive approach, would have you create categories in advance on the basis
of your pre-existing knowledge and expectations. Given the growing tension between
the European Union and the United States on one side, and Russia on the other, over the
growing civil conflict in Ukraine during the months preceding the incident, one could
expect news coverage to privilege a particular narrative or perspective. Thus, we could
create two categories, which reflect these narratives that we expect to find, and perhaps a
third neutral category for those stories, which appear to privilege neither.
Alternatively, we could take an inductive approach to generating categories by div-
ing straight into the news stories so as to identify particular categories that we discover
during the course of our reading. You might find after reading a number of news stories
that there are many more nuanced themes, such as stories relating to particular theories
or conjecture as to what or who brought down the aircraft, stories focused on civilian
casualties from the conflict itself, or stories focused on victims who were on board the
downed aircraft.
Once we have generated our categories, either inductively or deductively, we still have
to count elements from these news stories to get a picture as to which categories are dom-
inant. Many different elements of text can lend themselves to counting. We can focus on
a particular word. For example, we might want to simply count references to terrorism to
get a sense of how many times terrorism was discussed in the news. Alternatively, we can
focus on themes, which convey a particular message in sentence form (Berg and Lune,
2012: 359–60).
Content Analysis and Coding Data

It is not just sentences, or words, that you can categorize or code for in your content
analysis. Other elements that can be coded include characters, or individuals who
appear in documents; paragraphs, in the event each paragraph covers a particular idea
or claim; items, or counting the individual texts used; concepts, in the event words can
be grouped into particular clusters; and semantics, or how strong or weak a word is in
relation to other words.
Once you begin coding your textual data into categories, you might be able to distin-
guish the emergence of specific trends or patterns. The more you have thought about
your categories, the better your analysis will be. At this point you will have generated a
large amount of coded data, which you can use descriptively in your writing, or should
you choose, you can attempt to discern correlations or relationships through quantita-
tive statistical tests, which you will be introduced to in Chapter 6. In short, the principle
aim of content analysis is to look for patterns in communication.
Visual Analysis
Let’s say instead of textual sources, you have chosen to focus on interpreting an iconic
image or images. Images today are ubiquitous and in the contemporary media envi-
ronment play an increasing role in structuring how we understand international affairs
(Hansen, 2011). As Bleiker (2015: 875) reminds us, one of the challenges of engaging
with visual images as sources is that we need to take an artefact that appears in non-
verbal terms and put it into words. It is a given that images are part of what gives mean-
ing to the world around us. When we think of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima in
August 1945, there are a number of images that come to mind that either evoke the
power of the explosive blast taken from afar or the horror of realities on the ground.
The latter images were largely censored out of a fear of the powerful emotions that they
would evoke. Why and how are images powerful? This gets us to a second observation,
that images may appear to be understood as a neutral snapshot of reality, but are in fact
never neutral (Bleiker, 2018).
In your analysis you will need to take many of the same steps that you took in relation
to your analysis of textual sources. You will need to justify the selection of your particular
image or images. Then you will think about the framing of the image, what was included
and what was not? Also consider what is it about the image that communicates, or seeks
to communicate a particular sentiment.
For example, Shim and Nabers (2013: 295) argued that their visual analysis of images
of North Korea was not meant to make generalizable claims about how North Korea is
represented in the West or Western media, but rather they zoomed in on images that
were ‘emblematic’ of the ways North Korea was othered through images of military
strength and internal fragility. Here you can see how Shim and Nabers have explicitly
justified their choice of images and in order to illustrate how images of North Korea have
contributed to a sense of otherness, or helping to create an image of North Korea as a
distinct entity.
In sum, in order to conduct your own visual analysis, you will need to first select
and justify your objects of study, whether that be photographs, comics, works of art,
or statues and monuments. For example, you might be interested exploring how com-
fort women statues that have been erected to memorialize the suffering of Korean
women who were subjected to sexual slavery during the Second World War repro-
duce a particular narrative of a difficult past. Or, you could look, as Hansen (2011)
did, at representations of the controversial cartoon depictions of the Islamic prophet

Muhammad that were published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, and
the global response these images provoked.
Once you have selected your visual artefact(s) and thought about framing and con-
tents, you can begin to unpack how your non-textual artefact(s) ‘speaks’ in the sense of
what is communicated through visual representations. Are there particular tropes about
particular groups that are reproduced? Are there dichotomies of victimhood and perpe-
trator that are established? Are there processes of othering at work?
Finally, you will be able account for how your visual artefacts contribute to making
certain actions possible. Visual analysis is therefore most helpful in answering the ‘how’
or ‘how-possible’ questions in research. Its use thus far has been mostly interpretive as
visual images are not generally used in scholarship to demonstrate causality, in the sense
of finding a smoking gun photograph placing a suspect at the scene of a crime like one
might expect in the context of a criminal investigation.
Chapter Summary
Qualitative methods include a broad range of data collection and analysis techniques
that provide researchers with deeper insight into the social world. Qualitative methods
are well suited for letting you zoom in to your research topic and allowing you to gain
in-depth knowledge about your subject of study: whether that be explaining causal pro-
cesses, exploring meaning and interpretation, or both. Qualitative methods can serve a
wide range of research purposes that vary from providing ethnographic thick description
to telling a causal process story. Major techniques for data collection used by scholars of
IR include interviews (see Chapter 9), focus groups, archival or document-based research,
internet-based research, and visual methods. Qualitative data analysis strategies can
include discourse methods (see Chapter 10), content analysis or visual analysis.
Of course, it is important to remember that this chapter provided you with a broad
spectrum of qualitative techniques, and it is up to you to decide which techniques are most
appropriate for your own research project. In some cases, we use qualitative data collection
techniques to gather factual background information, or the perceptions of elites through
interviews, and therefore we choose to integrate this data into our research directly in the
absence of context analysis or discourse analysis. In principle, there is nothing wrong with
this, as long as you are always transparent about your sources and methods.

1 This edited volume provides a broad overview of how visual methods have
contributed to our understanding of IR through a broad range of issue specific
cases: Bleiker, Roland (2018) (ed.) Visual Global Politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
2 This article draws on Twitter as a data source to explore how Twitter can both
represent emotions and provoke them. This is a good example to see how
researchers have engaged with social media as a qualitative source: Duncombe,
Constance (2019) ‘The politics of Twitter: Emotions and the power of social media’,
3 Hardy et al. provide an accessible overview of discourse and content analysis:
Hardy, Cynthia, Harley, Bill and Phillips, Nelson (2004) ‘Discourse analysis and
content analysis: Two solitudes?’, Qualitative Methods, 2 (1): 19–22.
4 Levy’s chapter sets out a concise introduction to how qualitative methods have
been used in international studies: Levy, Jack S. (2002) ‘Qualitative methods in
International Relations’, in F.P. Harvey and M. Brecher (eds), Evaluating Methodology
in International Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 131–60.
5 This article provides a concise and accessible introduction to the practice of
interpretive process tracing. It includes both guidance on how to operationalize
this technique in your own research and examples of its application in IR: Norman,
Ludvig (2015) ‘Interpretive process tracing and causal explanations’, Qualitative &
Multi-Method Research, 13 (2): 4–9.
6 Scott and Garner provide a more practical guide to how to carry out qualitative
research and also discuss data collection and analysis techniques and strategies
presented in this chapter: Scott, Greg and Garner, Roberta (2013) Doing Qualitative
Research: Designs, Methods and Techniques. New York, NY: Pearson.
SIX
QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN
learning objectives
• Define quantitative methods and consider their advantages and disadvantages

• Learn how to operationalize, measure, and code concepts so they can be used in
quantitative analysis, while also considering levels of measurement
• Identify ways to gather quantitative data through existing datasets, surveys, and
content analysis
• Learn about bivariate statistical tests
• Gain an understanding of regression analysis
• Understand how formal models can help us understand strategic interactions
Quantitative methods, deeply rooted in North American political science, have been
deployed frequently in IR. These methods will provide you with a broad set of tools that
allow researchers to analyze large amounts of data, carry out statistical tests, and also
model strategic interactions between states. Today, there are numerous software pack-
ages, such as Excel, that allow you to easily carry out your own statistical analysis of
data gathered during your own research. The key to unlocking quantitative methods is
understanding the logic of quantitative data collection and analysis, two skills which
you will be introduced to within this chapter. Quantitative methods also will allow you
to more critically consume media reports, policy papers, business and financial analysis,
which often present us with arguments, in numeric form. In fact, it is hard to imagine
making sense of the world around us without an understanding of quantitative methods.
For example, economic trends, trafficking crime rates, incidences of violence, climate
change, all rely on the ability of students, scholars and practitioners in the field of IR to
analyze increasingly large amounts of data.
Scholars of IR have used numbers to advance arguments related to a broad range
of topics within the field. To be sure, numbers do far more than just provide an accu-
rate tool for measurement, numbers help us establish differences between objects of
study, visualize trends, and provide us with the data necessary to estimate the degree
of relationship between variables, and more broadly even to understand behaviour.
Indeed, it was the desire to understand the behaviour, decisions and choices of actors
in international politics that led to the initial formalization, or application of mathe-
matic language to strategic studies literature. It was the urgent need to understand high
stakes strategic choices that confronted policy-makers during the height of the Cold War
between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that led both decision-makers and scholars to
seek increased certainty in formal models of deterrence and crisis management in order
to prevent a nuclear exchange between the rival superpowers. More recently, formal
methods have been applied to conflict management in the context of intra-state wars
(Fearon, 2004: 275–301), with scholars attempting to model the conditions under which
belligerent parties are likely to acquiesce to a peace agreement (Walter, 2002). Statistics
have also been used to provide empirical tests or to describe developments and trends
in international politics. For example, have incidences of human trafficking grown over
the last ten years? Is foreign direct investment into a particular country or region grow-
ing or decreasing? Is the world becoming more violent? These are all questions to which
responses are often provided in numeric form. Therefore, even if we do not consider
ourselves to be quantitative researchers, quantitative literacy is a prerequisite to research
in international affairs.
Statistics and formal methods are widely used in IR and appear frequently in the disci-
pline’s leading journals. Indeed, scholars have attempted to model a wide range of issue
areas in the study of international relations from cooperation to conflict. Thus, literacy
in formal methods, in particular an ability to draw and understand relationships between
variables, is increasingly necessary for both students and scholars to access a growing
body of IR scholarship.
Quantitative Methods in International Relations 117
Quantitative Methods in International Relations: What

Are They? And Why Use Them?
Quantitative methods refer to data collection and analysis strategies in which quan-
tifiable data is analyzed through measurement, statistical, or other computational
techniques. In IR, quantitative methods are often used to determine whether or not a
relationship exists between two or more variables; however, as noted in the definition
above it has many applications beyond this that range from prediction to pattern-finding
and generalizations. This can be done either through attempting to predict the value of
one variable on the basis of another known variable, or through attempts to model inter-
actions among actors. Thus quantitative methods encompass both statistical analysis
and formal modelling.
When attempting to understand the relationship between variables, this relationship
is usually deducted from some form of theoretical proposition. Thus, whereas qualitative
research is often argued to follow an inductive logic (Bryman, 2008: 366), whereby
empirical observations are used to generate theoretical propositions, quantitative research
is argued to be deductive, as theoretical propositions are tested against empirical data.
All quantitative methods require data to be either gathered or coded into numerical
form. Either through the coding of large bodies of unstructured data, such as the con-
tents of media reports or through establishing the intensity of payoffs when modelling
strategic interaction, you will be confronted with the task of moving away from natural
languages, such as English, toward formal language, that of mathematics.
Scholars of IR sometimes make use of formal models, which apply mathematical for-
mal methods to the study of IR (Nicholson, 2002: 28). According to Michael Nicholson,
those who use formal models seek to, ‘... search for the nature of the logic of various
situations’ (Nicholson, 2002: 24). Thus, quantitative methods encompass much more
than the collection of descriptive statistics. Quantitative methods also include attempts
to infer from collected data for the purpose of making predictive claims about how actors
are likely to behave or to put theoretical claims to an empirical test (Moses and Knutsen,
2012: 71). When thinking about quantitative methods in terms of the latter, or decision-
making, IR scholarship has long engaged with rational choice behaviouralist models,
which applied econometric assumptions about behaviour to states and has been closely
tied to the realist tradition within IR (Kahler, 1998).
Advantages and Limitations of Quantitative Methods

For practical reasons, certain research questions lend themselves to quantitative analysis.
Let’s say you are trying to understand the effectiveness of state responses to the COVID-19
pandemic and that you want to test the effect of variables such as level of testing and
lockdowns on the level of infection spread. Here, a case study-oriented research design
would be both impractical and unlikely to generate generalizable conclusions across a
wide range of countries impacted by this global pandemic. Yes, you could zoom into a
country case study, and you might learn interesting and context-specific things about
how one country handled the pandemic. But your paper would not be able to draw
widely generalizable conclusions. However, by analyzing a dataset consisting of a large
number of countries, you can make some generalizable conclusions about what policy
responses were, and were not, effective across a large number of countries.
One main advantage of quantitative methods is that they can, in principle, better
identify, estimate and predict the strength of causal relationships than qualitative
methods. This makes them particularly well suited to positivist research designs. To
be sure, the strength of the causal relationships will depend on the size, nature, and
quality of our dataset, a collection of numerical information about a set of cases.
Even when all aspects of research design are all perfectly executed, and statistical tests
are applied, we can only come up with partial and probabilistic conclusions about cau-
sality using statistical tests. And yet, even then statistical methods are useful because
they can help us eliminate some categories of explanations while highlighting oth-
ers, thereby encouraging us to delve more deeply into a particular causal relationship
using other methods.
Quantitative methods can also help to overcome the problem of spuriousness, where
two variables that appear to have a relationship, though in fact a third factor accounts
for it. Consider the question of what determines compliance with human rights treaties.
You may observe that democracies comply more often than non-democracies. Of course,
beyond regime type there are a number of questions that you will want to consider. Are
democracies more likely to enter into human rights commitments in the first place? Does
and to what extent does state capacity matter? In order to account for this you will need
to delve deeper into your data. Statistical tools can deal with such spuriousness, though
not always perfectly.
In the past, it was perceived that any serious attempt to use quantitative methods
will require you to gain a certain degree of fluency in communicating through statistics.
Indeed, Hedley Bull was one of the scholars of IR who feared the advanced technical
training needed to sustain quantitative research in the discipline would crowd out more
context-based approaches to understanding IR (Bull, 1966). However, today, there are a
number of easily accessible software programs that will allow you to conduct statistical
tests, like regressions, quickly and easily. There are also a number of advantages that
quantitative methods can bring to the table, and basic quantitative fluency does not
necessarily require such a dramatic commitment in time.
The first is that when using statistical methods we must be explicit about our assump-
tions and by translating our argument into a common statistical language we also offer
greater transparency as to the underlying logic of our arguments and how we arrive at our
conclusions (Braumoeller and Sartori, 2004). Furthermore, another important defence of
quantitative methods notes that formal language, or mathematics, can more effectively
communicate long chains of deductive arguments than traditional languages (Nicholson,
2002: 24). To be sure, when contemplating the complexity of the social world and the
multitude of variables we must account for when even attempting to construct the most
basic explanation for an event, quantitative methods provides a communicative tool that
allows us to take into account a wide range of variables and communicate our arguments
concisely to the informed reader.
Advantages of Quantitative Methods

• Specificity: researcher must be explicit about assumptions and relationships
• Transparency: explicitness about coding (clarity about what is and is not being
measured) mitigates only noticing trends consistent with that which is under
investigation
• Causal inference: statistical methods can assist in understanding relationship
between variables.
Now that we have established the basic building blocks of quantitative research and
formal methods, and we have discussed some of the merits of quantitative research, we
can begin to look at the practical tools these methods can offer your research. Let us
begin with an examination of just how we can translate phenomena observed in natural
languages into numbers.
Conceptual Definitions, Operational Definitions,

and Coding
Quantitative analysis will require you to translate verbal and textual forms of communi-
cation into numerically measurable form. In other words, to use quantitative tools, you
must move away from natural languages, such as English or Japanese. Instead, we make
use of a formal language, that of mathematics. To do so, a concept must be translated
from a conceptual definition into an operational definition. Conceptual definitions are
general in nature and outline the main dimensions of a phenomenon, while operational
definitions specify how the concept will be measured numerically.
A number of operational definitions may be possible for any given concept. This is
especially true for ‘big’ concepts such as democracy, or ‘human rights.’ Keep in mind,
that your operational definition will also say something about which aspect of these
‘big’ concepts you will want to focus on and measure. For instance, one conceptual defi-
nition of democracy might be ‘the ability of members of a society to choose their own
government,’ while the operational definition might be ‘the number of times a govern-
ment has violated civil and political rights.’ A conceptual definition of human rights
could be ‘inalienable rights that all people by virtue of being human’ whereas an opera-
tional definition could be ‘a country’s rate of compliance with the decisions of a regional
human rights court.’ Of course, all of the above conceptual and operational definitions
are subject to debate, and you might have in your mind alternative, and perhaps better,
operational definitions. This is important as the choices you make about which to use
could profoundly affect your results.
Take a concept such as ‘inequality,’ which is central to many debates in IR on devel-
opment. One possible operational definition for inequality is ‘the percentage of the
population which controls a certain proportion of the total resources and wealth in a
given country.’ This operational definition, in turn, needs to be measured quantitatively.
You could use a popular indicator of inequality, such as the Gini coefficient, which
measures how far a country’s income distribution differs from an ideal, or perfectly
equal, distribution.
Measuring Inequality and the Gini Coefficient

The coefficient has a range from 0 to 1. A country with a Gini coefficient of 0 would be
an (obviously fictional) country in which everyone receives exactly the same income.
By contrast, a Gini coefficient of 1 means that one person receives all of a country’s or
region’s income while everyone else gets nothing, another rather unrealistic scenario.
For example, a country with a very high Gini coefficient value, and thus very high levels
of inequality, is South Africa, at .63 (World Bank, 2021), whereas Norway has a very low
value at .25 (OECD, 2013).
The important point here is that the Gini coefficient is an example of how to meas-
ure a particular operational definition of inequality. In order to carry out quantitative
research, you similarly will need to translate your key concepts into identifiable and
measurable entities. Operationalization affects how we measure key variables, which in
turn can impact the results of our study. Your operationalization and measurement strat-
egy should (1) develop a precise schema to account for the values each variable of interest
can take and; (2) methodically assign each unit under study a value for each variable of
interest. For example, if you think a country’s regime type (democracy or non-democracy)
impacts its compliance with human rights treaties, and you have gathered data on coun-
try regime type, you now have to think through how to assign numerical values to each
country based on its level of democracy/non-democracy. This is known as coding. In IR,
some concepts are easily operationalized and measured. As an example, for a concept like
international levels of wealth, we can use per capita GDP, or comparative ‘well-being’
across countries, as in the OECD Better Life Index (OECD, 2021), for example. But other
concepts, such as ‘political reconciliation,’ or ‘values in foreign policy,’ require careful
reflection in order to make them usable for quantitative analysis. And, as noted above,
not every concept can be easily quantified.
One of the easiest ways for you to operationalize, measure, and code concepts is to
simply follow the lead of scholars who have thought about such issues for a long time.
It is perfectly fine to use operationalization and measurement strategies gleaned from

others so long as you give them credit through proper citation.
For example, the Variety of Democracies (also known as V-Dem) project at the
University of Gothenburg in Sweden has a concept and accompanying operational defi-
nition for a number of variables that are relevant to measuring democracy. V-Dem has
also carried out a number of surveys. And, to maximize its reliability and validity as
a measure (validity and reliability are defined below), V-Dem has asked thousands of
experts to apply their knowledge in hundreds of countries around the world by coding
its various dimensions.
V-Dem includes a concept called the ‘equality before the law and individual liberty
index’ and is defined as:
[…] to what extent, are laws transparent and rigorously enforced and public
administration impartial, and to what extent do citizens enjoy access to justice,
secure property rights, freedom from forced labor, freedom of movement,
physical integrity rights, and freedom of religion (Coppedge et al., 2020: 48).
The index consists of interval data, measured from low to high (0-1) (Coppedge et al.,
2020: 48). The V-Dem data, and accompanying operational definitions, are readily
available – and free – on the organization’s website (V-Dem Institute, 2021).
The table below provides an example of an operationalization and measurement strat-
egy in the context of research on democracies. Here, the operation definition, measure
and numerical values are from Freedom House, a non-governmental organization whose
data, like those of V-Dem, are publicly available.
Table 6.1 From Concept to Coding
Conceptual definition Operational definition Measure Coding Guide

Liberal democracies Degree of democracy Freedom House numerical Scale:
are generally free in a given country rankings on seven indicators 1 = lowest level
societies of democracy;
•• National Democratic
Governance 7 = highest level
•• Electoral Process of democracy
•• Civil Society
•• Independent Media
•• Local Democratic
Governance
•• Judicial Framework and
Independence
•• Corruption
In the preceding examples, V-Dem and Freedom House have done the work of collecting
quantitative data for you. However, whether you are using a publicly available dataset or
collecting your own data, it is important to consider its validity and reliability. Validity
means that the measures you use accurately reflect reality, whereas reliability refers to the
ability to repeatedly achieve the same measure of a variable, regardless of who is doing the
measuring. A measure that is valid should also be reliable, but reliable measures are not
necessarily valid.
Let’s think about this in terms of some real-world example. In the world of criminal
justice, police often rely on informants. Some of these informants can be deemed reliable
in the sense that they are all conveying the same information. However, that does not
mean that information that is reliable is also true. The inverse is also possible, an unreli-
able informant might in some cases provide information that turns out to be valid.
In the world of IR, the touting of intelligence information in the lead up to the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003 provides another example. Here, intelligence officials were rely-
ing on a small number of informants who told them that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of
mass destruction program (WMD) remained active. The data was reliable in the sense that
the informants kept relaying the same information over time. But it was not valid in that
what they said did not reflect reality: Saddam in fact did not have WMD, as the world
found out after the invasion.
When we rely on a well-regarded source such as Freedom House or V-Dem, we can
assume that the data we find on their websites is reliable and valid. That does not mean
we should not question and qualify our results based on Freedom House’s data-collection
methods. In fact, the V-Dem project is in part premised on the notion that Freedom
House’s data collection approach has certain limitations.
How can we test for validity and reliability in data? It is common to rely on large
teams of researchers for inputting and coding data. The V-Dem project referenced above
relies on over 3000. How do we know that researchers are not making subjective judg-
ments that result in one researcher coding the same phenomenon one way, while another
researcher codes it another way? Inter-rater or inter-coder reliability can help us assess
the accuracy of data. This can be done by assigning a group of researchers to code the
same phenomenon (after being trained on the measurement strategy). Then, their results
are compared. The test-retest method, meanwhile, tests for reliability by examining if
the same measure results at different moments in time. Validity can be tested through
something called face validity, which simply means asking if the data appears accurate
based on what we know.
More rigorous validity tests include content validity, which breaks concepts down
into their major attributes and measures each. The concept of democracy can be opera-
tionalized and measured in a number of different ways, from minimalist to maximalist
ones. For example, in a maximalist one, we might include economic inequality. But what
if levels of economic inequality are somehow related to democratization? If they were, we
could not test for the effect of inequality on democracy, lowering our content validity.
But content validity would also be lowered for an operationalization and measurement
strategy for democracy that is not sufficiently broad.
Because quantitative data, whether collected by you or someone else, is frequently
subject to measurement error, scholars often rely on several indices, either combining
them or trying each one separately in statistical tests and seeing whether the result is
the same. Or, they may try more than one operational definition of a concept and see if
they come up with the same result.
Let’s consider a research project on the determinants of individuals who carry out
acts of political violence in the context of a large-n, quantitative study. Let’s say you are
including level of education among the hypothesized independent variables. The theory
underlying this variable is that those with less education possess fewer options in life and
thus will be more receptive to recruitment to carry out acts of political violence. Now, you
have to decide how to operationalize ‘education.’ An example of a measure you might use
is the number of years of school completed. An alternative might be whether or not an
individual completed secondary school. Or you could consider whether or not an individ-
ual has a university degree. If you find that one measure results in a statistically significant
result while the others do not, you would have to grapple with why this is the case.
When we measure our variables, we should measure them in more than just one
way in order to see whether or not they generate the same result. This is known as
triangulation of quantitative evidence.
Variables, Units of Analysis and

Levels of Measurement
Before turning to quantitative analysis, we should recall that the basic definition of a
variable is a concept that takes on two or more values for a particular case. It goes with-
out saying that you will need to have more than one value to work with if you wish to
carry out any kind of work whose goal is causal inference.
After you have decided upon conceptual and operational definitions for your key
variables, you must identify the unit of analysis, the entity to which the concept being
quantified applies. If our concept is political violence, our unit of analysis might be an
individual’s involvement in acts of political violence. If the concept we are considering is
human rights values in a country’s foreign policy, then the unit of analysis becomes a state.
Some concepts can apply to more than one level of analysis, however, which is why
it is important to specify. Think of a concept such as national identity. We could explore
how people within a country understand their own national identity (in which case the
unit of analysis is an individual); legal processes to acquire citizenship (now the unit of
analysis becomes a law); or we could examine the question of a state identity (here the
unit of analysis is a state).
Of course, even when our unit of analysis is the individual, we are still interested in
aggregate results. Therefore, if we are looking at national identity, we may rely upon a
Europe-wide survey, and then aggregate results by country, region, and so on. Or we
might aggregate them by gender or ethnicity. In other words, we survey individuals so
we can say something about the group to which they belong.
In preparing our data for quantitative analysis, we have thus moved from concept to
conceptual definition to operational definition to measurement and finally to unit of
analysis. There is one last step you will need to undertake so that your data is ready to be
used in a statistical analysis: you must think about the level of measurement (‘data
scale’) of the data you will be using. This is because not all statistical tests lend themselves
to all levels of measurement. We also need to think about levels of measurement as we
collect data in a survey, as discussed below.
Nominal data is the most basic level of measurement. Nominal data are not pre-
sented in any particular order, nor do they indicate the amount of the thing being
measured. When coded, the numbers chosen are arbitrary. For example, if we list the
regions of Asia as Northeast, South, Southeast, and West, we are not aiming to indi-
cate the amount of ‘regionness’ each possesses, nor listing them in any order. We may
code these regions as ‘1,’ ‘2,’ ‘3,’ and ‘4’ respectively, but this is merely so that we can
include them in a statistical analysis. In this case, numerical values are simply useful
labels for mutually exclusive categories. Religion is another example: someone can be
Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, or Atheist, for example. Indicators of race
and ethnicity are also measured with nominal values.
Ordinal data are listed in order, or ranked, and are more precise than nominal
measures, though categories remain mutually exclusive. For example, countries can be
ranked in order of the size of their economies, from lowest to highest or vice versa.
Alternatively, respondents in a survey may be asked to identify their political philosophy
as “very liberal,” “liberal,” “moderate,” “conservative,” or “very conservative,” creating a
scale rank ordered from most liberal to most conservative. However, with ordinal data we
cannot assume that the values are evenly spaced. In other words, the difference between
“very liberal” and “liberal” is not necessarily equal to the difference between “moderate”
and “conservative.” Above, we characterized religion as a nominal variable, but we could
also conceive of it is as ordinal if we think of a related concept, religiosity, and measured
it according to categories of the importance religion plays in an individual’s life (i.e. not
important, somewhat important, very important, etc.).
The most precise level of measurement are interval data and ratio data, which
have uniform ‘distance’ between individual values. A classic example of interval data
are temperature scales: the difference in temperature between 20 degrees Celsius and
25 degrees Celsius is the same as that between 5 and 10 degrees. Ratio data is identical
to interval data but cannot be measured below 0. In IR, ratio measures are more com-
mon than interval ones. Any concept that can be operationalized and measured in
terms of percentages or currency figures can be used as ratio data. 0, unlike in interval
data, does indicate the absence of something. The number of times that the United
Nations Security Council votes for a human rights-related resolution is ratio data. So is
the number of human rights treaties signed. Ratio implies that we can compare differ-
ent values for each measure with absolute precision. 20 abstentions by a UN Security
Council member state in one time period compared to 10 in another period is a 100
percent increase in abstentions. By contrast, ordinal measures limit us to comparisons
of ‘more’ or ‘less.’
The ‘higher’ the level of measurement of a variable, the more powerful are the statis-
tical techniques that can be used to analyze it. While we will not go into the technical
details here, the important point is that if you use a statistical technique that assumes a
higher level of measurement than is appropriate for your data, your findings will mean
little. On the other hand, if you use a technique that fails to take advantage of a higher
level of measurement, you risk overlooking important things about your data. When you
take a course on statistics, you will also learn that certain statistical tests also require your
data to have other features.
The chosen level of measurement will, however, depend on the concept being mea-
sured. For example, does what you are measuring (such as attitudes towards public health
officials) indicate two distinct categories (e.g., trustful or distrustful), or do we think of
it as a spectrum? This is something researchers debate intensely. The American National
Election Studies for many years used ‘feeling thermometers’ (American National Election
Studies, 2021). Respondents are asked to locate a presidential candidate or a party on a
scale ranging from 0 to 100, with higher numbers representing warmer feelings toward
the person or group. Some researchers treated this as interval data while others ask if the
difference between 60 and 70 is really the same as that between 90 and 100. IR research-
ers planning to use quantitative methods are keen to gather ratio or interval data or
operationalize and measure their concepts such that they become ratio or interval data.
Survey Design and Generating Your Own

Quantitative Data
In order to run statistical tests, we either need to gather our own data, through surveys or
questionnaires, or make use of preexisting large datasets. The methodology behind these
datasets and how we interpret this data was discussed in the last section with reference to
V-Dem and Freedom of Democracy. In the table below, there are additional places where
you can go to find pre-existing quantitative data relevant to a broad range of potential
IR research topics.
Examples of Where You Can Find Datasets

• Correlates of War: http://www.correlatesofwar.org
• Environmental Treaties and Resource Indicators: https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/
• Peace Research Institute Oslo: http://www.prio.org/Data/
• Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: http://www.sipri.org/databases
• World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org
• OECD: http://www.oecd.org/statistics/
In the event you are researching a topic for which there is no pre-existing dataset, you
will be confronted with the task of generating your own data. While creating a new data-
set on a particular topic of interest in IR may be an option, it should be noted that the
datasets listed above were compiled by large teams of researchers and require a significant
amount of time researching and coding data for entry into the dataset.
If your level of analysis is the individual, you might find another common tech-
nique used for generating quantitative data, surveys or questionnaires, can be helpful
in learning more about groups of individuals who you wish to learn more about. If you
are interested in the characteristics or perceptions of a particular population, surveys
and questionnaires can be a useful tool for generating such data. Balnaves and Caputi
define surveys as ‘a method of collecting data from people about who they are (edu-
cation, finances, etc.), how they think (motivations, beliefs, etc.), and what they do
(behaviour)’ (2001: 76). One example of a survey that attempts to map global public
opinion on a variety of issues is World Public Opinion, alternatively the Arab Barometer
provides region-specific data.
When designing your own surveys or questionnaires, there are a few guidelines that
will help you through the process. First, it is essential to ensure you have secured the
informed consent of your research participants. You can turn to Chapter 3 and Chapter 8
for further discussion of informed consent. Second, it is important you carefully think
about how you will pose your question and what kinds of responses, and by extension
what kind of data, you aim to collect. Different kinds of survey questions include, nom-
inal questions, ordinal questions, interval questions, and scales (Balnaves and Caputi,
2001: 77–80) (see below).
Common Types of Survey Questions and Scales

Nominal Questions: Nominal questions generate responses that are categorical.
Generally these will be closed-ended questions with a menu of categories provided to
the respondent to choose from.
Example: What is your major? International Relations/International Studies/Political

Science
Interval Questions: Interval questions ask respondents to place themselves in a par-

ticular class or responses.
Example: What is your average grade?
___ Less than 60%
___60%-69%
___70%-79%
___80%-89%
___90%-100%
Scales: Scales allow for researchers to determine the intensity of preference among
respondents. The most common form of scale question is the Likert item, which asks
respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a given statement.
Example: Armed humanitarian intervention should be allowed to take place even in the
absence of a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force.
(1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, (4) strongly agree
Now that you are familiar with conceptual and operational definitions, coding, units
of analysis, measurement, you can now turn to the task of designing your own surveys
(Tingley, 2014). It is important to emphasize here that how you write your survey ques-
tions will be just as critical to gaining an insight into the opinions, experiences, or beliefs
of your survey participants. The Pew Research Center provides a publicly available guide
to help you negotiate some of the considerations that you will want to take into account
when writing your survey questions, such as not asking leading questions and being
aware that how you phrase your questions can result in very different responses (Pew
Research Center, 2021).
When selecting your survey respondents, it is of utmost importance that you do not
fall into a situation where you are working with survey data produced through sampling
error, which will distort your statistical analysis. Instead, you should take steps to secure
a random sample of your target population. For example, if you are surveying employ-
ees of the International Criminal Court, and you only distribute your survey to those
within the Office of the Prosecutor, your analysis will only provide insight into that one
office, not the Court as you hoped. If your target population is employees of the Court at
large, then everyone at the Court, regardless of which department they work in, should
have an equal chance of being selected.
How then do you go about random sampling? Once you know the entire pop-
ulation of potential respondents, such as a list of employees at an international
organization or total population of a major city, you will need to make sure that each
individual within your population has an equal probability of being selected – this is
why random sampling can also be referred to as probability sampling. The best way to
do this is to use a random number generator that will allow you to select respondents
at random.
If this is not feasible, another approach would be to assign numbers to your popula-
tion and select participants at regular intervals. This is known as systemic sampling.
Because this is not entirely random, you do run the risk of sampling error creeping into
your analysis. Here you need to be careful as to how your population list is organized,
for example by profession, so as not to have some pattern within your list distort your
respondents.
Sometimes, when working with large populations, you may want to subdivide your
population into smaller groups on the basis of shared characteristics – like for example
language spoken – in order to produce more specific findings. This is known as strat-
ified sampling. When doing this, after creating your subgroups, you would then use
either random sampling or systemic sampling to select research participants within
each group.
Once you have generated your quantitative data – either by finding relevant
pre-existing datasets or by generating your own quantitative data, you are now ready to
analyze your data.
Statistical Analysis
Quantitative methods have provided us with tools for the interpretation of large datasets
and statistical analysis. The key difference between mathematical models, such as those
presented in the next section, and statistical methods, such as those that are described
within this section is that whereas mathematical models hope to predict behaviour
(Nicholson, 1992: 59), statistical analysis attempts to show a relationship between varia-
bles and a specific outcome. They can also be used to test the robustness of relationships
between variables.
As mentioned at the outset, quantitative methods provide you with a set of tools to
do things that go far beyond measurement. Here, our focus will move from descriptive
statistics to inferential statistics. Inferential statistics refer to statistical tools that
help you answer questions about our data. Most commonly this will entail hypothesis
testing, looking for correlations, or to model relationships. The first of these tools that
we will explore here are bivariate statistical tests. This will be followed by an exploration
of multivariate statistical tests.
Bivariate Statistical Tests: Chi-Squared Test and Pearson

Correlation Coefficient
If we want to specify the relationships between variables and the strength of these rela-
tionships more precisely, we must turn to statistical tests. One simple statistical test you
can perform right away is the chi-squared test, represented by χ2. The chi-squared test
works best for evaluating relationships between sets of discrete data. For example,
let’s say you have data on per capital GDP, measured in U.S. dollars, and life expectancy,
measured in years, across countries. And you hypothesize that a change in per capita
GDP for a country effects life expectancy. The chi-squared statistic allows us to determine
at what confidence level or probability level (p-value) we can uphold an hypothesis.
In this sense, the actual value of the statistic is less important than its p-value, which tells
us the probability that we would see the observed relationship between the two variables
in our sample data if there were truly no relationship between them in the unobserved
population, which is our null hypothesis. If you are unsure what this means in practice,
there will be an example of how to test for this, and also what this means, in the next
section on regression analysis.
There are numerous statistical software packages that can be used to perform the chi-
squared test. An example of a relationship that would be significant would be one at
the .001 level, implying that 99.9 percent of the time per capita GDP (the independent
variable) is a predictor of life expectancy (the dependent variable). However, if our data
shows lots of examples where we have high per capita GDP and low life expectancy, and
vice versa, the χ2 might indicate a confidence level of .10, meaning that we are now 90
percent sure that per capita GDP is a predictor of life expectancy.
If you have two ordinal or ratio variables, your statistical software package can also
calculate something known as the Pearson correlation coefficient, for which the
notation is R. R can range from -1 to +1, with positive numbers indicating a positive rela-
tionship (as one variable goes up, so does the other), and vice versa. The farther R is from
0, the stronger the relationship. If we return to the example of per capita GDP and life
expectancy, you would generate a graph with your independent variable (per capita GDP)
on the x-axis and your dependent variable (life expectancy) on the y-axis. Each country
would have one point on the graph, with a GDP variable and a corresponding measure
of life expectancy. If all these points formed a perfectly straight-line sloping from low to
high from the left, R would be 1. In other words, higher GDP is associated with higher
life expectancy.
Regression Analysis
Perhaps the most common statistical test to test the relationship between variables within
IR is regression analysis, which is a simple statistical tool that allows us to predict the
value of a dependent variable on the basis of the value of an independent variable. In
its most basic form regression analysis relies upon a linear regression model that
assumes that you have two kinds of variables, one set, which we will call x, and another
variable that is known as y. The values of y are randomly distributed along a mean value
deterministically related to x (Lowe, 2004: 25–7).
There are two common types of regression analysis: bivariate and multivariate
regression analysis. Bivariate regression analysis simply provides a way to see how
changes in an independent variable correlate with changes in a dependent variable.
Let’s return to our example from the previous section: is a change per capital GDP cor-
related with a change in overall life expectancy? Your hypothesis is that a change in
per capita GDP effects life expectancy. Your null hypothesis would be that there is no
relationship between these two variables. Let’s look at the following fictitious GDP and
life expectancy data.
Table 6.2 GDP per capita (USD) and Life Expectancy (in years)
GDP per capita (USD) Life Expectancy (in years)

40000 71
65297 81
16000 70
43103 71
48713 72
54000 68
58000 77
61200 78
If you were to run a regression analysis on this data, you would get the following
statistics:
Table 6.3 Per Capital GDP and Life Expectancy Regression Statistics
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.66686676
R Square 0.44471128
Adjusted R Square 0.35216316
Standard Error 12621.336
Observations 8
Multiple R simply presents you with the absolute value of the Pearson Correlation
Coefficient from the previous section. In this case, it is positive, at 0.66686676. Here you
also see a somewhat low R Square (R2) value (0.44471128). This is your coefficient of
determination, which is simply the proportion of variance in the dependent variable
(life expectancy in years) that is predictable from the independent variable (per Capita
GDP). This means that a value of 0 would mean that none of the change is predict-
able from the independent variable, and 1 would mean all of the change is predictable.
However, it is important to remember many of the social phenomena we study in IR
might not produce very high R2 values. The adjusted R2 takes into account the number of
independent variables and sample size and is of greater relevance for multivariate regres-
sions. The standard error value tells you the average distance the observed values fall
from the regression line.
Regression analysis will also calculate a p-value. A p-value represents the likelihood
that you would have found these results if the null hypothesis were to be true. A low
p-value, less than 0.05, would allow you to reject the null hypothesis. Using our fictitious
data, we get a value of 0.07, so we cannot discount the null hypothesis.
See Figure 6.1 to view what this looks like represented visually in a scatterplot.
90 R2 = 0.4447
80
life expectancy in years
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
per capita GDP in USD
Figure 6.1 Per Capital GDP and Life Expectancy Scatterplot with linear regression
line and R2 value
When interpreting your regression analysis, you should also go back and reflect on
questions such as the validity or reliability of your operationalization and measurement
scheme, or consider what other statistical tests might better capture the relationship. You
also have to consider the standard error. A regression coefficient is always accompanied
by a standard error, which tells us how certain you can be about the formula itself. The
larger the standard error, the less certain the regression line.
However, the standard error is not a quantity of interest by itself. It depends on the
relationship with the regression coefficient. Regression results will also often include
‘p-values,’ or levels of statistical significance, which are chosen by the researcher. A p-value
of ‘.01’ indicates the highest level of confidence in our results, a p-value of .10 indicates a
low level of confidence, while a p-value of .05 falls in the middle. Sometimes you might
see levels of statistical significance indicated with asterisks. For example, you might see
a value p < .001, or the highest level of confidence, represented by three asterisks, the
value p < .01 with two asterisks, and a single asterisks for a low level of confidence, or
p < .05 (Goldstein, 2010).
A multivariate regression would introduce additional variables. For example, is a
change in GDP per capital or spending on healthcare correlated with a change in overall
life expectancy? It should always be emphasized when conducting bivariate regression
analyses that the purpose of this exercise is to determine whether or not a relationship
(correlation) exists between two variables. It cannot tell us whether or not one variable
caused another variable. Regression analysis is not a tool to explain causation.
You can easily carry out these calculations on your own using statistical software such
as SPSS or Excel.
Multivariate regression provides a tool that allows us to examine three or more vari-
ables. Multivariate regression analysis can be a powerful tool to test the relationship
among variables because it can provide insight into whether or not our bivariate regres-
sion analysis produced a spurious relationship (Bryman, 2008: 330–1). A spurious
relationship is when two variables appear to be related to each other, but the relationship
is actually caused by a third variable. For example, let’s say we hear about a strong correla-
tion between decreasing rates of piracy and increased climate change (Andersen, 2012).
Obviously, this relationship is spurious, and we would need to investigate further so as
to ascertain causes for either variable. Multivariate regression analysis would allow us to
test the relationships between multiple variables to do so.
Finally, it is important to remember that whenever you work with regression analysis,
whether bivariate or multivariate, correlation is not causation. It may be easy to say that
increased media exposure to certain human rights abuses is related to more government
activity around these abuses. This is a problem known as endogeneity. The regression
analysis may show that they are indeed related. But it is an entirely different thing to say
that media exposure caused the response.
This is where regression analysis may need to be complemented by additional meth-
ods, such as interviews. In other words, you may have to go out and talk to government
officials and understand what motivated them to respond, or not, to an instance of
human rights abuses.
Formal Methods and Game Theory in IR

Often one of the first questions posed by students when they are introduced to mathe-
matical models in IR is, where do the numbers come from? Are the values simply assigned
arbitrarily by the modeller? The answer to the latter is that while there are some models
where modellers seed numbers, here we will focus on how we assign values to preferences
and payoffs. Indeed, in order to answer either of these questions a brief introduction to
formal methods is first necessary.
Game theory refers to the application of mathematical models to understand strate-
gic interaction among actors (von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944), and it is precisely
here that the contribution of formal methods to the study of IR has been greatest. Bruce
Bueno de Mesquita traces the application of game theory to the study of IR to Thomas
Schelling’s publication of The Strategy of Conflict in 1960 (de Mesquita, 2002: 59;).
Schelling’s attempt to model strategies of conflict generated a growing body of literature
on the part of scholars to model strategic behaviour during the Cold War. In the context
of a superpower standoff, where the actual outbreak of hostilities would reap catastrophic
consequences on a global scale, the perceived urgency to provide greater strategic cer-
tainty to policymakers sought to deepen our understanding of strategic interact and
strategic choices. Furthermore, even after the Cold War, game theory came to occupy a
place of increased prominence within the field of IR, and was even argued by Milner to
mark a growing convergence between the fields of International Relations, Comparative
Politics and American Political Science (1998: 759–86).
Formal models require a high degree of abstraction. When constructing a model

we begin by reducing the phenomena under study to its basic elements. We can model
almost any social situation which involves choice and more than one potential outcome.
For example, if you are with a group of five friends and are deciding upon which restau-
rant to go to, you might come up with two or more choices. Let’s say that three friends
want to go to Restaurant A, while the two others want to go to Restaurant B. Let’s assume
you prefer A. A simple ordinal ranking of preferences, or a ranking of preferences in rela-
tion to each other, would give you something like this:
Friend 1 = A>B
Friend 2 = A>B
Friend 3 = A>B
Friend 4 = A<B
Friend 5 = A<B
You = A>B
However, just because more of you initially wanted to go to Restaurant A, you all ended up
going to Restaurant B instead. How could you explain this outcome? John von Neumann
and Oscar Morgenstern, the two founders of modern game theory, created a method to
rank cardinal preference, or the intensity of preferences (1944). They started by assigning
the worst possible outcome for everyone involved 0, then the best possible outcome 100.
Now let’s take a look at the data with cardinal preferences included.
Ordinal Preference
Friend 1 = A>B
Friend 2 = A>B
Friend 3 = A>B
Friend 4 = A<B
Friend 5 = A<B
You = A>B
Cardinal Preference
Friend 1 = 60 for A
Friend 2 = 55 for A
Friend 3 = 55 for A
Friend 4 = 100 for B
Friend 5 = 100 for B
You = 55 for A
The figures above give you some insight into not just preferences, but now also the
intensity of preferences. Let’s assume that the two friends, who expressed a preference for
Restaurant B, would not under any circumstances go to A, because of a previous bad
experience at that restaurant. Those who initially chose A, only preferred Restaurant A,
but would still be willing to go to B. Thus, in order to keep the group together, Restaurant
B became the preferred destination. When looking at inter-state bargaining, different
states want different things and have different preferences, so explaining bargaining out-
comes is a complex task that, much like the restaurant example, can be illuminated by
formal modelling.
Simple games are parsimonious and relatively easy to follow. For example decision trees
confront us with a set of choices and expected payoffs. However, decision trees taken alone
are single player games, and the purported payoffs are not contingent upon the action of
another player. Strategic games, or non-cooperative games, assume that your payoff is
contingent upon the strategic choice of another player. Strategic games, at a minimum,
require only a handful of characteristics. The first is the requirement that we have two or
more players. Each player must also be confronted with choices. Each choice must have
a certain payoff for the players, and payoffs are not just dictated by one’s own choice, but
also the choice of the other player (Nicholson, 1992: 57). These payoffs can be represented
ordinally. Rules also govern how the players interact with each other during the game.
Below is a simple diagram that illustrates how two player game matrixes are usually
presented.
Player 1 Choice A Choice B
Player 2
Choice A Payoff 1AA Payoff 1BA
Payoff 2AA Payoff 2AB

Choice B Payoff 1AB Payoff 1BB
Payoff 2BA Payoff 2BB
Figure 6.2 Illustration of how two player game matrixes are usually presented
When applied to strategic interactions in International Relations, we can insert actors

faced with strategic choices for Players 1 & 2. The strategic choices will then take the place
of Choices A & B. Then we will use the expected outcomes to calculate the payoffs for
reach move and for each player. Let us imagine we are modelling the strategic interaction
between the United States and the Soviet Union. Both states are confronted with comply-
ing with the terms of a nuclear arms reduction agreement that would require both states
to drastically reduce their nuclear stockpile. Neither the US nor the Soviet Union is sure
the opposing party will comply with the terms of the agreement. Here we have two play-
ers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Each player is faced with a strategic choice:
either to comply or not-comply with an arms control agreement. The expected payoffs
are as follows: both sides comply and reap the reward for arms reduction (R), neither side
complies with the agreement and neither reaps any reward, but at the same time strategic
parity is maintained (NR). Or one side complies and is disadvantaged (D) while the other
side gains a strategic advantage (A). Thus the ordinal values of the expected payoffs can
be stated as follows: A>R>NR>D. Note that this payoff structure reflects a common game
known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma. For a more detailed explanation see ‘Prisoner’s
Dilemma’ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Kuhn, 2019).
United States Comply Cheat
Soviet Union
Comply R A
R D
Cheat D NR
A NR
Figure 6.3 Example of a payoff structure
R = Reward, NR = No reward, A = Advantage, D = Disadvantage
Think about the choices that confront the United States and USSR and the potential pay-
offs. What policy advice would you give in such a situation and why?
If we assume the players are rational, then we can assume that in the context of the
above zero-sum game they will seek to minimize their losses while maximizing their
gain. Because compliance when the other player defects is the least desired outcome
(D), both players will attempt to avoid being confronted with this particular payoff. This
risk is only present should the player comply with the agreement. The highest value
payoff, that of strategic advantage (A), can also be accrued through compliance. The
maintaining of strategic parity (NR) means that neither party is better off than before the
agreement, but also neither has been suckered into losing strategic parity. Thus, because
non-compliance or the ‘cheat’ option reduces the risk of loss, we can expect both parties
to non-comply with the terms of this agreement. Or stated in other words, we would
have found the Nash equilibrium because no single player can gain by unilaterally adopt-
ing another choice when the other player’s strategy remains constant.
United States Comply Cheat
Soviet Union
Comply R A
R D
Cheat D NR
A NR
Figure 6.4 Equilibrium point for both players in a single game

R = Reward, NR = No reward, A = Advantage, D = Disadvantage
The equilibrium point for both players in this single game is shaded in grey. While game
theory may seem like a simple tool, you should remember that games come in many dif-
ferent forms. Furthermore, the modelling of strategic behaviour of actors in International
Relations requires us to take into account that games are not single play games where states
encounter one another for the first and only time, but rather they are repeated, or iterated,
games. All of these factors, changing payoff structures, repeated interaction, large numbers
of players, all serve to increase the complexity of game theoretic modelling.
It is important to note that the focus of scholarly interest has been on non-cooperative
games. Non-cooperative games are not games where cooperation is impossible, but rather
cooperative or non-cooperative outcomes result from the strategic interaction of players.
Cooperative games refer to those games where factors outside the strategic interaction of
players can enforce cooperation or compliance (Milner, 1998: 783).
Chapter Summary
Quantitative methods in IR encompass a rich and diverse body of literature that con-
tinues to grow alongside an ever increasing number of datasets that measure all sorts
of phenomena in IR from climate change to armed conflict. Quantitative methods aim,
through measurement and formalization, to provide greater precision to a field of study
that explicitly takes on the task of improving our understanding of a world defined by
uncertainty.
This chapter has taken you through the quantitative process from conceptual to
operation definitions to coding to statistical analysis. You can now think about either
gathering your own quantitative data through surveys, or you can go out and utilize
widely available datasets that are freely available. You can also think about testing vari-
ables to see what, if any, relationships exist between them and you can also conduct
bivariate and multivariate regressions.
In addition to this, you have also gained a familiarity with formal models in IR. You
have learned how to translate preferences into mathematical language and to model
strategic interactions and have been introduced to applications of game theory for IR.
Either by coming up with formal models to better understand strategic interaction

between rival powers in order to make predictive claims about the strategic choices actors
will make under certain conditions, or through coding data into large datasets in order
to uncover correlations between variables through bivariate or multivariate regressions,
we can now appreciate how quantitative methods can contribute to our understanding
of the world around us.

1 The following constitutes an impassioned critique of quantitative IR: Bull, Hedley
(1966) ‘International theory: The case for a classical approach’, World Politics, 18
(3): 361–77.
2 This chapter provides a concise overview of some of the advantages and limitations
of statistical methods: Braumoeller, Bear F. and Sartori, Anne E. (2004) ‘The promise
and perils of statistics in International Relations’ in D.F. Sprinz and Y. Wolinsky-
Nahmias (eds), Cases, Numbers, Models: International Relations Research Methods. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. pp. 129–51.
3 Osborne’s text provides a more in-depth introduction to using formal game theory:
Osborne, Martin J. (2004) An Introduction to Game Theory. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
SEVEN
MIXED METHODS RESEARCH
IN INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
learning objectives
• Understand and apply strategies for mixed methods research design

• Gain familiarity with case selection for mixed methods research
• Become proficient in operationalizing mixed methods research
• Explain how mixed method research can contribute to interpretive and critical
research agendas
• Understand the distinction between multimethodology and mixed methods
In some research projects, scholars make use of two or more methods, which may span
across both quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study. This is what is known
as Mixed Methods Research (MMR). While MMR has grown in popularity, and continues
to do so, for some adherents to the ‘paradigm wars’ in the social sciences, the idea of
mixing quantitative research and qualitative research is problematic (Alise and Teddlie,
2010). This chapter shows qualitative and quantitative data are not as incompatible as
they may first appear, and indeed how successful mixed methods research can be con-
ducted. Typically, mixed quantitative and qualitative research is conducted within a single
methodology (either positivism or interpretivism), but there are also debates which we
will cover later in this chapter that address the ‘paradigm wars’ in a different context –
that of methodology.
Mixed methods describe those research designs that combines quantitative and qual-
itative methods. The reasons a researcher might make use of MMR vary; often MMR is
carried out so as to strengthen claims of causal inference (Seawright, 2016: 19–44). It
is not an ‘anything goes’ approach to methods, where quantitative and qualitative tools
are thrown together, but rather it is made up of explicit criteria and standards for MMR
design. It includes strategies for case selection and analytic tools for theory testing and
identifying causal mechanisms. In relation to the latter, mixed methods are commonly
used to apply more robust tests to causal hypotheses or theoretical propositions then can
be applied using solely quantitative or qualitative methods. If data collected using one
method – quantitative or qualitative – affirms a hypothesis, can it also be confirmed by
another method? In other words, would qualitative focus groups data and quantitative
survey data reveal similar attitudes among a group or community? Attempts to confirm
findings through multiple methods, known as triangulation, is not only used in MMR,
but has provided new insights across the social sciences (Bryman, 2008: 611–14). Of
course, MMR has also been widely used in IR research, and examples of its use will be
discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
MMR can be used at all the steps of the research process. Some seek to avoid paradig-
matic debates using MMR. More commonly, mixed methods are used when selecting
research designs, particularly around addressing questions like how do I select cases for a
more in-depth study? MMR is also used for data analysis: quantitative and qualitative data
can be analyzed together, using qualitative techniques to analyze findings derived from
quantitative data, or vice versa. This chapter will introduce you to both the why and how
of MMR in IR. But, before presenting this, let us first turn back to the question of what is
MMR and what advantages can such a research design bring to the table?
Mixed Methods Research: What Is It?

Mixed Methods Research is defined by Johnson et al. as:
[…] the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines

elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of
Mixed Methods Research in International Relations 141
qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference

techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and
corroboration (Johnson et al., 2007: 123).
While Chapters 5 and 6 presented you with qualitative and quantitative methods for
data collection and analysis, you may have already thought about the question: why not
combine techniques from both so as to make your findings more robust? For example,
did you find a strong correlation between variables in your quantitative analysis, and do
you want to zoom into a case study to see whether or not you can leverage qualitative
tools to determine whether or not you can identify a causal mechanism that links these
two variables? Alternatively, you might have conducted a quantitative analysis of a large
dataset, and one of the countries you studied is an outlier, meaning that when you visu-
alize your data in graph, it is far removed from the curve. What is going on in this case?
Although research methods curricula are often divided along the lines of quan-
titative and qualitative research methods, scholars routinely use mixed methods in
their research. It is important not to think of quantitative and qualitative methods as
research silos that are separated by firm methods boundaries. The utility of MMR has
become increasingly recognized alongside quantitative and qualitative methods as a
means of bringing elements of the two methods together (Johnson et al., 2007). Part
of the move to embrace of mixed methods research was driven by a desire to abandon
the ‘paradigm wars,’ which saw researchers subdivide themselves into distinct camps
of scholarship along the lines of methods. Mixed methods is now referred to as a ‘third
major research approach’ to methods (Johnson et al., 2007: 112). Such as position is
conceptually not very problematic when we distinguish debates over methods from
methodology, a question that we will return to in the final section of this chapter.
As highlighted in Chapter 5, methods should not be thought of as being wedded to a
particular methodology. After all, qualitative methods are neither exclusively positivist
nor interpretive, and quantitative data can be just as useful to both positivist and inter-
pretive researchers. Indeed, positivists see qualitative work as a valuable means to carry
out hypothesis testing and identifying causal mechanisms, whereas interpretive work
also has an interest in causality and identifying patterns in large datasets. Data collection
and analysis are the tools that we use to support our claims, or arguments, and these
tools can be employed within the context of different research methodologies. Therefore,
having a clear understanding of your research purpose is just as important for MMR as it
is for other research designs covered in this book.
To take a prominent example of a positivist approach to IR from a mixed meth-
ods perspective, King et al. (1994) argue that quantitative and qualitative research are
complementary approaches that both attempt to advance cumulative knowledge for
the purpose of making generalizable claims. They argued that the quantitative-qualitative
divide among researchers was a false one. In Designing Social Inquiry, they suggest ‘the
same underlying logic provides the framework for each research approach’ (King et al.,
1994: 3) and moreover, ‘much of the best social science research can combine quantitative
and qualitative data, precisely because there is no contradiction between the fundamental
processes of inference involved in each’ (King et al., 2010: 113). Furthermore, Gerring
used the yardstick of scientific research, defined in positivist terms, to minimize the
distance between quantitative and qualitative methods (Gerring, 2012: xxi).
This chapter offers a detailed introduction to the use of mixed methods research
designs within positivism and goes on to explore mixed methods in interpretive
research. As you will see later in this chapter there are numerous examples of inter-
pretive and critical work that draw upon an empirical analysis of mixed methods data.
Mixed Methods Research Design

Mixed methods research is commonly defined as research that combines quantitative
and qualitative methods (Bryman, 2008: 112–33). Mixed methods have been used for
a variety of purposes from complementarity, meaning carrying out distinct analytical
functions that help get you to the same finding, to gathering more information where
a more complete picture of a given phenomenon is required. This section will present
you with Creswell and Creswell’s (2017) three main strategies for MMR design. These
strategies are convergent, explanatory sequential research, and exploratory sequential
research. This typology offers a concise and intuitive map of mixing methods. While
there are many different ways to mix methods, below we will focus on some of the
most common.
Strategies for Mixed-Methods Research Design

Most MMR projects involve some form of case study. Gerring argues that every single-
case or small-n qualitative work has the potential to include large-n analysis within it
(Gerring, 2012: 364). Often this is achieved through the combination of in-depth qualita-
tive case studies with statistical tools presented in Chapter 6. In addition, as noted in our
discussion above, every large-n study also has the potential to include small-n qualitative
analysis. While many of these strategies can be seen as positivist, in the sense that their
aim can be defined as improving positivist causal influence, research designs such as con-
vergent mixed methods can also be put to interpretive or critical theory uses. To be sure,
there are many different strategies for mixing methods, with different aims, purposes,
and designs. The most prominent of these will be outlined below.
The first major MMR design strategy is commonly referred to as convergent mixed
methods research. This strategy sees quantitative and qualitative research as comple-
mentary. Here, both quantitative and qualitative research can act as mutually reinforcing
data points in relation to your research question. Let’s take a project that aims to explain
state cooperation with the international criminal courts as an example. We could create a
dataset of war crimes suspects transferred from national jurisdictions to an international
court. Yet, while this dataset would show us trends in terms of overall transfers, it would
tell us very little about the processes that led a state to transfer members of its own armed
forces to an international court (Lamont, 2010). Here, a focused case study of a state that
did ‘cooperate’ with an international court in terms of transferring its own citizens for
trial, could help explain not just the transfer event, but also the how and why of state
cooperation with international courts.
For MMR work that relies on a convergent mixed methods research design, the goal is
to see whether or not multiple tools of data analysis can account for a particular outcome
or reinforce a particular observation. In this sense, both sets of data complement each
other within your causal analysis. Your qualitative case selection is not necessarily con-
tingent on quantitative analysis. Therefore, such a research design is non-sequential. For
example, in Howlett et al.’s (2020) study of the effects of in-person vs. online academic
coaching in a university setting included collecting quantitative data from three groups,
in-person, online, and a control group, but also qualitative data in the form of open-
ended questions that played a secondary, and in this case, confirming, role in the study.
An explanatory MMR design is one that can be referred to as sequential, because
you will first conduct a quantitative analysis on a dataset, and then test this against
a qualitative case study in which you will zoom in to see if your findings from your
quantitative study still hold when subjected to qualitative analysis. There are a number
examples of studies that rely on this kind of MMR design in IR. Recently, Doctor (2020)
posed the question: do foreign fighters increase the prevalence of rebel-inflicted sexual
violence? Doctor explored this question by first conducting regression analysis on 143
rebel groups active between 1989 and 2011 and explored a case study that focused on the
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
An exploratory MMR design is also sequential, however, here you start with qual-
itative analysis and then make use of quantitative techniques. This is more useful for
instances where you are coming up with new frameworks for exploring a topic and you
are not engaged in testing pre-existing theoretical assumptions. Hope and Jones’ (2014)
study of the impact of religious faith on attitudes toward environmental issues is an
example of an exploratory MMR design which used qualitative focus group data and
subjected this to quantitative tests.
While Table 7.1 presents you with an overview of general MMR design strategies,
it is important to note that when selecting a qualitative case study for more intensive
study on the basis of quantitative analysis, or to carry out alongside quantitative analy-
sis, it is necessary to be able to justify why you have selected your specific cases for more
intensive qualitative investigation. Whether your MMR project is one where you are
using quantitative and qualitative methods in a convergent research design, where you
are bringing the two methods together to shed light on a topic where the full picture
is incomplete, or you are using a sequential research design where you are conducting
your quantitative analysis first, you will need to be transparent about your case selection
choices. The next section will explore strategies for mixed methods case selection. There
two broad logics at play here that you can draw upon: triangulation, which was also
presented as an MMR design, and nested analysis.
Table 7.1 Three Mixed Method Research Designs and Examples from Scholarship
MMR Design Rationale Exemplary Research

Convergent Mixed Methods Designed to obtain different Ranjit Lall (2020) ‘The financial
(Quantitative & Qualitative) consequences of rating
but complementary data on international institutions:
the same topic in order to Competition, collaboration,
examine whether or not the and the politics of assessment’,
results are consistent. International Studies Quarterly.
Explanatory Sequential This is sequential MMR, Yu-Ming Liou and Paul Musgrave
Research designed where quantitative (2016) ‘Oil, autocratic survival,
data starts the process, and and the gendered resource curse:
qualitative data is then used When inefficient policy is politically
to test whether conjectured expedient’, International Studies
explanations hold. Quarterly.
Exploratory Sequential This is also a sequential MMR Aimie L.B. Hope and Christopher
Research design in which qualitative R. Jones, (2014) ‘The impact of
data is used to start the religious faith on attitudes of
process, and quantitative environmental issues and carbon
data is then used to test capture and storage (CCS)
assumptions from the initial technologies: A mixed methods
qualitative study. study, Technology in Society.
Qualitative Case Selection in MMR Design

It was pointed out in Table 7.1 how mixed methods research can be designed as a study
that triangulates quantitative and qualitative data and analysis. Triangulation was men-
tioned in Chapter 5, in the context of intra-qualitative methods data collection strat-
egies, i.e. interviews, media reports and official documents to corroborate findings in
relation to a process under investigation. Here, triangulation will be addressed from an
inter-, that is mixed, methods perspective.
What does triangulation mean in this context? As you see from Table 7.1, triangulation
is helpful when trying to corroborate a finding through the use of two different analytical
methods. For example, the assumptions underlying democratic peace theory, when tested
against large data sets, appear to hold up to empirical scrutiny, but how can we be sure
that the reason democratic states have not gone to war with one another is because they
are democracies and not some other factor (Rosato, 2003)? In this case, you would need to
identify that a causal mechanism associated with democracy links your independent vari-
able, democracy, to a specific outcome, the non-occurrence of war. To do so, you would
have to look for a case where two democratic states went to the brink of war.
It was precisely such an attempt to corroborate insights drawn from quantitative
methods which led to Collier and Sambanis’ edited volume on Understanding Civil War
(2005). Collier and Sambanis collected case studies to test a rational choice model on
the economics of violent conflict, known as the Collier-Hoeffner model, which posited
a link between poverty and conflict and triggered the ‘greed or grievance’ debate among
conflict scholars. According to Collier and Sambanis, this mixed methods study was
initiated in response to researchers criticizing their model, with some questioning its
accuracy and validity on account of overemphasizing the role of economics and under-
playing the role of social and political grievances. More relevant to our discussion of
mixed methods is an additional criticism levied against the model, which argues quan-
titative methods alone used were not sufficient to understanding conflict dynamics, and
instead in-depth qualitative studies of individual conflicts should be carried out (Collier
and Sambanis, 2005: x).
In response to this challenge, Collier and Sambanis collected eight qualitative conflict
case studies in the first volume of their study. However, do quantitative methods for
case selection make sense in the study of the outbreak of civil war? Collier and Sambanis
conceded relying on quantitative methods, such as randomized case selection would be
insufficient, simply on account of the selected cases likely being drawn from the majority
of countries in the world that had not recently experienced civil war (Collier et al. 2005
20–1). Instead, case selection was carried out to ensure sufficient variation to identify
causal mechanisms that underlie existing theories of civil war in order to further refine
them (Collier et al. 2005: 21). Indeed, upon this further research, it was confirmed the
initial greed or grievance debate was misplaced, as both greed and grievance worked
together to fuel conflicts. Moreover, case studies provided contextual information that
exposed coding errors within the initial model. For example, it was noted that in some
cases where the model predicted the outbreak of civil war, no war was observed. However,
upon closer inspection through a qualitative case study, it was revealed that in the case of
Burundi (1965–1969) a war did occur (Sambanis, 2005: 304). Furthermore, when coun-
tries were described as being at peace, despite being predicted to be at a high probability
for experiencing civil war by the model, often they still experienced significant forms
of domestic violence and turmoil that fell short of civil war, such as coups and violent
insurgencies (Sambanis, 2005: 304). Significantly, the dataset also had problems in terms
of excluding civil wars, which after closer scrutiny would certainly merit inclusion into
the dataset. These problems all reduced the predictive validity of the model, but arguably
coding errors could be corrected through qualitative case studies (Sambanis, 2005: 304).
Quantitative Qualitative
analysis of case studies
civil war of civil war
causes causes
MMR findings
from
triangulation
of data
Figure 7.1 MMR and Triangulation

Nested Analysis
While randomized case selection might not make sense in cases such as the global study
of the causes of civil wars, there are quantitative methods that can be relied upon to
justify case selection in mixed methods research. One widely used case selection strategy
is known as nested analysis. Here, an initial statistical analysis helps the researcher
select one of several cases for in-depth qualitative analysis. Do you notice a very strong
correlation in your data and want to explore a case more in depth so you can find a causal
mechanism that links your causal variable to your dependent variable? Is there an outlier
case in your quantitative analysis that you find confounding? Why does this case not
conform to theoretical expectations? What is going on there? Nested analysis has many
strengths in terms of causal inference. For example, treating a statistical outlier to an
in-depth qualitative study can help develop new theoretical insights. More generally, the
plausibility of observed correlations between variables in quantitative studies having a
causal relationship can also be explored along with improving quantitative measurement
(Lieberman, 2005).
Lieberman illustrates the rationale behind nested analysis:
Given the potential for problems of endogeneity and poor data in statistical
analysis carried out at the country level of analysis, statistical results alone rarely
provide sufficient evidence of the robustness of a theoretical model (2005: 442).
In these instances, statistical tests can be used as a starting point for designing the qual-
itative part of the study.
When using nested analysis as a qualitative case selection strategy, you can use an
initial statistical analysis in different ways to select case studies for qualitative research.
First, you could test cases that conform to theoretical expectations to identify causal
mechanisms at work – these cases would be ‘on-the-line’ (Lieberman, 2005: 444). Such
cases behave as expected, meaning this is where you should go look if you are searching
for a causal mechanism that would link your causal variable to an outcome. This means
that you are selecting cases that are on or near the regression line because they seemingly
conform to a theoretical model. In this case you will look for cases with variation in the
independent variables that largely share an outcome.
The second logic relies on accounting for variations in outcome, or the dependent vari-
able. Here you will look for results that do not conform to expectations. Therefore, rather
than looking for cases that are on-the-line, you will be looking for outliers. However, be
careful not to venture too far from the curve as outliers that are too far off might have
entirely different causal processes at work, or alternatively, some form of measurement
error that accounts for the outlier (Lieberman, 2005: 445).
In addition to the above two logics, nested analysis can also help you to design a
study that would contain a mix of ‘on-the-line’ and ‘off-the-line’ cases in order to explore
causal processes in cases that both conform and do not conform with theoretical expec-
tations. Finally, Lieberman (2005: 447) points out that there are rare instances where
nested analysis can be performed on a random finding within a statistical analysis. In this
instance the purpose would be to minimize the potential for the researcher’s own biases
effecting the case selection process; however, it is pointed out this particular strategy for
case selection is not as commonly used.
Qualitative
Case
Quantitative Selection on Qualitative
Analysis the basis of Analysis
Quantitative
Analysis
Figure 7.2 MMR and Nested Analysis
Strategies for Analysis in MMR

Now that we have discussed four strategies for designing MMR studies and also presented
two ways of going about selecting qualitative cases for more intensive study, we can now
explore different strategies for analysis in MMR. As noted at the outset of this chapter,
one aim often pursued in MMR is to make causal arguments. However, MMR has also
been applied in the context of experimental research design and simulation modelling.
In this section, we will present all three, before discussing interpretive MMR in the next
section.
Causality and Process Tracing

Case studies are particularly helpful in providing us with the tools that show us how
a causal variable is linked to an outcome. It achieves this through thick description of
causal processes that provide us with evidence of the existence of causal mechanisms.
Causal mechanisms, which you will recall from Chapter 5, are the conditions or path-
ways that link a causal variable to an outcome. They are in themselves abstractions and
can be difficult to identify. But they also play a crucial role in research because they tell
us how and why a causal variable is linked to an outcome.
Process tracing, or the qualitative tracing of processes that link an assumed causal
variable to an outcome, as introduced in Chapter 5, is a valuable tool that allows for
you to observe causal mechanisms at work. MMR often makes use of process tracing in
the form of an in-depth case study, or a few case studies, that are linked to a broader
quantitative study. Your quantitative analysis will likely point to a causal variable being
very strongly correlated with an outcome, and in this case, you might select a case study
to see whether or not you can find any evidence of a conjectured causal mechanism at
work. Recall that a significant advantage of process tracing is in offering a better way to
make causal arguments when compared with quantitative analysis alone (Collier, 2011:
824). Checkel and Bennett (2015: 272), on the other hand, point out that process tracing
is not the only means to observe causal mechanisms, as quantitative analysis can play a
role here as well. Both observations reinforce the fact that qualitative and quantitative
analysis can work together to provide greater confidence in causal arguments.
Process mapping combines the strengths of quantitative analysis (which is good at
demonstrating a relationship exists between variables), and qualitative methods (which
are better at suggesting why variables might be linked). Vogt (2016), for example, carried
out a statistical analysis of indigenous movements in Latin America complemented by
focused case study on Ecuador, which drew upon interview data in order to identify
causal mechanisms that account for the inclusion of marginalized indigenous groups.
Mixed Methods Research and Process Tracing: Explaining

Rebel Group Violence Outside of Disputed Areas
Why do rebel groups carry out attacks outside of disputed areas that are the focus of
armed struggle in the face of offensive military operations? Is it to punish the oppos-
ing side or to divert their resources away from the disputed territory? Here, you see
two plausible causal mechanisms that could link a causal variable – military offensives
against rebel held, or claimed, disputed areas, and armed attacks by rebel groups in
other governmental-held areas.
To answer this question Helge Holtermann offers a diversionary theory of rebel group
violence that posits rebel groups carry out attacks far removed from the contested ter-
ritory in order to divert government resources and spread their adversary more thinly
across a larger territory. To test this claim Holtermann first carried out statistical tests
drawing upon global databases of conflict violence and found that military offensives
increased rebel violence beyond the immediately disputed regions and there was no
evidence for alternative causal mechanisms to diversion, such as punishment.
In order to see if diversion was the causal mechanism at work, Holtermann used a
qualitative case study of Sri Lanka’s Eelam Wars for process tracing. Given the secretive
nature of rebel groups, process tracing proved challenging, according to Holtermann,
but Holtermann was able to draw mainly on elite interviews in order to secure data that
would help in process tracing. Through qualitative interview data Hotlermann found
further support for diversion as a causal mechanism.
Holtermann, H. (2019) ‘Diversionary rebel violence in territorial civil war’, International Studies
Quarterly, 63 (2): 215–30.
Mixed Methods and Quasi-Experimental Research

Quasi-experimental research is becoming widespread in social science research, as
the rules of natural scientific experimentation, i.e. randomized controlled trials to avoid
section bias, are not possible. For example, in a medical setting it is possible to create a
control group of research participants who are given an experimental medical treatment,
such as a vaccine, and another group who are given a placebo. In such an experiment
all participants would have an equal chance of being randomly assigned to one group
or another. However, many of the things we study in IR, do not lend themselves to
randomized selection. For example, if we are examining concepts like national iden-
tity, we may want to use group membership to assign participants to a particular group.
Of course, what is important to keep in mind that the salient feature of experiments
is not randomized selection, but that the researcher causes the change in the variable
under examination.
Quasi-experimental research allows for causal inferences to be made without randomly
allocating subjects to the experiment. Quasi-experiments allow for an independent vari-
able to be manipulated without randomly assigning individuals to the experiment, and
often draws on both quantitative and qualitative data that can be subjected to further
study (Nielsen et al., 2015).
When designing a quasi-experiment, you will be able to assign individuals, or research
participants to groups, on the basis of certain characteristics, such as urban or rural, or
level of education. Although such a design does not meet the supposed gold standard of
experimental design, with randomized selection process, that does not mean necessarily
that findings will have no internal validity – that is degree of confidence that the causal
variable you have identified causes the outcome, or external validity – the degree of con-
fidence that the findings of your study are generalizable outside of your study.
In transitional justice research, Bunselmeyer and Shulz (2020) used a quasi-
experimental research design in a structured focused comparison between outreach activi-
ties by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Reparations Program of the
Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission to assess the impact of transitional justice
mechanisms and identify causal relationships. Through a controlled structured compar-
ison of these two cases that drew upon diverse sources of data, Bunselmeyer and Shulz
argue that quasi-experimental research design can help overcome some of the limitations
of single case study impact assessments by providing more rigorous causal observations.
Strategic and Simulation Models

Another way of using mixed methods is found in simulation modelling. As noted in
Chapter 6, modelling in IR can come in many different forms. One of the more com-
mon models is game theory. Game theory is an abstract strategic model that allows you
to model interactions between two or more actors. Game theory can be leveraged in
MMR by its generation of hypotheses that can then be tested empirically through process
tracing (Checkel and Bennett, 2015: 273). Kuehn (2013) provides an example of how
game theoretical propositions can be deductively tested through process tracing through
research on civil-military relations in new democracies.
In some ways, simulation modelling can be seen to have evolved from the more game
theoretical models which are covered in Chapter 6. Simulation modelling can be concep-
tualized in two forms: the highly empirical and the highly abstract. Empirical simulation
modelling is designed around generating real world scenarios, while abstract simulations
use models to explore underlying logics of social processes (Hoffman, 2008: 196–9). Here
our focus will be on the abstract.
Agent-Based Modeling (ABM) is one such method that has become increasingly
useful to scholars of IR, and which according to Checkel and Bennett (2015: 273) can
be used to explore the logic of specific causal mechanisms whose existence was first
suggested through process tracing research. ABM has been applied to a number of ques-
tions such as how ideas spread within a group or how social learning processes work
(Cederman, 2003; Rousseau and van der Veen, 2005: 686–712; Hoffman, 2008: 191–94;
Nome and Weidmann, 2013). ABM is also easily accessible through multi-agent program-
mable modelling environments, such as NetLogo.
ABM refers to computer-assisted mathematically-based simulation models that gen-
erate data on how agents interact within a given environment. In short, ABM helps you
to create a ‘virtual world of actors’ and to assign these agents specific characteristics and
rules (Earnest, 2008: 367). This allows for a more dynamic study of interactions than
a narrow focus on equilibrium solutions as provided by game theory (Earnest, 2008).
This data can be subjected to inductive analysis – recall the introduction to inductive
reasoning in Chapter 2. In this context, ABM does not start with a general statement or
hypothesis to be tested. Rather, ABM generates data about modelled behaviour under
certain rules and conditions from which conclusions can be drawn.
While on the one hand it relies on mathematical formal modelling, and thus could
warrant classification as a quantitative method, on the other, it does not deductively
prove theoretical propositions nor require the application of statistical tests to hypothe-
ses. Instead, it attempts to shed light on the qualities and meanings of social interaction
(Hoffman, 2008: 188). This is why Checkel and Bennett suggest that ABM can be cou-
pled with qualitative process-tracing in order to explore the logic of causal mechanisms
identified within a particular case study. An example of this kind of MMR application of
ABM is Nome and Wiedmann’s (2013: 173–202) use of ABM to confirm social learning
in civil wars as a causal mechanism, a mechanism that was initially identified through
process-tracing.
Mixed Methods and Interpretive Research

As noted earlier in this chapter, interpretive research projects also make use of MMR,
but not for the same research purpose of positivist work – causal inference. Nevertheless,
interpretive work is often empirically focused, making triangulation and convergent
mixed methods research of relevance to interpretive MMR. In addition, IR feminism, has
drawn our attention to the importance of positionality and reflexivity in research.
Positionality refers to how our own biography as a researcher impacts how we engage
with and make value judgments in our research, while reflexivity refers to critical reflec-
tion in our own biases and the biases we encounter in research.
Hesse-Biber (2012) explored how triangulation as a research design proved helpful
in advancing more critical research by helping to shed light on ‘subjugated knowledge’.
In this context, subjugated knowledge refers to knowledge that only comes to light
through triangulation. Hesse-Biber demonstrated this through the use of both quantitative
analysis of datasets and qualitative study of women’s experiences to highlight gendered
norms and power imbalances. She adopted an explicitly critical-emancipatory approach
to research and demonstrated how MMR could contribute to non-positivist research.
Often, data collection techniques limit the kind of data we accumulate. Quantitative
data collection and analysis techniques put an emphasis on minimizing bias in both
research design, and in the data we collect, which privileges the sanctity of the data
over taking into account other potentially relevant data points. For example, question-
naires with pre-selected responses cannot elicit ideas or insights from respondents that
the researcher wasn’t expecting to find. In this section, we will explore how quantitative
data can also serve as a starting point for asking interpretive questions about the meaning
of data. We also ask what is missing from the data.
McHenry (2015) pointed out how quantitative analysis of data on domestic protests
in India provided a tool that allowed for sophisticated statistical tests to be performed
for the purpose of cross-national comparison, but by coding complex social events like
protests into algebraic language we encounter problems of mistranslation and also the
inability to take into account local contexts that would help us better make sense of pro-
test events in India. Wilkinson (2015) also points to the limitations of statistical data in
the context of research on Kyrgyzstan. Specifically, statistical methods do not sufficiently
account for the potential for researcher bias, and may insufficiently consider quality con-
cerns about the quality of data collected. Such concerns included whether the researcher
collected the data mainly in the Kyrgyz capital, or, for example, whether the use of an
interpreter might have impacted their findings?
Wilkinson (2015) offers an example of the need for mixed methods: a set of statistical
data can be complemented with interpretive methods that provide greater prospect for
transparency and reflexivity on the part of the researcher in terms of just what their
data means.
A Practical Guide to Mixed Methods

Now that we have established what mixed methods are and their value, we can turn to
the mechanics of how to use mixed methods. As noted above, mixed methods research
can be used for research complementarity, triangulation, or gathering a more complete
body of data for your research. It can also be used to test the robustness of statistical find-
ings. Alternatively, mixed methods provide interpretive researchers with a starting point
to unpack statistical knowledge claims. If you are using mixed methods for complemen-
tarity, or to make up for another method’s weaknesses, you should select those methods
that are likely to fill those gaps in knowledge that you are aiming to address.
Alternatively, if you are using mixed methods for the purpose of triangulation, or
corroboration, you should focus on selecting methods based on which ones are most
likely to be mutually corroborative. For example, questionnaires and semi-structured

interviews may simply help you to gather more data but won’t necessarily help you trian-
gulate data. When attempting to triangulate data, you should look to your variables. Let’s
take the example of civil wars. If you have found a certain correlation in your quantita-
tive data that suggests a particular variable may cause a conflict, but you cannot make an
argument of causality on the correlation alone, as it may be spurious, you could look
for cases where both variables were present, and conduct an in-depth qualitative study
to see what, if any, processes link these two variables. Here, nested analysis may aid you
in your case selection.
Thinking about Data Collection for Mixed Methods Research

Not only is mixed methods a research design, as noted above, but it also manifests itself
in data collection. Here, you see how tools of data collection in Chapters 5 and 6 are not
mutually exclusive, you do not have to choose one or the other, but they can often be
used in conjunction with one another. In many instances, much of the necessary back-
ground data on our research participants that we would like to know for our research can
be more effectively collected through quantitative questionnaires; however, just because
you have selected a quantitative data collection technique, this does not preclude you
from also using qualitative techniques. Semi-structured interviews are aimed at elicit-
ing the perspectives and insights of our interview participants; however, in some cases
when interviewing large numbers of people in the same organization, you might want
to gather more information about your research participants. You might want to include
a questionnaire that records basic facts such as how long an individual has worked for
the organization, which are questions that are better placed in a questionnaire than an
interview in which you are attempting to initiate a more probing conversation.
A number of researchers have combined these two approaches in their research.
For example, Roman David (2010) uses both interview data and questionnaire data to
explore the social impact of lustration systems, or the vetting of public service workers
for association with human rights abuses, in Central and Eastern Europe. In the sub-field
of human rights, there are numerous examples of researchers who attempt to explain or
understand the complex social processes that constitute human rights through a number
of methods aimed at eliciting responses from either practitioners in the field of human
rights, or the broader public. Likewise, the combination of data collection techniques
has also been widely used in the field of comparative politics. The study of organizations
such as political parties, for example, often includes mixed method approaches to gather
a more complete picture of these complex social organizations.
In sum, mixed methods research can provide a set of tools for data collection and
data analysis that will allow you to either gain deeper insight into your research topic,
deepen your understanding of causal effects and processes, and allow you to subject your
hypotheses to more rigorous tests or to generate new hypotheses. In operationalizing
mixed methods research, either through the bringing together of data collection tools
(such as focus groups, interviews, or surveys) or analytical tools (such as triangulation,

process tracing, or modelling), it is important to have a clear idea as what you hope to
achieve through the use of mixed methods. In other words, it is essential to have a clearly
defined purpose that will guide you through the choices of which methods to select and
why. The mixed methods checklist below provides you with a few steps to consider when
designing your own mixed methods research project.
A Mixed Methods Research Checklist

1 Identify your purpose: what do you hope to gain from the use of mixed methods?
2 Select your mixed methods research design: what is your strategy for case selection
and data analysis?
3 Justify your selection of tools and cases: are you carrying out a study that aims to
triangulate data or are you undertaking a nested analysis?
4 Select your quantitative and qualitative tools and analysis pairings: Game theory and
process tracing? Statistical Analysis and process tracing?
5 Reflect on your findings: are there any observations that require further study or
explanation?
Multimethodology and Research Practice in IR

In the preceding sections of this chapter, you have been presented with a survey of how
to carry out mixed methods research. However, for the most part, you might have noticed
that these mixed methods operate within methodological groupings such as positivist or
interpretive, not across them. This means, for example, if you were to carry out an explan-
atory MMR project, you would mobilize both quantitative and qualitative tools within
a positivist project. But, what about conversations that cross methodological divides?
According to Beach and Kaas (2020), any attempt to carry out mixed methodological
research will be a ‘fata morgana, or mirage, as different methodologies have fundamen-
tally different epistemological and ontological assumptions which cannot be combined.
However, all is not lost, according to Beach and Kaas, who reach the conclusion that we
can, at least, acknowledge these fundamental distinctions, but there is scope for conver-
sation and learning across methodological divides. As an example, methods developed
within one methodological grouping could travel across methodological divides, such as
one could rely on interpretive concepts of positionality and reflexivity to improve the
quality of survey design for a positivist quantitative study (Beach and Kaas, 2020).
Likewise, when it comes to methodological pluralism, as described in Chapter 1, we
are reminded that we should evaluate research by its own methodological standards,
not by applying methodological standards from other methodologies. This means, for
example, we don’t evaluate interpretive work using positivist standards of case selection
and causal inference.
That being said, there are others aiming to challenge methodological factionalism, the
most prominent example being critical realism (Collier, 1994). Analytical eclecticism has
also been advanced as a means by which to reorient IR away from a focus on theoretical-isms
debates and towards more practical policy focused questions (Chernoff, 2005).
Bashkar (Collier, 1994), Chernoff (2005) and Jackson (2016) have come to different
answers to the question of how to balance calls for methodological uniformity and diver-
sity, which will be briefly sketched below. However, here I would like to note that this
is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion of philosophy of science debates in IR, but
rather a point of departure for making sense of complex and nuanced methodological
debates.
Critical Realism
Wendt (1998) brought Bashkar’s critical realism into the mainstream of IR meth-
odological debates by framing critical realism as a middle ground between positivism
and interpretivism. This attempt was achieved largely by attempting to shift the focus
of methodological concern away from epistemological concerns, or standards of how
to do research, and move more towards a questioning ontology – the making of the
social world.
Note, what is being referred to here has no relation to the IR theory of realism, but
instead relates to realism as a philosophy of social science, whereby a distinction is made
between the real world, which is unobservable, and the observable world, which is con-
structed through our experience and understanding of observable phenomena. Thus,
the basic premise of critical realism is that there is a real world out there, but it is our
understanding what makes up this world, ontology, which has primacy over positivist
criteria we use to evaluate useful knowledge, epistemology (Wendt, 1998: 115). This means
that you will encounter terms like constitutive analysis, which focuses on uncovering
the properties of the material world that we study, such as for example exploring the
question what is the European Union? Is it a federation of states, or a deeply integrated
international organization? Such constitutive questions, according to Wendt, are more
than descriptive but they are explanatory as well since they give us insight into both
what kind of actor the EU is and how the EU behaves.
Critical realism also takes a broader view of how we can conduct causal analysis
in IR. While for positivists causality is about explaining the relationship between two
variables, such as A causes B, Kurki (2008) notes that there is no reason to restrict causal
claims to such forms of analysis and instead offers a broader template for how to study
causality. Indeed, much of the post-positivist critique levelled against causal research
targets this narrow view of causality; however, Kurki (2007, 2008) argues that ontolog-
ical explorations of concepts, ideas, and discourses can provide deeper causal accounts
that do not rely on demonstrating regularly observed correlations between two defined
variables. In sum, because critical realists and positivists agree on there being a world
out there that is the focus of study, critical realism offers a middle ground between
positivist and interpretive approaches to research in IR. Kurki, Wendt and Bashkar have
provided a vocabulary through which you can think about doing causal research that
does not take on board the epistemological assumptions of positivism.
Analytic Eclecticism
In addition to critical realism offering tools for non-positivist causal research, others,
such as Chernoff (2005), have advanced a pragmatic non-epistemologically-driven
approach to methodology. Here our point of departure is an assumption that rather than
seeing epistemology as an identity you must adopt it as a researcher, we should instead
start from an acknowledgement that every question we ask is perhaps not best answered
with a single strategy for data collection and analysis. Instead, our starting point should
be an acknowledgement that different questions lend themselves to different methods,
techniques and theories (Chernoff, 2005: 216).
This acknowledgement that different questions lend themselves to different ways of
doing research breaks from attempts to impose a single unified methodology upon all
IR research, whether positivist or interpretive. To do this, Chernoff (2005) makes the
case for analytic eclecticism that advances a pragmatic use of methods, techniques,
and theories that will vary on the basis of the real-world question that is posed. This
manifests itself in research not in terms of attempting to uncover generalizable laws (pos-
itivism), but rather by zooming in on a particular case and providing a systemic study
that accounts for a single analytic narrative (Jackson, 2016: 126).
Evaluating Research and Multimethodology

While analytical eclecticism does open the door to mixed methods research, through its
openness to different means of going about telling an analytical story about a particular
case, Jackson pushes this door further ajar in arguing for a ‘post-foundational’ IR where
‘[…] we as a field abandon the futile question to articulate a single consistent basis on
which to produce knowledge’ (2016: 210). According to Jackson, there are three basic
requirements of research in IR, and they span all methodologies discussed in this book.
Research should be: 1) systematic, 2) open to public criticism, and 3) aimed at producing
worldly knowledge (2016: 216).
What Jackson means by systemic is that you must be explicit about your presuppo-
sitions and conclusions. When we get to the writing up in Chapter 12, you will see that
you will need to state this explicitly in the methodology part of your own paper. If we are
to be able to evaluate how systematic the research is, we must also meet the next criteria,
which is for the research to be open to public criticism.
Jackson shows that to achieve this, the research must be transparent and explicit in
terms of any methodological assumptions and research design, as well as the use and
understanding of key terms and concepts. For example, if making use of a concept like
causality, it must be understandable and traceable as to how you define causality. If the
ways disseminated research engages with key concepts is not transparent, it limits the
ability of readers to constructively engage with your work so as to improve it.
And finally, the last of the three criteria restricts research in IR to the realm of worldly
knowledge as opposed to something beyond or outside of it (Jackson, 2016: 213–15).
Although IR is a broad discipline that includes many different research questions, the
focus of our study is grounded in real world events or artefacts of human interactions as
opposed to purely theological or imagined research subjects.
With these three broad criteria in mind, you should now have a better perspective on
how and why IR is a field of study that is open to fundamentally distinct types of research
questions, each of which lends itself to different ways of responding to questions that
are systemic, open to public criticism, and also focused on knowledge about the world
we inhabit.
Thinking about Methodology in IR Research Practice

1 Always be explicit about your methodological assumptions – what standards of logic
and evidence do you want your reader to evaluate your work against?
2 Be consistent – whether starting from a positivist or interpretive position, make sure
that your study is internally coherent in terms of how you analyze your data (quan-
titative, qualitative, or mixed methods) and also the claims that you make (causal
arguments, generalizability, meaning, ethical or moral standards).
Chapter Summary
The diversity in methods and methodologies in IR does not mean ‘anything goes’ in
terms of research design and research methods. Whatever your project, your research
purpose will need to be consistent with your research design, and with your methods.
You also need to remember to make your methodological stance explicit.
Mixed methods research is a recognized third pillar of research methods. Researchers
who employ mixed methods reject the more rigid conceptualizations of qualitative and
quantitative methods as containing mutually exclusive assumptions about how to under-
stand the world. When using mixed methods, conclusions from your research can either
be broadened, that is complemented, by the use of a second method, or mixed methods
can be used to triangulate data where there is some doubt over validity, and where the
project would benefit from a more holistic body of data.
There are distinct ways of designing your MMR study that include convergent mixed
methods, explanatory sequential research, and exploratory sequential research. When
thinking about your MMR design, you will also need to consider the logic of your case
selection, when considering which qualitative case you want to explore in conjunc-
tion with your quantitative data and analysis. Strategies for MMR qualitative case study
design include triangulation and nested analysis. When carrying out MMR analysis,
you may find yourself making use of process tracing, quasi-experimental research, or
simulation modelling. Moreover, we also explored MMR in the context of positivist and
interpretive research.
Most mixed method research is conducted within a single methodological paradigm
(either positivism or interpretivism). However, attempts have been made to bridge meth-
odological divides. Critical Realism was discussed as a prominent example. Another
attempt to shift the focus of study away from IR theory’s isms was discussed in analytical
eclecticism. Both methodologies seek to bridge the positivism/interpretivism divides in
different ways, critical realism does so metatheoretically, by trying to move methodolog-
ical debates away from a preoccupation with epistemology. Analytical eclecticism does
this more pragmatically by shifting our focus back to using methods tools to answer real
world policy questions. Each one of these has its own internal logic that was set out at
the end of this chapter. Remember that whatever your methodological assumptions, it is
important to always make them explicit in your own research.

1 This article provides an exploration of mixed methods research in the context
of quantitative and qualitative methods: Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and
Turner, L.A. (2007) ‘Toward a definition of mixed methods research’, Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2): 112–33.
2 This article provides an accessible example of MMR research that combines
quantitative analysis with a qualitative case study that makes use of process tracing
to help provide evidence of a specific causal mechanism at work: Holtermann,
H. (2019) ‘Diversionary rebel violence in territorial civil war’, International Studies
Quarterly, 63 (2): 215–30.
3 This article demonstrates how qualitative process tracing can provide a means to test
game theoretical arguments: Kuehn, D. (2013) ‘Combining game theory models and
process tracing: Potential and limits’, European Political Science, 12: 52–63.
4 See the following article for a critique of attempts to create real world empirical
models through simulation modeling: Pepinsky, T.B. (2005) ‘From agents to
outcomes: Simulation in International Relations’, European Journal of International
Relations, 11 (3): 267–394.
5 Thaler explores how studies of violence and conflict can benefit from MMR and
how MMR can improve theorizing and empirical studies within conflict studies:
Thaler, K.M. (2017) ‘Mixed methods research in the study of political and social
violence and conflict’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11 (1): 59–76.
6 This article explores how a rigid focus on epistemological standard setting is
limiting research in IR: Wight, C. (2019) ‘Bringing the outside in: The limits of
theoretical fragmentation and pluralism in IR theory’, Politics, 39 (1): 64–81.
EIGHT
FIELDWORK IN
learning objectives
• Identify and explain commonly used fieldwork activities

• Understand controversies regarding fieldwork with special attention to its potential
advantages and limitations
• Explain and justify why fieldwork might be necessary for a research project
• Explain strategies for securing access to research participants
• Understand the importance of ethics and consent in fieldwork
Fieldwork has assumed an increasingly prominent role in IR research agendas over the
last two decades. The move away from state-centric approaches to make sense of interna-
tional politics has brought about a richer understanding of a wide range of social actors
that include local communities, non-governmental organizations, non-state armed
groups, or individuals. Fieldwork has featured prominently in post-conflict peacebuild-
ing (Richmond, 2012), critical migration and border studies (Innes, 2015), and security
studies (Ochs, 2011), among many other subfields in IR.
Today, fieldwork has firmly established itself as a widely used method in IR. Whether
engaging with elites in halls of power (Nair, 2021), or trying to make sense of ‘everyday’
encounters with IR (Mac Ginty, 2014), which at times might require researchers to gain
a deeper understanding of how various aspects of IR are experienced on the ground
(Garcés-Mascareñas, 2015), fieldwork tools, once more widely associated with ethnogra-
phers are now more commonplace in IR (MacKay and Levin, 2015). Moreover, case study
methods in IR relies on process tracing, the identification of causal mechanisms, and
historical contextualization, all of which require in-depth knowledge of research sites in
order to explore contextually rich primary source material.
While fieldwork has long been at the core of ethnographic, anthropological and even
comparative politics research methods, for scholars and students of IR, the high level of
abstraction and state-centricity in IR theory has, in the past, left subaltern discourses, the
role of non-state actors, or decision-making processes within international organizations
out of focus. As part of feminist IR’s challenge to these dominant state-centric paradigms
and ways of understanding the world, scholars such as Jacoby (2006) called for greater
attentiveness to how IR is lived and experienced. In many respects, much of the field-
work we see today in IR can be seen as a response to this call to study how IR is lived and
experienced, either by elites who are involved in decision-making processes, or by those
whose lives and everyday experiences are shaped by these decisions.
Nevertheless, despite the proliferation of research agendas that seek to understand
international organized crime (Lampe, 2012), trafficking (Kupatadze, 2010), terrorist
finance (Wittig, 2011), human rights activism (Kurze and Vukušić, 2012), among other
field intensive agendas, IR methods training has been slow to provide students with
guidance on how to go about conducting fieldwork. To be sure, by this point of the
book, you are now familiar with a wide range of qualitative and quantitative data col-
lection techniques, but these techniques require access and also trust among those who
will participate in your research. Moreover, what about some of the challenges faced
by researchers working in more difficult environments when it comes to carrying out
surveys, questionnaires and interviews?
This chapter provides a survey guide to the fieldwork process that will first address the
question of what is meant by fieldwork and introduce you to some of the tools of field-
work. Second, the chapter will reflect on some ethical considerations that you should
take into account before carrying out your own fieldwork. Following this we will reflect
on the question of why you might want to conduct fieldwork. This will be followed by a
hands-on practical guide to fieldwork that will provide guidance on access and method.
Fieldwork in International Relations 161
Following the preparatory steps outlined in this chapter can help you to make field-
work a more rewarding process; however, you will quickly learn that when planning
and carrying out interviews, focus groups or other forms of research that require you
to interact with people in order to collect new data, you will have to be flexible and
accommodating toward those who have chosen to participate in your research project.
Indeed, don’t let unexpected changes to your well laid plans discourage you. Fieldwork is
a process through which you will learn a great deal about your topic and also those who
you will interact with during the course of your research.
What is Fieldwork?
Fieldwork in IR involves gathering primary data and can include a wide range of quali-
tative and quantitative tools ranging from interviews to surveys. Fieldwork in a broad
sense of the term refers to the process of collecting primary data, either through accessing
primary source documents and other artefacts of human life such as physical spaces and
monuments, or through conducting interviews, participant observation, questionnaires,
surveys or other methods aimed at eliciting responses from human subjects.
Table 8.1 outlines the many different field research activities that are commonly
used by IR researchers. While much of this chapter will provide you with examples of
challenges faced by researchers when carrying out these activities outside of their home
countries, field research does not only refer to research that requires you to travel to
another country or region. In fact, many of our first experiences doing fieldwork will
be on projects that have us interact with research participants much closer to home.
Furthermore, digital fieldwork, which relies on digital tools and sources for data collec-
tion and analysis, saw growing application even before the COVID-19 pandemic made
physical field site visits impossible for many researchers (Fielding et al., 2016).
To be sure, all of the field research activities set out in Table 8.1 are not geograph-
ically restricted to any particular location, and you can even carry out many of these
activities in the halls of your own university. In short, fieldwork, does not imply a spe-
cific geographic location or context, but it simply describes the broad range of activities
carried out with the aim of gathering primary data through human subjects, archival
documents, or other physical artefacts.
While you will notice that the fieldwork activities described above were presented
in previous chapters as qualitative and quantitative data techniques, such activities are
never carried out in a laboratory-like setting and require a certain degree of flexibility,
and often trial and error – I will say more about this later in the chapter. But, first, exem-
plary pieces of research highlighted in Table 8.1 provide you with examples of archival
research (Vigneswaran, 2020), participant observation (Nair, 2021), semi-structured
interviews (Bode, 2020), focus groups (Zvogbo, 2020) and survey research (Li et al., 2016).
Vigneswaran (2020) draws upon archival sources to challenge the Euro-centric his-
toriography that locates the emergence of the territorial state in Europe, before being
Table 8.1 Fieldwork Activities
Fieldwork Activities Examples Exemplary Research

Archival research – •• Personal documents: diaries, Archival Research: Darshan
Primary source letters, correspondences, Vigneswaran, (2020) ‘Europe has
documents autobiographies never been modern: Recasting
•• Official (state) documents: meeting historical narratives of migration
records, legislative debates, control’, International Political
legislation, executive orders, Sociology.
official statistics, records, etc.
•• Official (corporate/business)
documents
•• Official (other) documents: non-
state armed groups, political party
archives
Participant •• Overt/Covert observation ‘Hanging Out’: Deepak
Observation •• ‘Hanging Out’ Nair, (2020) ‘“Hanging out”
while studying “up”: Doing
ethnographic fieldwork in
International Relations’,
International Studies Review.
Interviews •• Structured, Semi-structured, Semi-Structured interviews: Ingvild
non-structured, one-on-one Bode (2020) ‘Women or leaders?
conversation Practices of narrating the United
Nations as a gendered institution’
International Studies Review
Focus Groups •• Group interview Focus Groups: Kelebogile
Zvobgo (2020) ‘Demanding truth:
The Global Transitional Justice
Network and the creation of
truth commissions’, International
Studies Quarterly.
Questionnaires & •• Structured interviews Surveys: Xiaojun Li et al. (2016)
Surveys •• Surveys ‘Chinese citizens’ trust in Japan
•• Self-completion questionnaires and South Korea: ‘Findings from
a four-city survey’, International
Studies Quarterly.
Digital Fieldwork •• Online data collection Digital textual analysis:
•• Online Surveys Florian Schneider (2018)
•• Digital textual analysis ‘Mediated massacre: Digital
•• Online interviews nationalism and history discourse
on China’s web’, The Journal of
Asian Studies.
extended to other parts of the world. Archival research refers to research that relies on
the collection of primary source documents that can be drawn from a variety of sources.
Through archival research Vigneswaran finds that non-European states were the first to
deploy territorial immigration controls, which were later adopted by European states.
Nair (2021) proposes ‘hanging out’ as an alternative technique to more structured pro-
cesses of interviews and participant observation. While an example of interview research
will be presented below, participant observation refers to a widely used ethnographic tech-
nique whereby a researcher observes a community under study in their own environment.
Nair’s ‘hanging out’ could be seen as a form of participant observation, albeit a less struc-
tured one, where the aim is to socially engage with research participants rather than to
strictly observe. Through a five year study of the Association of South East Asian Nations,
Nair highlights how hanging out, or more specifically, a strategy whereby a researcher
commits to a period of continuous residence amid members of an occupational or kin
community and uses this period of residency to engage in social, informal and other
interactions on the sidelines of professional engagements to build rapport, can be used as
a technique to study the practices of diplomats and elites in international affairs.
Turning to fieldwork and interviews, Bode (2020) carried out five semi-structured
interviews with women working in leadership positions at the United Nations in order
to explore impediments to gender parity within the UN. Drawing upon these semi-
structured interviews, Bode was able to explicate practices at work that hinder gender
inequality at the UN. We will discuss interview research in more detail in Chapter 9.
Meanwhile, Zvogbo (2020) drew on two focus groups, one made up of Argentinian
human rights advocates and another focus group made of leadership and senior staff of a
leading transitional justice NGO to explore the questions of why truth commissions are
established in some contexts and not in others and why some truth commissions have
strong investigatory powers, while other commission do not. Focus groups, as you will
recall from Chapter 5, are a form of group interview. Focus groups are led by a moderator
and can, as noted above, prove helpful in eliciting specific insight into perceptions and
processes from participants.
Li et al. (2016) surveyed urban residents of four Chinese cities in order to explore
Chinese urban residents’ views on South Korea and Japan. When conducting surveys as
part of your fieldwork, you will have to be open about many of the limitations and chal-
lenges you will face in terms of sampling and collecting data. Nonetheless, survey-based
fieldwork can provide important insights. Li et al. argued that their survey data showed
how, contrary to popular belief, nationalism and historic memory had no effect on
international trust.
Finally, digital fieldwork can now encompass some of the aforementioned activities
as digital platforms such as Zoom or Skype can give researchers access to potential inter-
view subjects or other research participants without ever leaving home. In addition to this,
advances in digital technologies mean that more and more of our daily routines take place
in digital spaces, whether on social media networks or online forums. These online forums
create opportunities for digital research on these spaces, such as Schneider’s 2018 study
of the 1937 Nanjing massacre, which draws upon data gathered from online forums in
China. While digital research will not be able to replace analogue fieldwork, digital spaces
have created new windows into issues that researchers can access to gain new insights into
how digital spaces have become increasingly important sites of social and political activity.
As you will gather from these exemplary pieces, fieldwork opens up many possibilities
for research in IR; however, fieldwork has not been without controversy.
Fieldwork in IR: Ethical Considerations

Fieldwork’s increased prominence in IR has opened up a debate on how fieldwork can be
seen as either emancipatory in potential (Jacoby, 2006; Puri and Castillo, 2016) or poten-
tially contributing to academic extractivist (Cruz and Luke, 2020), or neo-colonialist
(Routley and Wright, 2021) projects through the reproduction of unequal relationships
between researchers from the Global North, and research participants who in some cases
might reside in conflict-affected states (Cronin-Furman and Lake, 2018).
IR’s preoccupations with great power politics that were dominant in the twentieth
century tended to privilege the state as the primary unit of analysis and defined secu-
rity in the context of the state, not individuals. Moreover, grand theoretical projects,
such as neo-realism and neo-liberalism, valued abstraction over deep description and
contextualization. This left little room for the types of fieldwork that were being carried
out in adjacent fields like comparative politics. Typical fieldwork activities noted in the
previous section did not comfortably sit with a discipline that valued generalization over
contextualization.
However, feminist scholarship challenged the discipline’s narrow methodological and
conceptual focus and advanced more ways of doing IR research, which included field-
work (Jacoby, 2006). Indeed, Jacoby highlighted through fieldwork in Israel/Palestine
that mainstream understandings of security as state security in IR did not address wom-
en’s experiences of insecurity (Jacoby, 2006).
On the other hand, fieldwork has been implicated in past practices of colonial knowl-
edge production whereby scholars from the Global North treated much of the world as
spaces for knowledge extraction that otherized (Said, 1977) and exoticisized (Briggs and
Sharp, 2004: 673) those subjected to colonial rule. Moreover, Spivak (1988) reminds us
of how even critical projects maintain the West’s privileged place in knowledge produc-
tion. However, rather than abandon fieldwork, Briggs and Sharp (2004) argue fieldwork
is necessary for the de-centring of western centrism through its inclusion of local voices
and priorities. Indeed, as Jacoby (2006) points out, fieldwork builds our own attentive-
ness to who we are as researchers and how we relate and interact with our research
participants. Fieldwork should not be approached from the perspective of simply trying
to extract as much data as possible from the field, but rather it should be approached as
a mutually constitutive process in which the research participants exercise agency. How
to do this will be examined later in this chapter where some of the practical questions
of how to do fieldwork will be addressed. However, before turning to this question, we
must first ask ourselves why we believe fieldwork is necessary for our project.
Why Fieldwork?
Many of our research questions will require us to gather in-depth and contextually rich
information about our research topics. We might be engaged in process tracing, identify-
ing causal mechanisms, examining narratives, or identifying unequal power relations
at work. Such interests will require us to zoom into particular issue areas, regions, countries,
or communities. What brought about indigenous uprisings in Chiapas, Mexico? Why do
some people celebrate individuals convicted of war crimes as national heroes? How
do human rights defenders organize in authoritarian settings? What does the decision-
making process look like within a particular state or international organization? These
are just a few questions where some form of fieldwork could prove helpful.
Recall process tracing, which was presented to you in Chapter 5. Here you will be
looking for qualitative data, drawn from interviews, media, or archives, to confirm or
disprove a particular causal mechanism at work. How will you gather this kind of data?
You might need to interview those who were involved in a particular decision-making
process under study. Alternatively, you can look for public pronouncements of public
figures such as speeches or press conferences. In some cases, you might be able access
archival data that will shed light on internal discussions relevant to your process.
Moreover, if your question aims to provide some form of discourse analysis regard-
ing a particular event or practice, you might benefit from talking to those who might
have first-hand knowledge of what you are exploring. And, as Bode (2020) did in our
exemplary study, analyze discourse from semi-structured interview transcripts. Also, if
you want to learn more about how individuals or groups perceive specific issues, con-
cepts, or practices, as Sokolić (2019) did in his study of war memory in Croatia, engaging
with those whose perceptions you want to know more about could be very illuminating.
In addition to the type of question your research question and research design
attempt to answer, you will want to consider the extent to which there is published
scholarship or data that addresses, or is relevant, to your topic. In some cases, fieldwork
can address gaps in existing work, although this can pose a significant challenge. For
example, Kukhiandze et al. noted this when they embarked on their study of smuggling
in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali. They observed:
No branch of the Georgian government has enough statistical or analytical

data on the socio-economic situation in the breakaway republics. The statistical
agencies of the self-proclaimed republics also do not possess exact information
on economic activities in their region (2004: 8).
Another researcher encountered a similar challenge when researching terrorist finance

along the Georgia-Chechnya border. Wittig pointed out:
Generally speaking, conducting empirical research of terrorist financing is

very difficult, given that primary documentary evidence is acutely rare, and
interviewing those involved or suspected to be involved in financing terrorist
actors are, unsurprisingly, reluctant to speak to researchers (2009: 249).
In addition, in relation to my own research on state cooperation with international crim-

inal tribunal orders, carried out from 2005 until 2008, information on arrests and trans-
fers of war crimes suspects to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
custody was readily available, but there was at the time comparatively little data on
the underlying motivations and processes that led states to comply or not comply with
Tribunal orders (Lamont, 2010). Through fieldwork in the former Yugoslavia that com-
bined interviews, local media sources, primary source documents, and the statements
and speeches of public officials, I was able to learn more about the processes that led to
compliance in six former Yugoslav states (Lamont, 2010).
There are two options when primary source documentation is not readily available.
The first would be to search for secondary source literature, such as local news reports,
which can often prove unreliable, but still helpful in giving you a sense of what is out
there. Through desk-based digital research, you can access a wide range of sources in
almost any country. Digital news portals and digital archives are increasingly common
and can provide a valuable tool through which you can learn more about your topic.
The second option would be to interview those involved in the processes that are under
study. This will be addressed more in the following section.
Finally, many contributions from the field offer insights that would be impossible to
produce without having experienced the field. A seminal example Clifford Geertz’s work
on Balinese cockfights (1972). Don’t underestimate the value of your everyday interac-
tions at your field site. You can learn a lot from them.
In sum, more often than not, the types of research questions that are of interest to
us cannot be answered without some form of fieldwork. Thus, field research is not just
the domain of area studies scholars or ethnographers, but it is also increasingly a core
component of IR research practice. Now that we have highlighted some of the reasons
why you might want to consider fieldwork, we can now turn to the question of how to
do fieldwork.
Practical Considerations for Fieldwork

Despite the fact most research projects require a substantial amount of time spent outside
of the halls of a university to gather primary data, students often embark on their own
field research with very little or no prior training as to what to expect and the challenges
they are likely to face (Mertus, 2009: 1). While some recent texts have sought to address
challenges of doing fieldwork in difficult environments in particular (Bliesemann de
Guevara and Boas, 2021; Mac Ginty et al., 2021), fieldwork can be carried out in a wide
range of contexts that will present you with their own unique challenges.
Keeping in mind that since fieldwork comes in many different forms, there are several
general questions that you will want to consider. These relate to common practical, eth-
ical and sometimes security considerations that you might face in relation to both field
access and field research operationalization.
Before continuing with the process of planning your fieldwork you should take a
minute to consider the questions in Table 8.2. As a general checklist, you will want to
make sure that you have clearly established the purpose of your fieldwork and who you
Table 8.2 Field Research: Practical, Ethical and Security Considerations
Practical Ethical Security

•• What questions should I •• Have I secured (or do I •• Is my field site in an insecure
ask? What are the gaps in need) ethical approval from environment?
knowledge? my home institution? •• What does my home
•• Who do I need to talk to? •• Will my research involve the country’s embassy advise in
•• How do I get access to participation of vulnerable relation to travel to my field
them? adults or children? site?
•• Do I need official permission •• Will I secure the informed •• Is my field site in a
to conduct research at consent of all research conflict or post-conflict
my field site? (visa, official participants? environment?
permission to conduct •• What steps will I take to •• How am I, and my research
research in a particular protect the anonymity of project, likely to be
jurisdiction) research participants? perceived by those on site?
•• Does my research have the
potential to result in harm
to research participants?
aim to engage with in your fieldwork. This is essential for the next step, which would
be to secure institutional permission to carry out fieldwork. In Chapter 3, on research
ethics, you were introduced to guiding principles of work involving human subjects
such as ‘do no harm’ to those who you interact with during the course of your research.
Here, there is an additional concern that will be weighed, that of harm that you might
expose yourself to during the course of your research. While different institutions have
different standards and protocols when it comes to fieldwork, all institutions share
a duty of care for affiliated researchers (Russo and Strazzari, 2020). While Russo and
Strazzari caution against an overbearing application of duty of care considerations for
researchers, as fieldwork is a dynamic process and not amenable to the types of risk
assessments that guide corporate or diplomatic missions (2020), you should familiar-
ize yourself with the types of challenges you might encounter at your field site. For
example, Norman (2009: 79) highlighted how in some contexts, fieldwork activities
presented in Table 8.1, such as focus groups, can constitute high risk environments
and be targeted by either government security services in politically unsettled territories
or by armed groups in conflict zones.
Not only should you ensure that your field research is well planned in terms of prac-
tical matters, and that you have secured ethical permission from your own institution’s
relevant ethical review board, but you should be aware of how your research is likely to
be perceived within the community where you will carry out your research. Whether that
community is a neighbourhood close to home or a conflict environment, you should be
aware that you, as a researcher, are not likely to be perceived as neutral.
This perception of you as not being neutral is something that might come as a sur-
prise, but it is important to understand that such perceptions might result in denial
of entry to countries where you might wish to carry out fieldwork. However, experi-
ences vary widely, and often it is those scholars who live and work in more authoritarian
settings who are subjected to a greater degree of surveillance and or repressive measures
than scholars from abroad (Greitens and Truex, 2020).
In addition, your own personal biography can establish an implicit or perceived
unequal power relationship between you and those who you wish to engage with in
your research. In other cases, biographical information as seemingly trivial as the nation-
ality of a spouse or partner can cause research participants to fear your motivations for
conducting research in their communities (Jacoby, 2006).
Doing Fieldwork: Access and Trust

Each of those fieldwork activities presented at the outset of this chapter will require you
to secure some form of access. As with any other social activity, you will encounter gate-
keepers and facilitators who will be able to either open doors to you, or make your task
of securing access more difficult. Often securing access requires both a clear idea of the
kind of primary data you wish to gather and a detailed knowledge of the group, organ-
ization, or institution that you are approaching. Often one of the first points of contact
when approaching an international organization, a large NGO, foreign ministry or polit-
ical party is an official spokesperson. While a spokesperson can be helpful in providing
you with an overview of a particular organization and its official positions on issues,
for process tracing research you will want to talk to those who are, or were, in decision-
making roles within a particular organization. Sometimes interviews with spokespersons
can prove disappointing and may leave you feeling like you gained little more knowledge
than was already publicly available on an organization’s website.
Access is a question that is also relevant for those doing archival fieldwork. Sometimes
denial of access to archives can occur because gatekeepers might simply not want you
to access their archives. Subotić (2020) described the challenge of being denied access to
archives in Serbia and in Lithuania. These archives that Subotić hoped to access were man-
aged by a leadership that embraced narratives of the past which would be challenged by
Subotić’s research on holocaust remembrance in post-communist Europe. However, Subotić
pointed out that this denial of access was remedied by accessing information through alter-
native archives and also turning this denial of access into a ‘data point’ in her own research.
While in some cases, denial of access can occur because institutions that have an inter-
est in concealment or which consider your research agenda to be something that might
cause some degree of embarrassment to an institution, in other cases, access can be more
readily acquired if you can demonstrate a good knowledge of those working within the
organization that you are approaching and its internal structure. For example, if you are
researching the International Criminal Court it is important to understand the Court is
divided into distinct sections: the Office of the Prosecutor, the Registry, and the Judicial
Chambers. Asking someone from Registry about prosecutorial decisions will either elicit
a response that might not be informed or suggest to your interview subject a lack of
familiarity with the Court.
Once you have established access, you will also need to build trust. Trust can some-
times be challenging to establish in the context of short field visits, but you will need
interlocutors who will be able to assist you with tasks such as sending out your survey to
an internal email list within an organization, identifying colleagues for participation in
your focus groups, or identifying colleagues who you might consider interviewing.
Once you have established with whom you will want to engage with in your field-
work, you can begin reaching out to potential research participants. One thing to always
keep in mind when making such requests is that whether you’re asking someone to
complete or survey or participate in an interview, our research participants are likely
very busy and may not fully understand why participating in your fieldwork is a good
use of their time. While access can be difficult even for an established scholar, you
can start by asking your thesis or dissertation supervisor as to whether or not they can
provide assistance in providing introductions to individuals working in relevant inter-
national organizations, foreign ministries, NGOs, academic institutions, or living in or
near the site of your proposed field research.
Snowball Sampling and Fieldwork

Another access strategy is that of snowball sampling or relying on the first individuals
you meet in the field to introduce you to other potential interview subjects, who will in
turn introduce you to others (Jacobsen and Landau, 2003: 195–6). While this is a common
field research strategy, there are methodological drawbacks to such an approach that you
should be aware of. In particular, snowball sampling locks you into a particular social or
professional network, which generates a sample bias (Jacobsen and Landau, 2003: 196).
This includes both internal risks such as sharing information among respondents, such
as from whom you received the name of your interview contact (Jacobsen and Landau,
2003: 196). and external risks, such as any published research resulting from the field
research only capturing a snapshot of the activities and practices of a particular group or
social network (Norman, 2009: 79–80).
Thus snowballing, while a highly effective means of gaining access to a particular net-
work within a short period of time, can very easily result in sample bias. Take for example a
field research project on civil society in a post-conflict country. You travel to the site of your
research, and your first contact is a member of a large human rights NGO, NGO A. This
contact introduces you to colleagues both within NGO A and colleagues from other NGOs
that NGO A routinely works with: NGO B, NGO C, and NGO D. You then return from the
field with a wealth of information on NGOs A, B, C, and D. However, when you turn to
writing about your research findings, you might make conclusions about civil society more
broadly in your country of study only to later discover that your conclusions failed to take
into account the perspectives of other NGOs, E, F, and G, which held opposing political
views to the NGO network that you studied. While this sample bias was almost unavoid-
able, you can guard against accusations of misrepresentation by acknowledging how you
gained access to your particular NGO community and the limited number of NGO activists
interviewed, and by not suggesting your findings speak for civil society as a whole within
the country where you carried out your fieldwork.
In addition, the more background research on your topic that you conduct before
setting out on field research, the more you will be aware of the potential limitations of
snowball sampling. In conflict and post-conflict settings, being too closely identified
with a particular group may not only narrow your findings, but close off access to other
groups. Knowing with whom you are talking and how they are perceived on the ground
is of utmost importance.
In sum, at the outset of the fieldwork process it is extremely important that you first
have a clear idea of what kind of data you are looking for, and what kinds of field research
activities you will be able to carry out. You also need to have acquired a familiarity with
either the geographic, cultural, and political setting in which your field research will take
place, or the organization that you are approaching. While the contents of interviews or
archival documents may surprise you once you are in the field, you should have a clear
idea of the types of questions you aim to ask of what documents you aim to access before
you embark on the field research process.
Fieldwork and Informed Consent

As noted earlier in this chapter, most universities will require you to secure ethics per-
mission before carrying out any form of fieldwork. Because different institutions have
different requirements and expectations for ethics approval, you should consult your
supervisor about this process as soon as you have decided to carry out fieldwork. You
will need to carefully consider who you expect to participate in your research and how
you will ensure that no harm will result from their participation in your fieldwork. The
primary purpose of this ethical review process was highlighted in Chapter 3, and is cen-
tred on ensuring that no harm will inflicted upon your research participants as a result
of their participation in your fieldwork. As noted in Chapter 3, harm does not just mean
physical harm, but can also include professional harm or psychological harm.
It is in this context that you will need to secure the informed consent of partici-
pants. Research participants must understand that they are voluntarily participating in
academic research, and that they are at any time free to withdraw from participation.
Remember, that when it comes to fieldwork, there can be an implicit power relationship
between a researcher and research participant. In this situation, researchers should take
extra care to make sure research participants do not feel coerced to participate in research.
In some cases, asking for informed consent can feel awkward, particularly in settings
where individuals might not be familiar with this kind of research practice. In this case,
you will need to explain the significance of informed consent. Remember, collecting
information through deceit, or without the consent of participants, is unethical and can
result in severe reputational and professional damage to the researcher and may also
harm the unknowing participant.
At times, securing this permission might be difficult, as transparency about research-

ing sensitive topics could lead to the denial of access to a field site by a state authority or
outright denial of entry to a country through the denial of entry visas. Norman acknowl-
edged these challenges when reflecting upon her research in Palestine where Israeli
authorities could act to deny entry to foreign researchers who sought to carry out field-
work in Palestine (2009); however, Norman also pointed out that while it might be seen
as easier to disguise one’s intentions, failing to disclose what you are doing could bring
harm upon yourself and your research participants. Moreover, lying about what you are
doing could also violate your own university’s ethics codes (Norman, 2009: 74–5).
Although there are certain instances where individual researchers have argued that
disguising one’s status as a researcher is necessary for gaining access to potential research
participants, particularly when working on topics related to illicit activities (Kukianidze
et al., 2004), generally such research designs would entail unacceptably high risk for
both researchers and research participants and would therefore be unlikely to be granted
ethical approval.
The most common field research activity that involves human subjects in IR is likely
that of interviewing, which will be explored in much greater detail in Chapter 9. Once
you know who you are going interview and what type of interview you will carry out
(structured, semi-structured, or non-structured) (Leech, 2002), it is important that you
fully inform your interview participants about the nature and purpose of your research.
In order to be sure that you are doing this, there are two things you should prepare before
departure, a research summary and an interview consent form. Your research summary
is a short description of your research, which is understandable and accessible to a non-
specialist audience. If necessary you should translate this document into the language(s)
of those who will be participating in your research. In this short description of your
research you should include the following information:
• A brief summary of your research project

• Your institutional or professional affiliation
• Who is funding your research
• How you will use the findings (in published research?)
This research summary can be provided in advance of your interviews via email, par-
ticularly if you are contacting potential interview participants through this medium.
Otherwise, you should schedule some time at the beginning of your interview to allow
the interview participant to read your research summary and ask you questions about the
purpose of your research and how the findings are likely to be used.
The second important document you should prepare before departure is your
Interview Consent Form, which provides an important record of informed consent
that you will need to maintain with your research material and may be requested as
part of your own institution’s fieldwork ethics approval process. An Interview Consent
Form provides two important functions. First, it ensures you secure, and document, the
informed consent of all participants in your field research. Informed consent is necessary
because participation in a research project may entail risks for your participants in terms
of either career advancement or personal safety. You must not attempt to collect primary
data from someone for research without informing them that you intend to use their
words in your writing.
Interview Consent Forms generally offer interview participants the option of ano-
nymity; however, as a researcher promising anonymity can harm our ability to present
our research findings to our colleagues. For example, when attempting to process-trace a
decision-making process, it makes a difference if you were able to speak with the relevant
decision-maker. However, if you were able to interview the key decision-maker, but you
are unable to reference this person by name, the strength and validity of your findings
may appear weaker. In order to still provide maximum transparency in the research pro-
cess, and cope with the weakening of arguments presented in published research when
interview subjects decline to be identified by name, Interview Consent Forms often pro-
vide participants with a sliding scale of anonymity that can be presented as follows:
• I consent to the use of my name, position and affiliation in published research

(example: John Smith, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal A)
• I consent to the use of only my position and affiliation in published research
(example: Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal A)
• I consent to the use of only my affiliation in published research (example: an
official of International Criminal Tribunal A)
• I do not consent to either the use of my name or affiliation in published research
(example: a confidential informant).
From the perspective of the researcher, we would prefer to be able to secure the consent
of our interview subjects to use their names, positions and affiliations in our research;
however, due to the nature of our research, and our desire to elicit insights that might
cut against the official position of an organization, often this is not possible. Once an
interview subject has requested a certain degree of anonymity it is your responsibility to
ensure their anonymity is not breached.
Such consent forms are also required for other forms of participatory research such as
the recording of oral histories and focus groups. It is important that you not only secure
the consent of all participants that your participants understand what they are consent-
ing to. Take for example, the experience of an NGO researcher who was tasked with
recording oral histories from elderly residents of a remote area in the former Yugoslavia.
The oral histories were being recorded and were to be made available through a web-
based digital library. Some elderly respondents were unsure what the Internet was, and
this was thus explained to participants as ‘like being on a television that you could watch
at any time’ (Petrović, 2013).
Furthermore, you might find yourself in a situation that during the process of the
collection of interviews or oral histories, participants reveal their own participation
in a criminal offense. This is particularly a concern when doing research in conflict or

post-conflict areas, or researching topics such as human or drug trafficking, or prosti-
tution. Different jurisdictions have different legal requirements as to the obligations of
researchers under national law if they come into the possession of evidence of crimes
that have been committed. For example, in Croatia, if an interviewer confesses to par-
ticipation in a war crime during an interview or oral history, national law requires the
researcher to inform the public prosecutor’s office. On the other hand, in the United
Kingdom, Corti et al. (2000) observe that there is no obligation to report evidence of
a crime that might have been gathered through fieldwork unless the researcher is the
subject of an investigation.
In some instances, you might find it difficult to secure the written informed consent
of participants in a research project. Sometimes, this is for cultural reasons with partici-
pants being highly unsettled with the prospect of signing a written document. In other
instances, when researchers are seeking to access individuals involved in illicit activities,
the application of traditional methods may be simply impossible. Take for example the
following dilemma faced by a team of researchers who were investigating smuggling
through Abkhazia and Tskhinvali.
Kukhiandze et al. were faced with a problem that there was almost no reliable official
primary documents or statistics available in relation to the regions under study and that
official representatives from the Georgian government were either unable or unwilling to
provide reliable information through interviews (Kukhiandze et al., 2004: 8). The result
was that the research team took the unconventional path of concealing their role as
researchers to convince participants in their research that they were also smugglers so as to
gain an insight into this particular illicit activity. While you may encounter such exam-
ples of risky fieldwork during the course of your research, these unconventional research
methods that involve deceit and concealment are unlikely to be approved through your
home institution because they put the researcher at risk from both participants involved
in illicit activities and the state authorities policing them.
Fieldwork in Practice
Once you have settled on how you will be conducting your fieldwork and have secured
ethical permission from your home institution and research participants, you will begin
the process of contacting and meeting your research participants. This is often a chal-
lenging, and at times stressful task for both novice and seasoned researchers. Below are a
few tips for dealing with some challenges that might arise during your fieldwork.
The first is to gain and maintain the trust of your research participants. As noted ear-
lier, this is best done by being transparent and open about the scope and purpose of your
research. Often, this will be complicated by perceived unequal power relations between
you and those who you hope to engage with in your research. This could manifest
itself in you reaching out to established professionals or senior level civil servants who
might only be willing to share a short amount of time with you. Alternatively, your own
background characteristics, such as nationality or ethnicity, might also shape how you
are perceived as a researcher. There is nothing a researcher can do to eliminate this, but
being aware of how you are perceived by your research subjects will help you to better
make sense of what they have to tell you.
The second is to have an open mind during the fieldwork process. When interacting
with people, you have to be aware that fieldwork is a social process, and much like any
other form of social interaction, there will be things that will happen that are completely
unscripted, and even unexpected. Do not let this unsettle you, but rather try to reflect on
these developments. Keeping a fieldwork journal can be helpful in terms of giving you a
better sense of what you are learning from the process. After all, fieldwork is not about
interviewing as many people as you can within a single day, but rather it’s about what
you learn from the process.
The third is to be flexible. Whether you are conducting interviews in your local com-
munity, planning a fieldwork trip to interview civil servants in your country’s capital city,
or planning a fieldwork trip abroad, there will be a number of obstacles from cancelled
interviews to research participants not being as knowledgeable about the subject you
hoped to interview them on as you had expected, but there will also be opportunities
to learn more about your field site that you might not have gotten from what you had
planned. Try to interact with and meet as many people as you can, in many places; an
introduction can go a long way to opening doors that were seemingly closed.
In the end, fieldwork can be challenging, but also incredibly rewarding in ways that
you could not have known prior to setting out on your project.
Chapter Summary
Fieldwork includes a broad range of activities that can include archival research, partic-
ipant observation, interviews, focus groups, survey research, and also digital research.
While on the one hand, fieldwork has opened up many research agendas in IR, and made
substantive contributions to many IR subfields from peacebuilding to security studies,
fieldwork has also been challenged on the grounds that it is extractivist, with research-
ers from the Global North relying on research assistants and research participants in
field sites to provide data for research that serves to reproduce colonial power relations
between the Global North and South. While these challenges raise important considera-
tions and concerns, feminist scholars have emphasized the importance of reflexivity in
all research practice in IR – including fieldwork. Moreover, it was also pointed out how
fieldwork plays a role in decentering scholarship away from the Global North through its
attentiveness to local voices and knowledge.
Fieldwork will present you with a number of challenges, but it is also a rewarding
process, that even when things do not go as planned – and often they won’t – you will
still learn a lot about your field site through your interactions with potential research
participants. Fieldwork, like any social process, is also about building relationships of
trust with those who you interact with in order to be able to access things like archives
or potential research participants. Often, fieldwork access grows over time, through what
we refer to as snowball sampling, that is when one research participant introduces you to
others who might also be knowledgeable about your topic.
One important observation that was noted in the previous section is how crucial
flexibility is to fieldwork success. You may well encounter obstacles to accessing the
field. Alternatively, you might find that your interviews were not as illuminating as you
had hoped they would be. These are common experiences when it comes to fieldwork,
and at times obstacles that you have no control over, such as the COVID-19 pandemic
will lead you to radically redesign your fieldwork around virtual interview sessions via
Skype or Zoom and digitally accessible data. Fieldwork is not a race or a competition,
but rather a process that we learn to negotiate.
In conclusion, fieldwork is an often challenging, but highly rewarding, activity that
will confront you with a number of unexpected dilemmas and obstacles. Sometimes
fieldwork is seen as a crucial component of a research process that will determine the suc-
cess or failure of a thesis or dissertation project. Although failure to collect relevant data
in the field has resulted in many researchers abandoning their theses or dissertations,
more often than not it is overly rigid expectations about fieldwork that leads to research-
ers abandoning their projects. However, as this chapter has noted, although field research
can be challenging, there is no reason why, even in the most difficult circumstances, you
should not be able to carry out your fieldwork.

1 Cronin-Furman and Lake reflect upon how conflict-affected states offer foreign
academics with permissive environments to exploit implicit power relations and
engage in research practices that would be frowned upon in any other context.
Cronin-Furman and Lake also provide guidelines aimed at fostering more ethical
research practices: Cronin-Furman, K. and Lake, M. (2018) ‘Ethics abroad: Fieldwork
in fragile and violent contexts’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 51 (3): 607–14.
2 Nair proposes ‘hanging out’ as an alternative ethnographic strategy to fieldwork
involving diplomatic elites: Nair, D. (2021) ‘“Hanging out” while studying “up”:
Doing ethnographic fieldwork in International Relations’, International Studies
Review. doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab001
3 This is one of the first book length texts to explicitly address the many practical and
ethical dilemmas faced by researchers working in conflict settings. Contributions
cover research in a broad range of geographic contexts and address challenges
ranging from the ethics of self-representation to gaining access to fieldwork sites:
Sriram, C.L., King, J.C., Mertus, J.A., Martin-Ortega, O. and Herman, J. (eds) (2009)
Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations. New York, NY:
Routledge.
4 This article provides a concise introduction to ethical issues surrounding fieldwork

that draws upon the authors’ own experience of carrying out fieldwork involving
urban refugees in Johannesburg: Jacobsen, J. and Landau, L.B. (2003) ‘The Dual
imperative of refugee research: Some methodological and ethical considerations in
social science research and forced migration’, Disasters, 23 (3): 195–6.
5. This edited volume provides you with a number of essays in which researchers
explore their own experiences conducting fieldwork: Bliesmann de Guevara, B. and
Bøås, M. (eds) (2021) Doing Fieldwork in Areas of International Intervention: A Guide to
Research in Violent and Closed Contexts. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
6 This edited volume provides you with a comprehensive set of essays that explore
controversies surrounding fieldwork and also practical questions of conducting
fieldwork: Mac Ginty, R., Brett, R. and Vogel, B. (eds) (2021) The Companion to Peace
and Conflict Fieldwork. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
NINE
INTERVIEW RESEARCH IN
learning objectives
• Explain the different purposes of conducting interviews for researchers of IR

• Explain how positionality impacts the interview process
• Understand and apply those data and analysis strategies (quantitative v. qualitative)
that are best suited for the kinds of data produced by structured, semi-structured,
and unstructured interviews
• Understand how to gain access to research participants
• Gain a familiarity with how to conduct interviews
• Understand transcription techniques to store interview data for future quantitative
or qualitative analysis
Interviews are one of the more widely used tools for creating new data on your topic.
There are a number of different techniques for conducting interviews that range from
almost free-flowing conversations to highly structured interviews where you may be able
to rely on a team of researchers to ask a large number of respondents the exact same
questions. While interviewing might seem straightforward, it is important to emphasize
that every interview establishes a relationship between you, the researcher, and your
research participant. In fact, Alles et al., (2018: 109) define interviews as ‘[…] a social
relationship involving the researcher in an immediate and interpersonal rapport with an
individual who becomes both an object of research and an interacting subject’. It is this
social interaction between you and your interview subject that makes interviews such a
rich exercise. In fact, Fujii (2017) also defines interviews as a relational activity between
the researcher and research participants.
Interviews are at the same time a potentially very revealing source of new informa-
tion on your topic, but they are also complex in the sense that you are interacting with
a research subject whose background had made them knowledgeable on your research
topic and whose candour and time you will need.
This chapter will provide you with a practical guide to preparing for, and conducting
interviews in IR. It will start with an overview of what are interviews and why you might
want to conduct them in IR research. Next, the chapter will reflect on the question of
positionality and how this might impact your interviews. Then, different formats of con-
ducting interviews will be presented along with things that you will need to consider
before deciding which interview format – structured, semi-structured, or unstructured – is
the best fit for your research purpose. Next, the chapter will move on to explore practical
strategies for conducting your interviews. There will be a step-by-step guideline presented
for preparing for your interviews, carrying out your interviews, and what to consider
after you have completed your interviews. This final section will also explore strategies
for transcribing and storing your interview data and analyzing the interview material
that you have collected.
Interview Research in IR
Interview research can provide a rich resource for qualitative and quantitative analy-
sis. Interviews can also provide new insights into just about any aspect of International
Relations. Researchers conduct interviews to gain new data about a particular phenome-
non, event or object, to elicit the opinions or perspectives of an interview participant, or
to learn more about their behaviour (Scott and Garner, 2013, 280–1). In IR, there is more
and more research that draws upon broader ethnographic methods, which were devel-
oped in the context of the systemic study of cultures and which include interviews, to
generate more knowledge about how those who participate in IR understand their own
roles, but also how IR is lived as everyday experiences (MacKay and Levin, 2015).
What makes interview data so rich, your interaction with individuals with in-depth
knowledge of your research topic, is also why collecting and analyzing your interview
Interview Research in International Relations 179
data is sometimes fraught with challenges. Just as in any other social interaction, it is
impossible to script or predict how your interaction with your interview participants will
go. In some interviews you might feel that you have built a great rapport with your inter-
view subject, whereas in others, you might find it difficult to initiate communication.
In other cases, your interview participant may be reluctant to speak with you. Or the
opposite happens: you might have some shared background that leads your interview
participant to open up to you in a way that they may not with other researchers.
Positionality and Reflexivity in Interview Research

Before considering interviews in your own research, you should reflect on your own
positionality relative to the people you will reach out to for interview requests. Often,
as a student, you will find the power relationship tilted towards your research partici-
pants as they could be professionals working at international organizations or foreign
ministries where you might aspire to work one day. Power is something that we might
not have considered much as a researcher, but power dynamics are at play whenever
we interact with fellow researchers or research participants (Finn, 2020). Reflecting on
potential power relations and also vulnerabilities in relation to your interview partici-
pants is something that you should take into account when securing ethics approval for
your research (see Chapter 3).
If you are conducting mainly elite interviews, or interviews with decision makers
and policy makers in International Relations, you can expect to encounter professionals
who will be at ease with answering your interview questions. Here your main concern
will be with minimizing your biases in the interview process in order to gather data
that reflects the experiences of your interviewee as much as possible. Much like sur-
vey design for quantitative research (Chapter 6), you will want to make sure that the
wording of your questions is not too value-laden. For example, consider the following
three questions:
Q1: Why did you advocate U.S. intervention in Libya’s civil war?
Q2: Why did you advocate saving the lives of thousands of Libyans through U.S.
military intervention in Libya’s civil war?
Q3: Why did you advocate the overthrow of Gaddafi and plunging Libya into a
prolonged civil war?
The first question gives the interviewee, a senior U.S. policymaker who was on the
record supporting U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war, the space to answer
the question on their own terms, which might include reference to the preferences
of the European allies of the U.S. The second wording, while perhaps drawn from
your own background research on this senior policymaker, suggests an answer and
may foreclose the discussion of other relevant factors. The third, suggests a possibly
unknowable at the time negative consequence of the intervention and may perhaps
put your interviewee on the defensive.
On the other hand, your research may have you conduct interviews with those who
would be considered non-elites. In this case, you may be engaging with individuals
who are less familiar with, and might never have participated in, interviews conducted
for the purposes of academic research. If this is the case, you will need to pay special
attention to informed consent and carefully explain who you are and why you are
conducting an interview.
Often, how interview participants will respond to you will be largely informed by
factors that are beyond your control. Rather than seeing this as an obstacle to research,
self-reflection will allow you to engage with such encounters in a way that will give
you a better understanding of your research topic. Julia Gallagher wrote about her own
experience setting out to conduct interviews for her book on Zimbabwe’s international
relations (2017). However, Gallagher, a white researcher from the United Kingdom, was
concerned that her own personal background and nationality could limit her ability
to gain valuable insights from Zimbabwean interview participants given the United
Kingdom’s colonial past with Zimbabwe and that the United Kingdom continued to be
presented as a colonial bogeyman by the Mugabe regime. However, in the end, Gallagher
conducted over 200 interviews in Zimbabwe and remarked that while these experiences
were at times uncomfortable, these interactions led her into ‘a mess’ that forced her to
re-examine her own preconceptions, and in the end gave her a much better understand-
ing and insight into UK-Zimbabwe relations.
Pessoa et al. have noted that some projects may involve sensitive topics or engage with
vulnerable populations or professionals who work with vulnerable populations. In this
context, it can be difficult to build trust in a single meeting and using traditional interview
techniques. Pessoa et al. (2019) suggest a reflexive interview approach, one where the
interviewer and interviewee will establish a more substantial relationship that will allow
the interviewer to more accurately interpret the interviewee’s experiences and perceptions.
This would involve several meetings with a single interview participant to build trust and
gain greater insight into your interviewee. Of course, it is always important to consider the
ethics of what you are doing to build trust. It is better to not mislead your interview partic-
ipants about your own views, or misrepresent yourself, to build trust. In some situations,
this will involve walking a fine line, and indeed, in certain circumstances, even biographic
information about yourself that you might consider trivial – like your nationality – might
be something that could complicate your efforts to build trust with interview participants.
Now that we have addressed a) what interviews are and why they are useful, and b)
some general considerations that will affect the data that you will collect, we can turn to
thinking about just what type of interview format is a best fit for your research project.
Interview Formats and What Kind of Information Do

You Want to Collect?
Once you have reflected on how you aim to analyze your interview data and why you
need to collect it, you can now think about which interview format would best fit your
research design. In order to do this, you will need to think about what the purpose of
your interview data will be and the kind of information you want to collect. Remember,
different types of research questions will lend themselves to different kinds of data col-
lection and analysis. Do you want to draw inferences from your interview data? Are you
conducting interviews as part of a project that is trying to process trace a specific policy
process? If your interest is in generating a large amount of data from a very large num-
ber of research participants and using it for quantitative data analysis, then structured
interviews will prove most useful. Also, if you are looking for patterns in your interview
data, you will probably make use of software like NVivo in order to conduct qualitative
content analysis.
Having a clear idea about why you are conducting interviews will help you from wast-
ing your own time, and the time of your interview participants, by generating data that
is unusable for your research purposes. Here is a list of potential interview purposes that
are drawn from Tansey (2007):
• Triangulation: You would like to conduct interviews to confirm information that

you have found in other (documentary) sources.
• Fill Gaps in Knowledge: You would like to conduct interviews to determine the
attitudes and beliefs of a defined group of people.
• Inferences about a Larger Group: You would like to conduct interviews to
make inferences about a larger group within a population using a smaller sample of
interview participants.
• Process Tracing: You would like to conduct interviews to gain a better understanding
of a particular process or events.
Once you have thought about why you need to conduct interviews as a mode of data
collection along the lines of the above, you can begin to think about which interview
format is the best fit for your needs.
The following section will now present you with the basic interview formats and
their uses.
Structured, Semi-Structured and Unstructured

Interviews
Interviews normally are categorized into three different types or formats, structured,
semi-structured, and unstructured. Each of these formats has distinct advantages
and limitations that you should consider. The advantages and limitations relate closely
to the type of interview data you are seeking to generate. In general, structured interviews
make sense for the purpose of generating quantitative data that you will subject to statis-
tical analysis. Semi-structured can also help you generate large amounts of textual data,
that you might want to subject to content analysis, but you can also dive deeper into
your interviews to uncover evidence of causal processes at work. Unstructured interviews
will help you generate a lot of new contextual information about your interview partic-
ipants. It’s mainly helpful for more exploratory projects, but less useful if your aim is to
use your interview data to test hypotheses.
Your choice of interview format should be dictated by a) the amount and type (quali-
tative or quantitative) of data that you would like to gather, b) what you hope to find in
your data, i.e. broad trends in behaviour or beliefs, uncover new variables that you have
not yet considered, or narratives of past events, and c) how do you plan to analyze your
data (quantitative or qualitative analysis).
In addition to these primary questions, you should also consider what kind of
resources you will have available to conduct your interviews in terms of time, digital
audio recording device, the ability to hire research assistants, transcription software, or
any potential travel associated with meeting your interview participants. Note that the
kinds of resources that you will need will very among the three interview formats that
are presented next.
Structured Interviews
Structured interviews are used to collect quantitative research data, and include a menu
of responses from which the participant selects a response that is recorded by the inter-
viewer. When selecting participants for structured interviews, because you will be subject-
ing your data to statistical tests, it is helpful, when possible to rely on quantitative tools
for random sampling, so that each member of the population you aim to survey has
an equal chance of being selected. In many respects a structured interview is analogous
to a questionnaire delivered orally rather than in written form. Structured interviews are
usually carried out by teams of interviewers, who are provided with pre-written interview
questions and categories of responses. Because the questions and responses are stand-
ardized, there is no need for the principal investigator of the project to be present at all
interviews. These interviewers then conduct their interviews, but are extremely careful to
stay on script. Any deviation from the interview script on the part of those conducting the
interview can distort the findings because the data collected will no longer be structured.
Due to the highly scripted nature of structured interviews, there is generally no need
to create an audio record of these encounters. Responses can be recorded swiftly by the
researcher either in numeric form or through simply checking a particular response
among a set of pre-selected responses. This kind of interview format is very useful for
generating large amounts of data from a large number of potential interview subjects.
Structured interviews have the advantage of being very time efficient. As you will see
with the next two interview format styles, interview formats where the interviewer has
the freedom to go off script or elicit open answers introduce a degree of unpredictabil-
ity in the interview process and you may find that some interviews might not last very
long, whereas other interviews will take much more time than you had anticipated. As
a result, you will need to commit more time to each interview, and also more time for
transcribing your interviews.
In sum, structured interviews can be a very efficient way of gathering new data from
interview subjects. This data will be easy to interpret and to record numerically because
you have asked closed questions. Before deciding upon carrying out your own structured
interviews, it is important to consider what kind of data you hope to gather and how
you expect to analyze this data. Structured interviews are best suited for research proj-
ects where you hope to make inferences about a larger population from a sizable sample
within that population. But, because you will be using quantitative methods to analyze
your data, you will need to take into account random or systemic sampling techniques
that were discussed in Chapter 6. This means that if you do not carry out some form of
random sampling within your population you are likely to encounter measurement error
in your data.
Semi-Structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews are the most common interview format used by researchers
in IR. This is because many research projects in IR want to understand highly specific
processes, events, or outcomes, that would require input from those with specialized
knowledge about our research interest. Given the research topics that are of interest to
many scholars of IR are related to explaining international political events, the foreign
policies of states, the behaviour of international organizations, multi-national corpora-
tions, or non-governmental and civil society organizations, most our semi-structured
interviews target elites, and are therefore also referred to as elite interviews (Richards,
1996: 199–204). This means that you will need to convince your prospective interviewee,
who often will hold a senior position in a major international organization or with a
country’s foreign service or foreign ministry to grant you the time and space to interview
them. Because rapport between you and your interview participant is a vital ingredient to
securing and maintaining access, a more conversational semi-structured interview may
produce a better interaction in this particular context then the more rigid interview for-
mat where you stick closely to a pre-established script.
Elite Interviews
Although elite interviewing is common, students often ask who qualifies as an elite?
Because the definition of an elite within a particular society is highly subjective,
responses to this question often vary. For example, do we use a more restrictive defini-
tion, where we focus on those who have special standing such as members of Congress
or Parliament? Here we use a broader definition that sees elites as anyone who occupies
a position of influence or importance within a particular organization that is under study.
For example, if your research project requires you to conduct interviews with rep-
resentatives of human rights organizations, those in leadership positions who you will
interview are considered elites.
Semi-structured interviews are commonly used because there is a degree of structure that
allows for cross-referencing across interview participants, but there is also scope for more
in-depth probing on issues of interest to the researcher. We also avoid the pitfall that is
apparent in structured interviews whereby we limit the scope of responses through our
pre-selected menu of questions and answers, and thus potentially miss some important
insights that the interview participant may offer.
What does this look like in practice? Let’s say that you are interested in explaining
how the European Union advanced the interests of European farmers in the context of
EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement negotiations. The purpose of your interview would be to
both fill gaps in existing knowledge and to process trace how agricultural, or farming,
interests were represented in the context of EU negotiations for a free trade agreement
with a third country, in this case Japan.
First, you will need to identify relevant elites who you will reach out to for inter-
views. Here, your professor may be able to assist you in pointing you to the right points
of contacts, but if not, you will need to draw on your knowledge of EU policymaking
processes. If this is something that you are not familiar with, you will need to do some
background research to identify the relevant bodies within the European Commission
that are responsible for trade negotiations with third countries. Once you have identified
your relevant points of contact, you can begin to reach out with interview requests.
Sample Semi-Structured Interview Questions & Answers

A research student is interviewing a senior EU official at the European Union Delegation
in Tokyo. Here is a snapshot of a fictional interview transcript.
Q1: What were the greatest challenges that you encountered in negotiations?
EU Official A: The biggest challenge we faced was the question of tariffs on European
agricultural products. For European farmers it was important to get access to the
Japanese market.
Q1a How did you deal with the question of tariffs, what were your priorities? (this is a
follow-up question that you are asking because the interview respondent mentioned
tariffs)
EU Official A: While we understood the need of the Japan side to protect their own domes-
tic industry, we also believed that we could reach an agreement that would allow both sides
to benefit from access to each other’s markets. Therefore, our priority was to secure a com-
mitment to a long-term lowering of tariffs that could be implemented over several years.
When designing your interview questions, you will be able to ask a set of standard ques-
tions that will be your main questions that you can put to each official. There is a degree
of deviation allowed here, but overall, if interviewing a set of officials from the European
External Action Service, who are all knowledgeable about your research topic, keeping some
consistency in terms of your questions will allow you to internally triangulate responses
among your interview participants. Of course, some officials you interview may be much
more knowledgeable about your topic than others. This is something you will only likely
discover during your interviews. Because of this, semi-structured interviews allow for
follow-up questions and going off script. Particularly, if an interview subject begins to
discuss something that is relevant to your research that you had not yet considered.
Unstructured Interviews
The third common interview format that we will discuss here is the unstructured inter-
view. Unstructured interviews are often compared to an ordinary conversation that you
might have with friends or colleagues. This is because unlike structured or semi-structured
interviews, unstructured interviews are aimed at eliciting the unfiltered and unmediated
perspectives of interview participants. In this case, you would not be conducting inter-
views to gain more information on a specific policy process from elites who are knowl-
edgeable about a specific process. If that was the case you would want to provide more
focus for the interview and gain highly specific responses that would give you an insight
into how a specific process worked. You would also not want to ask questions with closed
responses because you want to elicit your interview subject’s own perspectives.
Some of you might have already encountered unstructured interviews in the form of
oral histories. Oral histories are a specific variant of unstructured interviews that allow
researchers to record and preserve the stories and lived experiences of interview subjects.
In order to bring get the interview participant talking, unstructured interviews usually
begin with simple, but broad, open-ended questions. For example, if trying to under-
stand the everyday experiences of ordinary citizens during the armed conflict in Croatia,
one might ask, ‘Can you tell me about your most memorable experience from 1991?’ You
could also phrase this question differently among research participants. Keep in mind
that your role in an unstructured interview is more like that of a participant in the sense
that you are participating in a conversation with your interviewee, not necessarily lead-
ing it. The latter point should be emphasized here. As the unstructured interview is about
gaining insights from your research participant, be careful not to lead or dominate the
conversation in a way that prevents your interview participant from telling their story
from their perspective. Finally, due to the nuanced, complex and unexpected responses
generated during an unstructured interview, unstructured interviews do not lend them-
selves to a sole reliance on note-taking on the part of the researcher, so they should be
recorded either in audio or video form (Scott and Garner, 2013: 283–4).
Also, you might want to consider that as you will be generating a large amount of
interview data, software packages that can assist with content analysis may be helpful if
you are looking for patterns or correlations across or within your unstructured interviews.
Now that you are familiar with different formats for conducting interviews that can
be adapted to your research purpose, we can turn to a practical guide to how to conduct
your own interviews from the very beginning of the process to storing your interview
transcripts for analysis.
Selecting Your Interview Participants

Before approaching your interview subjects, you should think about your selection criteria
for reaching out to prospective interviewees. Unlike other forms of interview sampling that
we will discuss below, random sampling does not always make sense if you are trying to
learn from those who have the most familiarity with your research topic. For example, if
your interest was in trade negotiations between Japan and South Korea, it would not make
sense to select participants from a random sample of civil servants. Doing this might cause
you to miss those who worked on, or are most knowledgeable about your topic entirely.
To be sure, if the purpose of your interview data is to make inferences about how a
particular group understands a topic or issue from your sample, then non-probability
sampling make sense (Lynch, 2013: 39–40). This would be suited for projects that are not
trying to process trace, but instead are trying to generate data about the general beliefs,
perceptions, characteristics, or actions of a specific group of people.
On the other hand, if you are trying to gain more data on a highly specific process
or event, it does not make sense to try to random sample foreign ministry officials or
officials working in an embassy as you might entirely miss those who are knowledgeable
about your topic. Here, your sampling will likely be guided by your own background
research on who was particularly involved in a policy process that you would like to learn
more about (Tansey, 2007: 765).
Table 9.1 Sampling Strategies
Non-probability Sampling This means that you are approaching your interview participants
on the basis of who they are, or on the basis of an introduction
(snowball sampling).
Probability Sampling The gold standard of non-probability sampling is random
sampling. Here you would use a random number generator on
the total population of a large number of potential interview
participants, such as residents of a specific neighbourhood or city.
In most cases you will need to conduct preliminary research on who is in a position to know
about your interview topic or the process that you are researching. A short cut to doing this
is to rely on your knowledge of the compartmentalized bureaucratic structure of interna-
tional organizations or civil service bodies. However, in most instances, individual contact
information for those working a specific issue might not be readily available to you online.
In that case, most institutions have a public contact person whom you can approach.
Approaching Interview Participants

Gaining access to your interview subject is generally the most challenging part of the inter-
view process. Particularly when attempting to get in touch with elites, who themselves have
busy schedules and might not see the utility in talking to a researcher, we must expend a
significant amount of time. While Chapter 8 provided you with some advice on gaining
access to research participants during the course of your fieldwork, such as snowball
sampling, here some more specific tips and considerations will be provided. However,
before moving on, as noted in both Chapters 3 (research ethics) and 8 (fieldwork), you
must, if possible, attempt to secure the informed consent of interview participants. Also
keep mind that many institutions have specific ethics procedures that may require you to
submit a human research subjects ethics application for approval by an institutional ethics
committee prior to embarking your research.
When approaching interview participants, it is important to always remember that any-
one who participates in your research will be volunteering their time to you to support
your research. More often than not, the first point of contact will often be by email. When
reaching out to interview participants try to do the following things. First, try to send your
interview request from your student email address (student@email.edu; student@univ.ac.uk;
student@univ.ac.jp). Using an email address affiliated with your institution of higher learning
will help ensure your email does not get lost in a spam folder and also that your email will
be read. If your university does not provide an institutional email address or you are an inde-
pendent researcher, try to make sure that you have an email address that is tied to your name.
Second, include the who, what, and why of your request in the text of the email. It
is okay to include interview consent forms or research summaries in attachments, but if
whoever you have addressed the email to does not have a sense of who you are or the
purpose of your request, they are less likely to read your attachments.
Sample Interview Request Email Text

To: official@foreignministry.gov
From: student@email.edu
Subject: Interview Request
Dear Ambassador Smith,

I am writing to ask if you would be able to make yourself available for an interview
on your perspectives regarding international peacebuilding efforts in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. Given your extensive experience working on this issue, your insight
would be most valuable for my master’s thesis on Peacebuilding the Democratic Republic
of Congo that I am currently writing under the supervision of Professor Suzuki at the
University of South Island. I do not expect the interview to last for more than 45 minutes.
If you would be able to spare some of your time early next month while I am conduct-
ing my fieldwork, it would be most appreciated.
I have attached a research summary and interview consent form to this email.
With best regards,

Student Name
(include affiliation and contact information in your signature)

Third, be flexible in terms of times you might suggest for your interview. Offer a range
of dates and times to your prospective interview subject. Also, try to estimate in advance
how much time you might need to conduct your interview. More often than not those
interviews which prove most insightful will often last much longer than you had antic-
ipated. Generally speaking, you can aim to get through about 10 main questions with
specifically tailored sub-questions in about 45 minutes to one hour.
More recently, due to COVID-19, many researchers have had to rely on virtual plat-
forms, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams to conduct interviews. In many respects, this
has made the question of access easier as you can access interview participants from the
comfort of your own room. Also, if you need to record your interview, many of these
platforms come with features that allow you to easily record and store your interviews
digitally. Always ensure first that your interview partner consents to being recorded.
Given the widespread usage of virtual meeting platforms during the COVID-19 pan-
demic, you might consider also offering the option of a virtual meeting in the event your
prospective interview subject is not available for a physical meeting.
Preparing for Your Interviews

Once someone has agreed to an interview, there are a few things you should always do
in preparation. The first is to make sure you have thoroughly researched your interview
participant. If the participant is an elite, they will have likely made statements or granted
interviews to the media, authored relevant reports, or delivered testimony before an offi-
cial body. It is essential that you are familiar with what your interview participant has
said on your topic in the past so as not to give the impression that you are uniformed
and more importantly so you can avoid wasting time collecting data on views that are
already in the public domain, and instead make use of the interview to triangulate data
with the other sources.
Second, make sure that you are explicit as to the amount of time you will require,
and make sure in advance that your interview questions, whether structured, semi-
structured, or unstructured, can be completed in the allocated time. You do not want to
be caught in a situation where an hour has passed, but you are only half way through
your interview questions.
Third, make sure that you have considered how you will be recording your interview
data. If you are conducting structured interviews, this will not be a difficult task as the
questions you are asking are both scripted and closed, meaning that you can simply
record your interviewee’s response on your interview question sheet. For semi-structured
interviews, you will need to decide whether or not you will be able to rely on meticulous
note-taking during the interview itself or if you will be recording the interview. Likewise,
for unstructured interviews, you will likely want to secure an audio recording as you are
going to be analyzing a large amount of unscripted data.
In the event you are recording the interview you will need to secure permission from
your interview participants for the interview to be audio recorded. In this case, you may
include this as an additional question in your interview consent form. In the event that
you have secured permission to audio record your interviews, you will want to confirm
your recording device is working properly before the interview. You will not want to
waste your interview subject’s time by trying to resolve technical problems during the
interview, or worse yet, you do not want to discover at the end of the interview your
audio recording device was not working.
Pre-Interview Checklist
• Have you selected an appropriate format for your interview – structured, semi-
structured, or unstructured?
• Have you prepared your interview questions in advance?
• Have you secured informed consent from your interview participant(s)?
• Have you researched your interview participant(s) to gain background information
about what they might have said publicly (media, press releases, published work)
about your topic in advance?
• Have you sufficiently researched the organization or institution that your research
participant(s) represents for public statements on your research topic?
• Have you thought about how you will record your interview data?
• Have you secured permission to audio/video record your interview?
Things to Consider During Your Interviews

At the interview itself, you should maintain a professional appearance. Just as you were
when you first reached out for an interview, you should be transparent about the purpose
of your research, how the interview data will be used, and whether or not you can protect
the confidentiality of the research participant. This information is normally provided in
an interview consent form, which was discussed in Chapter 8.
Also important is that you have everything with you ready to record your interview.
Even if you are going to secure an audio recording of your interview, note-taking is an
important means for you to note your immediate reactions and observations so you can
go back and listen to again later. In the event that your notes will be the only record of
the interview, you will need to make sure that your note-taking is as thorough as possible.
Think note-taking in class, often you will use shorthand and abbreviations to catch as
much as possible. Then after the interview you can go back and try to fill in as much as
possible from memory.
Once your interview has started, be aware that your interview subject will respond to
both verbal and non-verbal cues you may be giving. Do not try to lead your interview
subject into a particular response. Always make sure that the interview questions you are
asking are not leading questions that would bias a particular answer. In addition to this,
you will want to be careful not to transmit a sense of disapproval, or approval, through
verbal or body language. As best, this might harm your rapport with your interview
participant, and in some contexts such reactions could result in an interview participant
being able to manipulate the interview to provide you only what you want to hear.
Finally, make sure that you have meticulously documented your interview, either
through detailed notes or through audio or video recording. If you are going to record
the interview you must ask for permission from the interview participant to be recorded.
Interview Checklist
• Remember to bring with you all the items you need to create a record of your
interview, recording device? Notebook? Pen? Tablet?
• Remember to manage your time so as to allow you to complete your interview
questions.
• Remember to avoid verbal or non-verbal cues that might have signalled disap-
proval or approval.
• Remember to have adequately documented or saved your interview data in a man-
ner that will make it useful for qualitative or quantitative analysis.
After Your Interviews: Tips and Guidelines for Securing

Your Data
Once the interview is completed, always, if possible, send an email or note to the par-
ticipant thanking them for their time. While this may seem trivial, it is essential and
may well help open the door to potential follow-up interviews that you might want to
conduct. It may also help others who come after you to more easily secure interviews. In
some cases, we end up building long-term professional relationships with our research
participants. These relationships can open new doors for us in terms of our research.
Remember snowball sampling from Chapter 8? Your interview participant may after the
fact suggest you talk to others who are also knowledgeable about your research topic who
you may not have been aware of.
Also, you might at some point have follow up questions that you would like to ask
if there is something your interview respondent said that upon reading your interview
transcripts or listening to an audio recording of your interview does not make sense. The
best way to ensure that you can easily approach your interview subjects a second time is
to remain in touch with them after the interview.
Transcribing Your Interviews

As mentioned earlier, interviews can serve many different research purposes and gen-
erate different kinds of data that lend themselves to different kinds of analysis. If you
have conducted structured interviews, you will have a large quantity of closed-ended
responses to enter into a spreadsheet. Once you have done this, you can begin to use
statistical analysis tools presented in Chapter 6 to draw findings from your data that you
can use to make inferences about larger groups.
For semi-structured interviews you likely will generate a large number of recordings.
Transcribing your interviews is a time-consuming process, but it will create an opportu-
nity for you to closely listen to your audio recorded interviews during the transcription
process. There might be things you missed during the interview, or did not notice while
listening to the recording that you catch during this process in an ‘Aha!’ moment.
Alternatively, there might be things in your notes that your interview respondent said
that you would like to go back and double-check. Because semi-structured interviews can
be especially helpful in the context of process tracing, there will be certain responses
and parts of the interview that you may want to zoom into. Having a written, easily read-
able, record of your interviews will make them easier.
For unstructured interviews you will also have generated a large number of recordings,
but here, your interest is likely going to be in your interview participant’s story or nar-
rative of a past event or life experience. Because of this, your recording will provide you
with a very different kind of data compared to a more focused semi-structured interview.
However, it is generally considered good research practice to create a written transcript of
your interview. This allows for easier anonymization, if requested by your interview par-
ticipant, and also easier access to the interview data. There are automated transcription
services, such as NVivo, that you may want to use if you have large amounts of audio
files to transcribe. In some cases, you may also want to input your data into analytical
software that can assist you with your data analysis.
What if your interview participant was uncomfortable being recorded? In this case you
would have relied upon note-taking during the interview process in order to record your
interview data. It is not uncommon for interviews to be recorded with notes. There are
a number of reasons, including fieldwork research ethics considerations (see Chapter 8).
Further down the line, once you have completed your data analysis and you have
started writing up your research, you may also want to send your interview subjects any
direct quotes that you will use in your thesis or published research. Doing this will help
you to avoid the embarrassment of misquoting an official, or taking their quote out of
its intended context. It will also give your interview subjects a higher level of confidence
in you as a researcher. Finally, once your work is published, it is also polite to alert your
interview participants to this.
In sum, interviews are an important window into the social world around us, and can
provide us unique insight into how individuals perceive specific phenomena, events,
objects or other individuals. Just as we acquire a lot of knowledge about the world around
us through conversations, our interview informants can potentially provide us with a
tremendous amount of insight that we cannot gather from official documents or media
reports alone. On the other hand, we must always be aware of the need to triangulate
interview data. Interviews reflect the perceptions of our interview subjects, and thus we
should be careful when using data gleaned from interviews alone as statements of fact.
Post-Interview Checklist
• Did you send your research participant(s) a note to thank them for their participation
in your interview?
• Is your interview data stored in a manner that is suitable for analysis? Have you
transcribed interview transcripts for qualitative analysis or have you entered your
interview data into a spreadsheet/database for quantitative analysis?
• If you are quoting your interview participants in your research, have you reached
out to them to share?
• If your work is published, have you shared your published work with your research
participants?
Chapter Summary
Interview research in IR can serve a number of purposes. It can help you triangulate
your data to see whether or not interview participants can confirm something you
found during the course of your document research; it can help you fill gaps in exist-
ing knowledge where there is little to no existing information on particular groups of
people, events, or processes; it can help you make inferences about a larger group; and
it can help you in process tracing. As such, it is widely used, and comes with varied
formats that can help you generate new data that is suitable for either qualitative or
quantitative analysis.
The interview formats presented here included structured, semi-structured, and
unstructured interviews. These constitute the three main interview formats that you
will likely encounter, or make use of, in your own research. However, it is important
to underline that carrying out interviews successfully is about much more than under-
standing the logic of the interview process. Interviews are a form of social interaction
and who you are, and how you will present yourself, will matter in determining how
that interaction will go. Sometimes, as in the case of Gallagher’s research in Zimbabwe,
there is little to nothing you can do about your own positionality, but as a general rule
of thumb, it is always important to remember basic standards of research ethics and
etiquette in all of your interactions with your research participants. This will help you
guard the integrity of the research process, while also keeping doors open with your
research participants. Finally, it is important to remember that while interviews might
prove to be an enjoyable and eye-opening experience in which you learn more about
your research topic from those who are the most knowledgeable about what you are
seeking to learn more about, you will need to be sure to effectively transcribe and keep
your interview data safe so that you will be able to effectively make use of it in your
qualitative or quantitative analysis.

1 The book will be of interest to students working with interviews for interpretive
research in which Fujii represents a relational approach to conducting interviews:
Fujii, Lee Ann (2017) Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach.
New York, NY: Routledge.
2 This edited volume presents a number of different interview techniques and
strategies: Mosley, Layna (ed.) (2013) Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
3 This article provides a short introduction to elite interviews and provides some
additional practical guidance on carrying out interviews with elites: Richards,
David (1996) ‘Elite interviewing: Approaches and pitfalls’, Politics, 16 (3): 199–204.
4 This article provides a concise overview of how interviews can contribute to
process tracing: Tansey, Oisin (2007) ‘Process tracing and elite interviewing: A case
for non-probability sampling’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 4 (4): 765–72.
TEN
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN
learning objectives
• Explain how language and discourse matter in IR

• Understand key terms and concepts associated with discourse analysis
• Explain how discourse analysis can serve both interpretive and positivist research
agendas
• Explain core characteristics and aims of critical discourse analysis
• Use critical discourse analysis in your own research
• Understand and apply discourse analysis for positivist research
Most student papers in IR rely on some form of analysis of textual sources. These include
speeches, public statements, personal correspondences, interview transcripts, newspa-
per articles, or books. Language plays a major, albeit, as we saw with visual methods in
Chapter 5, not exclusive role in how we make sense of the world around us. There are
many different ways we can analyze textual sources in IR. Content analysis is good
at examining a large quantity of textual sources and looking for patterns of language
usage. Discourse analysis, on the other hand, is the study of language for the purpose
of understanding its meaning as employed in text, visual media and communication.
Exemplary studies in IR that make use of discourse analysis in IR include Doty’s analysis
of U.S. counterinsurgency in the Philippines (1993), Hansen’s discourse analysis of the
Bosnian war (2006), and Epstein’s study of anti-whaling discourse (2008). Doty, Hansen
and Epstein’s work all share a focus on exploring the meaning of discourse and how
discourse shapes our understanding of diverse phenomena that range from counterinsur-
gency and civil wars, to anti-whaling campaigns.
Discourse analysis in IR draws on a long tradition of exploring how words shape our
experience of the social world. From Foucault’s focus on knowledge and power (2002),
Habermas’ theory of communicative action (1999), to Milliken’s exploration of discourse
analysis’ applications in IR (1999), discourse analysis continues to inform a number of
central works within the discipline.
The power of discourse may at first seem intuitive. Language structures our every-
day lives. But, let’s take a step back for a moment and think about how discourse and
meaning play out in international affairs. For example, consider how the term ‘aggres-
sion’ is used in International Relations. On the one hand the act of aggression is an
international crime that is defined in Statute of the International Criminal Court that
describes the planning and carrying out of an illegal war. But, states will often label
their adversaries as ‘aggressors’ or condemn adversaries for carrying out alleged acts of
aggression. Here, you can see how the term aggressor structures our understanding of an
event. It signals who is ‘good’ and who is ‘bad.’ It also may legitimize one side’s recourse
to military force as ‘self-defence’ while delegitimizing the other side’s use of force as an
‘act of aggression.’
Alternatively, the term ‘appeasement’ has taken on a particular meaning in light of
its use to characterize the failed foreign policies of the United Kingdom and France in
their attempt to contain Nazi Germany at the 1938 Munich Conference. Decades later,
numerous op-eds in American newspapers and news magazines warned against American
Presidents ‘appeasing’ foreign adversaries by continuing diplomacy and eschewing the
use of force (Shachtman, 2013). Appeasement, like aggression, does more than describe a
specific material act. It also structures our own judgements about an act.
That words convey meaning that shape how we understand the world around is not
in doubt, but how do words make possible, or alternatively constrain, action? How do we
know which discourses matter more than others? Where do we go to look for discourses
that are relevant to how we make sense of international affairs? How can we identify
when political actors use certain words to legitimize their own hold on power while
Discourse Analysis in International Relations 197
delegitimizing others? These are some of the questions that you may have when being
introduced to discourse analysis as a method of analysis.
This chapter will provide you with a practical guide to discourse analysis that will
not only answer these questions and introduce you to key concepts, but it will help you
to carry out discourse analysis in your own research. The first section of this chapter
will show what we mean by ‘discourse’ and how discourse matters for understanding
the world around us. The next section will introduce how to analyze discourse and will
highlight how, while many scholars use discourse analysis as primarily an interpretivist
method, it also has been widely used by positivist scholars. After this, the chapter will
then turn to presenting practical guidance on how to conduct critical discourse analysis
in the interpretivist tradition and then turn to how to carry out discourse analysis for
more positivist research agendas.
What is Discourse?
Discourse analysis is the study of meaning in language, as used in all forms of com-
munication including, but not limited to, speech and text. Taking words as an example:
they do more than simply describe the world. Words help us make sense of it. Words
can trigger strong emotional responses, a sense of judgment, and also can imply right or
wrong. Dunn and Neumann define discourse as ‘systems of meaning-production that fix
meaning, however temporarily, and enable actors to make sense of the world and to act
within it.’ (2016: 4). At its most basic discourse is communication – in speech, written or
visual forms – that is used to convene meaning. When the subject of scholarly inquiry,
researchers can look at discourse in two ways. One is to see discourse as a tool that can
help us understand and explain action or an event. Another is to unpick how the means
to communicate (often language) is used to wield power. In this way, discourse can be
used to convey specific meaning. This, in turn, structures how we understand action
and actors in IR. While you may still be wondering what exactly this means, we should
keep in mind that the starting point of our interest in discourse is an understanding that
language plays a role in producing knowledge about the world around us (Dunn and
Neumann, 2016: 2). Discourse is what provides structure and relationality to the social
world (Dunn and Neumann, 2016: 3). This means discourse is what situates actors and
makes certain actions possible by legitimizing certain acts while acting to delegitimize
others. For example, political violence described as national liberation can be perceived
as legitimate and just, whereas acts of political violence described as terrorism are not.
Here, we see also how discourse can be wielded as a form of power (Dunn and Neumann,
2016: 3), a subject we will return to in our discussion of Foucauldian discourse analysis.
For the discourse analyst, discourse does more than just describe, discourse also plays
a role in how international affairs is practiced. Think about why national leaders like to
use the language of war, even when they are not waging an inter-state or internal armed
conflict. War has a very specific meaning in IR, and even more specific definitions can be
found in International Law, but often political actors will describe many acts by making
use of the language of war in different contexts that may or may not relate to traditional
understandings of war. For example, the U.S. ‘war on drugs’ or ‘global war on terror-
ism.’ More recently, political actors have used the language of war to describe national
responses to COVID-19.
Why do leaders reference such terms? The answer lies in representation. Represen
tation refers to how meanings are socially reproduced through shared understandings
that specific terms acquire over time (Dunn and Neumann, 2016: 5). Dunn also notes,
‘Representations are inventions based on language, but they are not neutral or innoc-
uous signifiers. Because they enable actors to “know” the object and to act upon what
they “know,” representations have very real political implications.’ (Dunn, 2008: 80).
As a result, representation allows leaders to open up new possibilities for political action
because representation is what gives specific discourses broad social meaning. For exam-
ple, a President could invoke extraordinary powers, like declaring a state of emergency,
acts that only make sense in the context of existential threats to state survival.
Now that we have a sense of what constitutes discourse, and why discourse matters in
the study of IR, we can explore the question of ‘what is discourse analysis’.
Making Sense of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a method of qualitative analysis that focuses on the interpreta-
tion of linguistic forms of communication. Communication can be either spoken or writ-
ten, and can include both official (parliamentary debates or speeches by public officials)
and unofficial forms of communication (comments sections on online news media or
social media). While distinct from visual analysis in the sense the focus is on written or
verbal language, the tools of discourse analysis have also been used to interpret meaning
from a wide range of visual artefacts from iconic pictures to comics.
According to Miles, discourse analysis is ‘used to describe a number of approaches
analyzing written and spoken language use beyond the technical pieces of language,
such as words and sentences. Therefore, discourse analysis focuses on the use of language
within a social context’ (2010: 367). In IR, discourse analysis focuses on how written and
spoken language contributes to representation and meaning. It also points to how actors
understand their own actions and the actions of other actors.
Positivist work has relied on a form of discourse analysis that sees language as source
for discerning actor motivation, and thus it can also help point to causal mechanisms
at work. Indeed, while we are going to explore critical discourse analysis in the next sec-
tion, there are also positivist scholars who have drawn upon tools of discourse analysis to
help explain events in international affairs by utilizing discourse analysis in the context of
process tracing (Bennett and Checkel, 2015), which was discussed in Chapters 5 and 7.
Interpretive scholars of IR who make use of discourse analysis see IR as constituted by
actors whose identities are formed through intersubjective understanding. What does
this mean? It means that language plays a key role in constituting the objects under
study and thus plays a performative role, and their principal interest is to understand
how and why particular discourses emerge, become dominant, and are used by political
actors. An early pioneer of this approach was Cohn (1987), who in her study of defence
intellectuals, found that they were using what she referred to as ‘technostrategic’ lan-
guage, that when learned opened up a shared reality where defence experts could discuss
war in a technological and metaphoric language that was devoid of human suffering.
Discourse analysis can serve multiple research purposes. For some scholars, like Cohn,
discourse analysis is an interpretive tool that allows researchers to explore how discourses
act to create or constrain possibilities for action (Neumann, 2008). Hardy et al. define
discourse analysis as ‘a methodology for analyzing social phenomena that is qualitative,
interpretive and constructivist’, (2004: 19). They go on to argue that discourse analysis is
more than just a technique for understanding the content of texts, but also brings with
it a set of assumptions about how the world is constructed through language (2004: 19).
Table 10.1 Methodology and the Study of Discourse in IR
Methodological Worldview Understandings of Discourse Method of Study

Positivist Fixed descriptors of a material Studied through occurrence,
reality patterns
Interpretive Intersubjective, meanings are Speech Act, Intertextuality,
historically and contextually Narrative Analysis (see Table 10.2)
situated
We can take Table 10.1 and apply these two methodological worldviews to a topic of
interest in IR – gender mainstreaming at the United Nations. This refers to the UN’s
global strategy to ensure that gender perspectives are taken into account in policy action
and also that the goal of promoting gender equality is central to all of the organization’s
activities. We could analyze discourses of gender by identifying key terms and looking for
their use in UN resolutions or policy documents to lend support for an argument relating
to the extent to which commitments to gender mainstreaming would be upheld. Such
an approach would be a positivist one. Alternatively, you might want to explore what the
use of gender discourses means and the extent to which they challenge patriarchal norms
and structures at the UN. Here you would be looking for deeper meaning and also change
over time. One of these approaches operates in a world where language describes a fixed
reality, the other sees languages as more fluid.
When considering discourse analysis, there are a number of specific tools and meth-
ods that one can apply. In addition to process tracing, which was mentioned earlier,
we can take genealogy as another example. Genealogical studies explore a discourse’s
emergence and existence (Powers, 2001: 54). Genealogies of discourse are widely used
to illustrate how particular discourses emerged and became dominant. They caution
us not to try to make truth claims about our object of study, such as international
security, but rather counsel us to treat these claims as embedded in historical conflict
over knowledge, expertise, and power (Bonditti et al., 2015). Genealogical studies of
ideas and concepts in IR bring these contestations over knowledge and expertise to
light. This would be very much consistent with seeing discourse analysis as an interpre-
tive tool that explores how discourses act to create or constrain possibilities for action
(Neumann, 2008).
Another important analytical tool is Intertextuality, which explores how meanings
within texts are shaped by each other. Intertextuality has been used to highlight inter-
textual linkages between politics, the media, and popular culture, to better understand
how these discourses interact within one another (Stritzel, 2012).
Speech act theory also has been widely used in IR. In particular, the Copenhagen School
of Security Studies has relied heavily on tools of discourse analysis to make claims about
how actors use discourse to securitize an issue, or to frame an issue in security terms to
allow for stronger policy interventions, like in regard to terrorism (Vultee, 2010), which
opens up possibilities for the state to exercise extraordinary powers that could not be
wielded against a non-securitized subject.
Narrative analysis focuses on discourse as a means to identify the emergence, or exis-
tence, of narratives. Narratives in their most basic form can be thought of as the stories
we tell about the world around us and the roles we assign to different actors in that story
(Hagström and Gustafsson, 2019). Think victim versus an aggressor for example. These
stories have their own narrative components and building blocks that you can study
through discourse analysis.
Table 10.2 Discourse Analysis Methods
Discourse Analysis Methods Aims & Purpose

Process Tracing This is a tool that is primarily applied to establish a causal link
between two variables, often this will rely on the analysis of textual
sources that will provide evidence of a causal mechanism at work
Genealogy A method whereby the emergence of a discourse is traced and
analyzed within the historic context of its emergence
Intertextuality A method which examines how the meanings of texts are shaped
by one another. This entails looking at multiple texts to see how
discourses inform one another.
Speech Act Theory An approach to the study of discourse that sees language as
performing roles that go beyond describing a material reality and
instead sees language as playing a role in structuring action.
Narrative Analysis A method of analysis in which discourse is studied so as to
understand the emergence of specific historically and contextually
contingent narratives, and potentially how narratives interact or are
in conflict with one another
Foucauldian discourse analysis is a critical discourse analysis which draws upon the work
of French philosopher Michel Foucault and emphasizes a nexus between knowledge and
power. Foucault outlines how discursive structures act as a kind of invisible constraint
on behaviour – which rewards followers and disciplines non-followers. Particularly rel-

evant for scholars of IR was Foucault’s concept of governmentality. Foucault developed
this concept in the context of exploring how discourses of neoliberalism were trans-
forming global governance and decentring governance away from the state to include
other actors such as multinational corporations, international organizations and non-
governmental organizations, which wield power and knowledge to maintain and perpet-
uate neoliberal governance practices (Tosa, 2009). Keep in mind here, that many of the
tools that were noted above – like genealogy and intertextuality – are often relied upon
to carry out critical discourse analyses.
There is some disagreement among discourse analysis scholars as to the extent to
which there is a known world outside of discourse. Poststructuralists believe that it is
only through discursive processes of meaning-making that material objects become
knowable (Dunn and Neumann, 2016: 40). As a result, poststructuralists believe there is
no real world knowable that exists outside of discourse which means there is no material
reality in which we can discover scientific truth (Dunn and Neumann, 2016: 40). It is the
acknowledgement of a world outside of discourse that allows Critical Discourse Analysis,
which is explored in the next section, to make empirically grounded claims of causality
(Dunn and Neuman, 2016). In practice, while there exists a divide among scholars as to
the extent to which there is a non-discursive realm that we can study, for the purposes of
understanding Critical Discourse Analysis, Dunn and Neumann (2016, 40–41) point out
that there are many similarities in research practice between poststructuralists who take the
position that there is nothing knowable outside of discourse and those who argue there
is a real world that exists outside of discourse.
Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical discourse analysis has been used to describe a number of research agendas within
IR that draw upon certain core assumptions about how discourse helps us to better
understand the world around us. As noted in the section above, while critical discourse
analysis includes a broad tent of scholars who don’t all share the same understanding of
the extent to which discourse structures our world, there is a shared focus on interpreting
discursive acts. Nonhoff presents five key characteristics of critical discourse analysis that
are outlined below (2017):
1 Critical discourse analysis aims to study real world problems or linguistically

mediated social or political events. This distinguishes critical discourse analysis
from purely linguistic analysis. This mediation also distinguishes critical work from
positivist analysis.
2 Critical discourse analysis is multi-disciplinary as it requires bringing together a
linguistic perspective with other perspectives from the social sciences.
3 Critical discourse analysis focuses on those discourses that express, legitimate,
reproduce, or challenge power relations or domination.
4 Critical discourse analysis takes a normative stance on these observed power

relations. For example, discourses of colonialism and imperialism in IR are not
simply described as closely to their original form as possible, but rather are presented
as such to challenge practices of domination and marginalization in research.
5 Critical discourse analysis has an emancipatory goal. Studies of inequality,
discrimination, exploitation, do not aim to reproduce these power arrangements,
but by capturing how discourses are deployed by elites, critical discourse analysis
can help delegitimize and weaken these ideational structures.
Point 1 makes the epistemological claim that there is a reality that is fixed and exists
outside of discourse. This allows critical discourse analysis scholars to make causal claims
because they are able to use these outside empirically observed reference points. However,
causality in this context is not the same as causality as understood by positivist research-
ers. Rather than arguing discourse determines a specific outcome (if a, then b), critical dis-
course scholars tend to see causality in terms of creating a range of possibilities for action.
Point 2 highlights how critical discourse analysis contributes to, and draws upon,
disciplinary knowledge from a wide range of social science disciplines (Wodak, 2008: 4).
These include education (Rogers, 2013), history (Flowerdew, 2012), psychology (Parker,
2015) and law (Leung and Durant, 2018), among many others.
Point 3 is important in identifying specific discourses that are of interest in IR. Which
particular discourses legitimate or reproduce power relations? Discourses on gender?
Race? Migration? Identity? These are a few examples of topics that have been explored
using the tools of discourse analysis to highlight how language legitimizes or reproduces
power relationships.
The last two points on Nonhoff’s list, relate to critical theory normative commitments.
If you will recall in Chapter 1, the focus on emancipation in IR made critical theory
research practice distinct. However, not all interpretive discourse analysis will make the
latter as explicit. For example, some studies will focus on mapping discourses. Discourse
analysis is also widely used in normative theory because it lends itself to genealogical
studies of how normative concepts and standards have emerged and changed over time.
In the next section, where the practical considerations of how to conduct your own
critical discourse analysis are explored, we will examine an exemplary study of discourses
related to Syrian refugees in Turkey.
How to Conduct a Critical Discourse Analysis

Dunn and Neumann (2016: 8) point to three steps for carrying out your own discourse
analysis. The first is to identity a particular discourse that you wish to explore. The sec-
ond will have you select your sources and period of time under study and the third step
includes identifying representation and layering within discourses. We will then look
at a study of discourses surrounding Turkey’s reception of Syrian refugees to show these
steps in practice.
Three Practical Steps for Critical Discourse Analysis

1 Identify a discourse you want to explore.
Discourses of interest to students of IR could include discourses of national or re-
gional identity, discourses of migration or movement, discourses of national bor-
ders, discourses of (in)security.
2 Select your sources and timeframe understudy.
a Sources: Unlike when conducting content analysis, your ability to examine
large amounts of text, such as newspaper articles on terrorism from 2001–
2005, will be limited. This is because of your interest in language and meaning
will go beyond counting the number of occurrences of a particular word. Many
scholars therefore focus on elite discourses, such as statements by national
leaders, or they focus on a small number of representative examples of texts.
This is more than just a practical consideration: elite discourses from particu-
lar actors may be promoting a particular kind of discourse for an identifiable
purpose.
b Timeframe: You should carefully consider the period of time you would like
to focus on. This will help you in demonstrating change over time, or how
discourses opened up possibilities for action.
3 Identify Representations and Meaning
This is a critical component to your analysis as you will need to categorize how
discourses relate to particular representations and how these representations are
produced and change over time. This will allow you to better account for the range
of actions made possible through discourse.
a Representations: identify discourses that reproduce specific meanings – for
example, ethnic identity, expertise, authority
b Layering: explore change across time in representations
Polat’s 2018 study of Turkey’s ruling AKP party’s discourses surrounding Syrian refugees
provides a useful example of how to operationalize your own discourse analysis. As of
2018, Turkey hosted the world’s largest population of Syrian refugees with more than
three million Syrian refugees registered in the country according the UNHCR (Polat,
2018). Polat also pointed out that since the beginning of the war in Syria, the AKP pro-
moted an ‘open-door’ policy for Syrian refugees and a discourse that placed an emphasis
on religious and humanitarian values. Then, Polat notes:
[…] the arrival of Syrian refugees has become entangled with the existing
identity debates and conflicts in Turkish politics. The AKP’s discourse on Syrian
refugees has become intertwined with its positive self-representation as the
defender of all oppressed people (mazlum) and its attempts to reconstruct the
Turkish nation along more Islamic lines (2018: 500).
In terms of Dunn and Neuman’s three steps. Polat has identified a particular discourse
that will be the focus of study, 1) discourses surrounding Syrian refugees in Turkey (Polat
goes on to specify sources and the period under study), 2) parliamentary debates and
presidential speeches. Regarding the period of time, Polat points out that although Syrian
refugees first arrived in Turkey in 2011, it would be impractical to go through all these
sources over a period of six years, so instead Polat focuses on periods of time where
debate around Syrian refugees intensified (2018: 505). Then, Polat identifies representa-
tions of refugees as ‘guests’, ‘Muslims’ and ‘victims’ (2018: 506). In relation to references
to religious identity, Polat finds:
Through the use of religious metaphors, lexical terms and rhetoric, the speakers
not only justify Turkey’s open-door policy towards Syrians based on religious
solidarity but also attempt to reconstruct the Turkish nation along more Islamic
lines (2018: 513).
Here we see how the use of religious metaphors opens up possibilities of action that
allow Turkey to continue to host large numbers of refugees from neighbouring Syria.
On the other hand, Holohan (2019) examined how discourses in the United Kingdom
on the Mediterranean refugee crisis reinforced neocolonial perceptions of ‘otherness’
and pre-existing power relations between the ‘East’ and the ‘West’.
Both of these studies constitute good examples of how discourse analysis can be
applied in your own research by identifying a specific scope of analysis first – like refu-
gee reception. And second, identifying your textual sources – for example parliamentary
speeches – and then conducting your analysis by first identifying specific representations
of refugees and how these meanings either changed over time or structured popular
understanding on a specific issue.
While the examples above point to how critical discourse analysis has been used to
account for the range of policy actions that were made possible to national leaders in the
context of the Syrian and Mediterranean refugee crisis, IR scholars have also relied on
critical discourse analysis to better understand how state identity is produced and to bet-
ter understand how states perceive threats. Dunn and Neumann remind us that discourse
analysis is a useful tool because:
[…] it says something about why state Y was considered an enemy in state X,
how war emerged as a political option, and how other options were shunted
aside. Because a discourse maintains a degree of regularity in social relations,
it produces preconditions for action. It constrains how the stuff that the world
consists of is ordered, and so how people categorize and think about the world.
It constrains what is thought of at all, what is thought of as possible, and what is
thought of as the ‘natural thing’ to do in a given situation (2016: 81).
The examples explored in this section have highlighted how to conduct critical dis-
course analysis in the interpretive tradition. The types of research questions critical
discourse analysis will help you answer will usually be ‘how’ questions. These are often
referred to in the literature as ‘how-possible’ questions. Through critical discourse analy-
sis you will be able to provide readers with a better understanding of how certain policy
actions became possible. However, it is important to note that critical discourse analysis
is not meant to help you argue why a political actor might have selected a specific policy
response. The purpose is to illustrate how a menu of responses became possible.
The next section will now turn to how to use discourse analysis in the context of research
questions that aim to explain ‘why’ questions that seek to uncover why a particular event
or policy option occurred or was selected.
Discourse Analysis for Positivist Research

In Chapter 5 you were introduced to process tracing as a tool for uncovering causal
mechanisms that could account for a particular outcome. For example, why did Croatia
cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and
hand over Croatian generals that had been indicted by the international court? This is
essentially a positivist question, because here your aim would be to explain why Croatia’s
national leaders elected to pursue a policy that ultimately saw Croatia arrest and transfer
all of its citizens indicted by the ICTY to The Hague during the 1990s and early 2000s.
As it is impossible for us as researchers to get into the minds of policymakers, how
can we know why policymakers decided upon a certain course of action? Why did
the Obama administration intervene in Libya’s civil war in 2011? Why did Japan’s
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi decide to deploy Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to Iraq
in support of the U.S. invasion and occupation of the country in 2003? Many of the
questions you will ask in your own papers will seek to explain specific events in IR.
Answering these questions will usually entail analyzing official, and sometimes also
unofficial, documents.
How to Conduct Discourse Analysis for Positivist

Research
When analyzing documentary sources for evidence of a causal process story or to infer
a causal mechanism at work, you will be confronted with making value judgements
about which pieces of documentary evidence hold greater validity over others given that
you are likely to encounter contradictory statements and observations. It is important
that you avoid the trap of cherry-picking documentary evidence that confirms your pre-
ferred causal process story while discounting or ignoring others. In order to demonstrate
that your documentary analysis will hold up to scrutiny, you will need to be transpar-
ent about the scope of your documentary search and the temporal boundaries of your
study (see Process Tracing, Chapter 5). Given that process stories are highly contingent,
content analysis is likely to not be able to address the nuanced evidence of one causal
explanation playing out over another. You will likely need to closely read documentary
evidence in order to best recreate a plausible chain of events that accounts for a given
outcome. In order to do this, this section will present you with five steps to follow in
your own analysis.
The first step in your discourse analysis is establishing enough contextual familiar-
ity with your document sources that you will be able to interpret their meanings as
intended. In some cases, this may involve mastery of a foreign language or immersion
in a particular cultural context. This is important because you will be looking for cues
in your text to help you demonstrate that a particular causal mechanism was at work.
It also will require you to gain an in-depth understanding of how policymaking and
decision-making processes work within the institutions that you are studying. Who
are the key decision-makers? How does information flow within a given institution?
Sometimes creating a visual mapping of a policy process can help you understand how
different parts of an institution or organization relate to each other.
The second step is to be able to determine which documents are likely to contain
information relevant to the process you are studying. You might need to visit archives if
you are interested in a foreign policy decision-making process. You might also look for
public speeches or briefings delivered by relevant policymakers, or interviews they may
have given to the media. It is important here that you cast a wide net for your document
search. The purpose of process tracing is not to confirm an assumed process, but rather
to consider as many possible alternative explanations that may account for a given out-
come (Bennett and Checkel, 2015: 23).
The third step is to test your sources to see if the process explanations that you have
inferred are plausible. In doing this you will first need to account for any potential bias
that your sources may have in relation to a given process story (Bennett and Checkel,
2015: 24). This may require you to draw upon the contextual familiarity with your case
that you have developed in step one, and familiarity with the author of the evidence that
you are considering.
Evidence that is compelling is evidence that is unique to a particular causal story and
evidence that is certain. There are a few tests that you can use to judge uniqueness and
certainty (Van Evera, 1997: 31–2). The first is the ‘smoking gun’ test. Evidence that passes
a smoking gun test would be unique to the causal story but not certain. This means that if
you find it, it will demonstrate the uniqueness of your causal story and you can be certain
of your hypothesis being true, but if you do not find this evidence, it does not necessarily
mean your hypothesis is false. For example, if testing a hypothesis that a state carried
out a clandestine cyber attack against another state, you might have intercepted a phone
call from the head of state discussing planning for the attack. Here you have a ‘smoking
gun’ because it is unique to the causal story, but it is still not entirely certain. The second
is the ‘hoop’ test. Hoop tests are not unique to a causal story, but their conditions are
certain to exist for a causal story to be true. For example, a state might have possessed
the capabilities to carry out a clandestine attack, but that does not mean the state did so.
The third is the ‘doubly decisive’ test. This would include evidence that is both certain
and unique (Bennett and Checkel, 2015: 17), meaning you would have found evidence
that without a doubt implicates your state.
Evaluating Your Evidence

Each process story will have a hypothesized relationship between variables. For exam-
ple, a researcher in international justice has sought to explain why states cooperate with
international criminal courts. In doing this you could explore three hypotheses.
H1: States comply with international criminal court orders out of ideational or norma-
tive beliefs in international justice
H2: States comply with international criminal court orders out of material self-interest
H3: States comply with international criminal court orders only when coercive pres-
sure is applied by third states
A smoking gun test for H1 could be met with personal correspondence of a national
leader who writes to a colleague or acquaintance and argues that she made her deci-
sion because it was morally the right thing to do. This would be unique to this hypoth-
esis, but it is not certain to always exist. That means not finding it does not prove the
hypothesis to be false.
A hoop test for H1 could be met with documentary evidence that confirms a high
degree of compliance within state institutions. This evidence is certain, as it should exist
for the hypothesis to be true, but it is not unique to H1, as it could also support H2.
A double decisive test is both unique and certain. This is a high evidentiary standard
that you might not be able to find, but in relation to H3 would include evidence of both
coercion and the state responding to this coercion, when its preference was clearly not to.
The fourth step is to account for variation over time. Whatever your process tracing pro-
ject, you are generally exploring a process that would have played out over a period of
time. Because of this, you might want to organize your documents along a timeline. You
could also map key events that might have affected the process you are exploring along
this timeline. This will help you to identify any key decision points that might have
influenced the process, and if you see these events being referenced in your documents
you can have a greater degree of confidence that they played a part in a particular process
(Jacobs, 2015: 56–7).
The fifth step is triangulation. While discourse analysis may form part of a positiv-
ist process tracing study, if possible, you will want to triangulate what you have found
with other sources, such as interviews (Chapter 9). If you are finding your interviewees,
official documents, and media sources all pointing to the same thing, your findings will
be more robust.
Discourse Analysis for Positivist Research Checklist

• Gain contextual familiarity with your case
• Establish scope of document search
• Apply plausibility tests to your evidence
• Account for temporal variations in behaviour
• Triangulate your evidence with other non-documentary sources
Chapter Summary
Discourse analysis is both widely used in student papers and in published scholarship in
IR because we all recognize the importance role words play in helping us to make sense
of the world around us. Here you have been presented with an overview of how dis-
course analysis has been used in both interpretive and positivist research. You have also
been provided with practical guides on how to carry out discourse analysis in your own
work. As with every other research choice you make in the research process, how you
will be conducting your discourse analysis is predicated on what kind of question you
are asking. For questions that examine how certain actions became possible, you will use
interpretive discourse analysis methods, while on the other hand, if your engagement
with documentary evidence is for the purpose of answering positivist questions of why
or what accounted for a particular outcome, then you will need to consider the tools and
best practices of discourse analysis in positivist research.

1 Dunn and Neumann provide a thorough practical guide to carrying out discourse
analysis that is well-suited for students of IR: Dunn, Kevin C. and Neumann, Iver B.
(2016) Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
2 Fairclough’s book is one of the core texts on critical discourse analysis. He presents
an overview of the principal assumptions and theory behind critical discourse
analysis: Fairclough, Norman (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of
Language (2nd edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
3 Foucault’s classic The Archeology of Knowledge remains widely cited in interpretive
discourse analysis studies in IR: Foucault, Michel (1982) The Archeology of
Knowledge: The Discourse on Language. London: Penguin.
4 Milliken’s article provides a good starting point for thinking about discourse
analysis from an interpretive perspective: Milliken, Jennifer (1999) ‘The study of
discourse in International Relations: A critique of research methods’, European
Journal of International Relations, 5 (2): 225–54.
ELEVEN
CASE STUDY RESEARCH IN
learning objectives
• Explain how case study research can contribute to theory-building and theory-
testing in IR
• Understand and apply comparative method in case study design
• Explain and justify comparative case selection strategies
• Account for interpretive strategies of case study design
Case study research is a commonly used research design in International Relations.

Researchers have used case studies to make ground-breaking contributions to every
subfield of the discipline from security studies (Katzenstein, 1996) to international
political economy (Odell, 2001). Case study methods have also generated a rich lit-
erature on what constitutes a good case study in IR (Maoz, 2002; Gerring, 2004: 341;
Lai and Roccu, 2019). Today, case study methods include a wide range of techniques,
strategies, and designs that cut across methodological traditions introduced earlier in
this book.
This chapter will provide you with the foundational tools necessary to design your
own case study and ensure that your case study does more than provide anecdotal
description, but contributes to substantive debates in IR. It will do this by providing you
with a practical guide to the case study method and case study design. First, the chapter
will answer the question of what a case study is and present you with different ways case
studies have been defined. Then the chapter will go on to examine different strategies for
case study design. Whether you aim to contribute to interpretive or positivist research
there are evaluative criteria that can help guide you through case study design and anal-
ysis. By familiarizing yourself with these criteria and case study design strategies, this
chapter will allow you to avoid some of the major pitfalls of the method that are often
encountered by both students and scholars.
What is a Case Study?

Case studies have helped build new theoretical models in foreign policy analysis, test
existing theories, and contributed to our understanding of a number of issue areas in
IR from international political economy to human rights and conflict studies. Given
the wide variety of ways case studies have been used in IR, and the diverse contribu-
tions of case study research, it is important to first reflect on what we mean by case
study research.
When beginning a case study project some questions you might be asking yourself
likely include: What is a case? Can I justify my case selection? Are my cases comparable?
And, what can I learn from my case study? Let us begin with the first question: what
is a case study? It is not surprising that this question may generate some degree of
confusion as there is a lot of inconsistency in how the terms case study research,
comparative method and qualitative research are used. In fact, sometimes these
terms have been used almost inter-changeably as case studies become more prominent
within IR scholarship (Levy, 2002: 133).
You may have decided to do research using a case study without even being aware this
entails you choosing a particular kind of research design. In Chapter 1, it was pointed out
that essays in IR are often focused on events, phenomena or actors that are of interest to
Case Study Research in International Relations 211
students. For example, you might be interested in explaining NATO’s 2011 intervention
in Libya; you might be interested in migration; or non-state actors like the Al Shabaab
militia in Somalia.
These events, phenomena or actors in IR often come into focus in the form of case
studies. But, of course, the challenge is how we bring our research topic into focus. As
researchers we aim to contribute more to the field then simply describe these events,
phenomena or actors. We aim to contribute to our understanding of the world around
us and want our findings to be relevant beyond the single case study at hand. By bet-
ter understanding the United Nations Security Council’s decision to intervene in Libya,
we might hope to shed light on determinants of intervention more broadly. By better
understanding migration across the Mediterranean, we might also hope to better under-
stand migration or border policing more broadly. And, by studying Al Shabaab, we might
contribute to knowledge on non-state armed groups beyond East Africa. Remember the
purpose of your research project is to move from generating specific knowledge about
your area of interest, or a particular phenomenon, to general knowledge that impacts
wider theory-oriented debates.
In order to do the above we need to be able to answer the question: what is a case
study? Is it simply a historical study of an event? Does the term describe all small-n
research (research designs that include only a small number of cases)? Is it another way of
describing qualitative research? You might find that different scholars have arrived at dif-
ferent answers to these questions. Gerring observed that the term case study has become
a ‘definitional morass.’ Take for example some of these proposed ways of describing case
study research:
• Qualitative small-n comparative research

• Ethnographic, clinical, participant observation of other ‘field’ research
• Process tracing research
• Research that investigates the properties of a single case
• Research that investigates a single phenomenon, instance, or example (Gerring,
2004: 341–2)
It should be pointed out that in relation to the first point, scholars have used the terms
‘case studies’ and ‘qualitative methods’ almost synonymously (Levy, 2002). However, qual-
itative methods encompass a broad range of methods or techniques that allow researchers
to explore contextually rich and unstructured data on their selected research topic. This
may include case study research but not exclusively. The second point uses field research
to define case studies, but this is more a method or technique for collecting data than a
question of research design. Meanwhile, process tracing, while an important part of
case study research, is too narrow to define all case studies and the last two definitions
focus on the case itself without broader implications or claims to generalizability.
Key Terms
Process Tracing: an attempt to trace the processes that link possible causes with
observed outcomes.
Causal Mechanisms: independent stable factors that under certain conditions link
causes to effects. For example, when applied to democratic peace theory the focus
would be on understanding the factors that explain why democracies did not go to war
in particular instances.
Causal Effects: the outcomes brought about by a posited causal variable. For example,
when applied to democratic peace theory a focus on causal effects would have us look
at conflict and non-conflict outcomes in crises.
When turning to methodological literature on case studies, scholars have posited numer-
ous definitions of case studies. Are case studies ‘histories with a point,’ as described by
Moses and Knutsen (2012: 133), and, thus potentially limited to detailed historical stud-
ies of specific events in recent history? Or are they ‘detailed investigations of individual
events, actors, and relationships as defined by Lipson (2005: 100), and thus perhaps
also seek to establish causal relationships and engage in explanation? Or are case studies
‘the detailed examination of an aspect of a historical episode to develop or test histor-
ical explanations that may be generalizable to other events’ as argued by George and
Bennett? (2005: 5) Or are case studies, as Gerring suggests, ‘an intensive study of a single
unit for the purpose of understanding a large class of (similar) units’ (2004: 342).
As IR research essays are both question-based and theory oriented, the most appropri-
ate definitions that will guide this chapter are those offered by George and Bennett, and
Gerring. Both of these definitions focus on a crucial task of case study research, to help
us generate knowledge that is relevant beyond the case or cases that are understudy in a
particular essay. The first two definitions, those offered by Moses and Knutsen, and Lipson,
while illustrative of many case studies, don’t quite capture this larger purpose of the case
study in IR, which is about more than simply providing rich description of an event or
actor. Clearly, confusion and contestation abound, but we must note case studies – as intro-
duced in this chapter – are not exclusive to either positivist or interpretive approaches.
Both positivist and interpretive case studies, as will be shown in this chapter, aim to con-
tribute to theory and thus inform debates beyond the empirical focus of the case itself.
The definitions in Table 11.1 highlight how the task of defining case studies is
closely related to understanding the goal of a case study. In fact, questions such as to
what extent can we generalize from a case study contain assumptions about how we view
the purpose of case study research. For example, if case studies are in-depth studies of
a specific historical actor, think a biography or a diplomatic history, they will likely
contain little or no reference to hypothesis testing or theory development, two pillars
Table 11.1 Case Study Definitions
Case Studies: Definitions

Moses and Knutsen histories with a point
Lipson detailed investigations of individual events, actors, and relationships
George and Bennett the detailed examination of an aspect of a historical episode to develop or
test historical explanations that may be generalizable to other events
Gerring an intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a large
class of (similar) units
of positivist research. This criticism of case studies is often advanced by those, such
as King et al. (1994: 211), who see research in our field as of value only if it generates
knowledge to answer bigger questions within the field.
Case Study Research: Theory and Methodology

The use of case studies in IR research spans theoretical and methodological traditions in
IR. Case studies have been frequently used to test material and ideational variables in
social constructivist research agendas (Klotz, 1995), rational choice theorists (Williams
and Zeager, 2004), and IR realists have also relied upon case study methods to advance
theoretical claims. Yet, at the same time it should be noted that theories of IR that are
highly abstract, such as Kenneth Waltz’ structural realism (1979), do not lend them-
selves to the types of questions best suited to case study research. Waltz see theories as
‘sparse in formulation and beautifully simple. Reality is complex and ugly’ (1996: 56).
As a result, structural realism cannot account for the foreign policies of individual states
(Waltz, 1996: 56). However, that is not to say that we cannot test neo-realist assumptions
against state behaviour, as for example Hughes (2016) did in explaining Japan’s foreign
and security policy. For positivist researchers, case studies are believed to be better at
answering certain kinds of questions that will generate rich and detailed accounts about
how certain processes work, but are less well suited toward making grand theoretical
claims applicable across cases (George and Bennett, 2005). For interpretive researchers,
the concern is less about whether or not you can leverage your findings to generalize
across cases, but rather to gain deeper knowledge about specific concepts or processes
that will help us better understand your case, and also what your case means for broader
theoretical debates.
One of the principal reasons why case studies are seen as a valuable research design is
that case studies can do something large quantitative studies cannot. They can generate
new hypotheses and contribute to theory-building, as well as theory-testing. When you
conduct interviews, or do archival research, often you will discover something new from
your primary sources that you did not expect to find when you started the research
process. This new data that you encounter may challenge preconceived notions about
your case. It may also highlight something else, that others who have written on your
case did not consider that it accounts for an outcome that was difficult to explain. This
may lead you to propose alternative causal explanations for your study that are not
present in the literature, and also challenge existing ones.
Case Study Research: Research Questions

Chapter 1 pointed out two major methodological traditions within which you may sit-
uate your own work. If your focus is on positivist questions that lend themselves to
hypothesis testing or causality then you will want to design your case study in a way
that maximizes causal inference, or more simply put, your ability to generalize. But,
if your objective is to expand our understanding of a particular concept of phenomena,
your case study should be designed around how closely your object of study relates to the
phenomena you wish you understand. See for example the different types of questions
that can be addressed through case study research in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2 What Do You Want to Do with Your Case Study?
•• (Historic) Focused study on a historical event: What explains NATO intervention in the 2011
Libyan conflict?
•• (Interpretive) Deepen our understanding of a particular concept or idea: How does film shape
public memory of the Second World War?
•• (Positivist) Hypothesis testing: Why do states comply with international criminal tribunal orders?
The first question aims to understand what explains NATO member states’ decision to
intervene in the 2011 Libyan war, which pitted armed rebel groups against the regime of
Muammar Gaddafi. This type of question is more common for those whose focus is on
explaining a particular event or practice in IR. An event could be a particular instance of
armed conflict, or a practice could be humanitarian intervention. Note that here the case
is the Libyan intervention, and the study will focus on explaining why NATO member
states chose to intervene in this particular conflict. From that, you may hope to discern
some lessons for the broader practice of intervention.
The second question aims to deepen our understanding of memory and armed con-
flict. In this case, through the medium of film. Scholars and students of IR have turned
to ideas, concepts and norms in order to understand how international politics are made.
Where do identities come from? How are threats constructed? How do we choose to
remember the past? How are these historic narratives reproduced within societies? This
question takes the case of film to elucidate how are historical narratives of war created
and how they are transmitted. While the specific film is not specified in the example
question, if you were interested in Japan, you could take the 2013 film, The Eternal Zero
as a case. This film was one of the most popular Japanese films released in that year and
was viewed by the then Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. The film also provoked a public
debate surrounding its depiction of kamikaze pilots, with critics arguing that this film
departed from past depictions of the Second World War by glorifying these suicide mis-
sions (Schilling, 2014).
The third question constitutes an attempt to test competing hypotheses as to
why states comply with international criminal tribunal orders. The question does
not ask whether or not states comply but aims to understand the conditions under
which states will comply. It is thus focused on uncovering causal mechanisms that
will bring about the causal effect of compliance. However, given this focus, an essay
would have to select cases that are appropriate for analysis. You might ask your-
self, what countries have complied with International Criminal Court orders? As not
many countries fall within this category, you can easily design a comparative study
that will allow you to process trace compliance decisions. More about questions of
case selection and case design will be explored shortly with reference to an exam-
ple drawn from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In
addition to case selection, you will need to identify competing hypotheses in the
literature that offer conjectures as to why states comply with international court
orders. If you have conducted an effective literature review, you will begin to encoun-
ter competing compliance hypotheses. Indeed, multiple hypotheses are present in
IR scholarship regarding why states comply with international law. Here are a few
examples of hypotheses you could test:
H1: States comply with international criminal tribunal order only when coerced to
comply by more powerful states (Power = Compliance)
H2: States comply with international criminal tribunal orders when it is in their inter-
est to comply (Self-interest = Compliance)
H3: States comply with international criminal tribunal orders out of a normative sense
of obligation to do so (Norms = Compliance)
The above three hypotheses offer competing causal pathways or processes that lead to
a certain outcome. Through a detailed study of primary and secondary source material
you can begin to recreate the decision-making processes that led to a particular outcome
in your case study that may either serve to affirm or challenge the aforementioned
hypothesis.
Now that we have defined case studies as in-depth studies of a single unit or historical
episode, or a comparative study of two or more units or historical episodes in order to
explain or understand other units or episodes that were not studied in your case study,
and we have explored different types of case study research questions, we can now turn
to the question of case study design.
How Can I Justify My Case Selection?

Despite the widespread usage of case studies, many case studies are written without
much reflection on methodological choices and case study design. As you learned in
Chapter 2, your research design will act as your roadmap for answering your research
question. Depending on your research question, you might aim to provide a deeper
understanding of a process or ‘how’ something happened or emerged, or you might be
trying to identify a specific cause of an event, or ‘why’ something happened. Your ques-
tion might even be exploratory or ontological. In other words, you might be interested
in understanding ‘what’ something is or ‘what’ is taking place. In most instances, you
will hope to draw conclusions that go beyond the specific case that you have examined.
In order to avoid making common mistakes, such as overgeneralization or mak-
ing comparisons with little causal inference, it is important when you choose to
undertake case study research that you ask yourself two fundamental questions: What
do you hope to learn from the case study? And, why have you selected your case(s)? These
two questions, while seemingly intuitive, will help you set out that your case study
research design is much more than simply about selecting events, places or actors
that are interesting.
There are many different strategies available for case study design that includes
both single and comparative case studies. After selection of your research question, and
your identification of testable hypotheses, your case study design will be crucial to the
operationalization of your case study research. In particular, for larger projects such as
dissertations, comparison can be a useful tool for strengthening the causal inference that
you draw from your research. However, as will be noted in the next section, your case
design should reflect both your research question and the properties of the theoretical
proposition that you are exploring.
Case Study Design and The Comparative Method

Case study research design can take on different forms depending upon what you want
to achieve through your case study. In studies that examine a small number of cases,
you will need to establish why you have chosen to compare your cases. One question
that students sometimes ask when designing small-n research projects is ‘how many
cases do I need?’ There is no definite one size fits all answer to this question. While
many case studies are within-case analyses of a single case, other case studies aim to
compare cases. What will dictate the number of cases you can engage with in your case
study will be in part the amount of time and space you have to conduct an in-depth
study of two or more cases. The other consideration will be the logic of comparison
that you will apply. (See Table 11.2 for different logics such as most similar and least
similar comparisons.) When considering comparative case study design most small-n
research designs you may examine two to a dozen cases. Below, the comparative method
will be introduced.
Small-n case study research is often the only choice available to a positivist researcher
when there are not a sufficiently large enough number of cases available to generate a
statistically significant sample, or when the possible explanatory variables are too numer-
ous, nuanced, or complex to code. Small-n offers a compelling alternative for a researcher
looking for a more intensive study of one or a small number of cases, to give a particu-
larly detailed insight into a particular event or situation. As noted in Chapter 6, statistical
analysis requires us to translate natural language into formal, or mathematical, language.
Formal language is good at capturing certain things, like economic trends, but can it tell
us the story of why an individual country, like post-Second World War Japan, experi-
enced rapid economic growth?
Comparisons are part of how we make judgements and decisions in our daily lives.
What was the last movie you watched? Why? Your response will analyze this movie’s
characteristics on the basis of other similar movies that you have seen. Was its genre
horror? Comedy? Action? Was the movie a recent release or a classic? Have you seen
other movies by this same director? By putting this movie into the context of analytical
categories of movies you will then be able to more easily explain what the movie did well,
and what it failed to do well. Just like this example, small-n studies rely on the logic of
comparison.
Yet, while we draw upon comparisons in everyday life, choosing cases for comparative
research requires more careful reflection. Three basic approaches for identifying potential
cases will be outlined below.
The first strategy is for questions that are theory-testing. In the literature you will
commonly encounter explanatory variables that are argued to account for a certain out-
come. For example, the presence of natural resources in a country causes civil wars to last
longer. To test this assumption, a researcher could select a small set of carefully-selected
cases designed to control for causal variables other than the presence of natural resources,
conduct a comparative analysis, and then confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis that
inspired your research question.
The second strategy starts with a case or set of cases, for example the foreign policies
of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) member states, and asks what we can
learn from them. This approach can produce some interesting empirical narratives, and
provide the basis for new hypotheses.
The third approach zooms in on a single case. Single case, or within-case analysis, offers
limited insights on causality by evaluating competing hypotheses against the evidence in a
thorough examination of a single case. Single case studies are common in IR because often
the detailed examination of a single case requires a significant amount of historic, contex-
tual, and linguistic knowledge that takes a significant amount of time to develop. So for
example, single case studies of conflict in Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or
Afghanistan are relatively common. If your goal is to explain one specific and yet pivotal
historical event (like the 2003 Iraq War), a single case study buttressed by an extensive
empirical account might actually provide a stronger causal account than a research design
that relies on a larger number of cases but which can only weakly explain causality.
Each of the three comparative strategies for finding cases noted above rely on a spe-
cific comparative logic. This is also true for in case comparisons as you will be some
form of before-and-after comparison that you will need to consider like country X under
presidential authoritarian rule and country X under a transition to democracy. But, one
common criticism of the case study method is that it is open to selection bias on the
part of the researcher, which in turn makes any attempt at generalizing findings beyond
the limited number of cases that were selected by the researcher almost impossible.
In fact, Flyvbjerg (2006) noted that some researchers doubt case studies constitute a
‘scientific method’ because they contain a bias towards verification and reinforcement
of an author’s preconceptions on the case. This means that, for example, a researcher
who wants to explain why inter-state crises escalate into war is likely to choose cases of
inter-state crises where war occurred and fail to account for inter-state crises where war
did not occur.
In order to address this and ensure that you challenge preconceived beliefs about a
particular case you may have it is important that you think critically about your case
comparison selection criteria. One way of doing this is to be transparent about why you
have selected your cases and how your case selection will help you better understand
your case(s). Bennett and Elman (2007) identified five common strategies for case selec-
tion: least-likely, most-similar case comparison, least-similar case comparison, combining cross
case and cross time comparison and deviant cases. Note that the opposite of least-likely case
design, is most-likely, more about this will be discussed shortly. The rationale underlying
each of these strategies and examples of IR research that utilized each of these strategies
are outlined in Table 11.3.
Table 11.3 Common Strategies for Case Selection
Selection Criteria Rationale Examples

Least-Likely/Most-Likely Least-likely refers to the hard Newnham (2004) – North Korea
cases and is also known as the as a hard case for economic
‘Sinatra Inference’ – if a theory incentives as a tool to achieve non-
can make it here, it can make it proliferation. Darnton (2020) – A
anywhere. Start from hard cases most-likely case for studying whether
to demonstrate confidence in public diplomacy can help resolve
a particular theory. Most-likely protracted conflicts by studying
cases, on the other hand, are Cold War rapprochement between
cases where a theory should Argentina and Brazil.
hold, or easy cases.
Most-Similar Case Find cases as similar as possible Ireland (2018) – explored
Comparisons in all but one independent explanations for measures to protect
variable, but differ in their female domestic workers on the
outcomes. Demonstrate part of the Philippines and Sri
difference in independent Lanka. Morency-Laflamme (2018) –
variable accounts for difference examined the role of trust between
in outcomes. military officers and opposition forces
in Benin and Togo.

Least-Similar Case Select cases that are different He (2012) – a least-similar case
Comparisons in all but one independent comparison is used to test balancing
variable, but share dependent behaviour among China, the U.S.,
variable. Demonstrate shared and Russia.
independent variable accounts
for shared outcomes.
Combining Cross Combination of Cross Case and Peskin (2008) – studied Serbia,
Case and Over-Time ‘before-and-after’ comparisons. Croatia, and Rwanda’s cooperation
Comparisons Allows for greater comparison with international tribunals by
across fewer cases. combining cases and also exploring
over-time comparisons.
Deviant Cases Disconformatory cases. Select Crawford (2008) – examines Spain as
cases that do not conform to a deviant case of alliance behaviour as
theoretical expectations. Can be in 1940–41, Spain did not join with its
powerful tool for generating new fascist allies to go to war with the UK.
hypotheses and uncovering new Rosendal (2005) examined the EU
variables. as a deviant case where the biotech
industry lacked influence.
The least-likely and most-likely case selection strategies is sometimes referred to as a

crucial case (Levy, 2008). This is because these cases are crucial to demonstrating whether
or not a theory holds – albeit for different reasons. First, the least-likely case study, which
is argued by Gerring (2007: 236) to be implicitly the most commonly used strategy for
case selection in case study research, which describes ‘hard cases.’ The least likely case
study is useful when you are confronted with a theoretical claim that seems to have some
explanatory power, such as for example social constructivist literature on norms explain-
ing state behaviour. In this case, these constructivist theoretical claims can be tested
through a crucial case by being applied to a hard case, such as international security,
which has traditionally been dominated by realism thought (Katzenstein, 1996). Or as in
the case of Newnham (2004), the effectiveness of economic inducements in convincing
states to abandon their nuclear weapons programs could be explored against the hard
case of North Korea.
The opposite of the least-likely case study is the most-likely case study. Here you select
your case because it has the conditions where your theory should hold. In this sense, it
is a reverse Sinatra inference. If your theory can’t make it here, it can’t make it anywhere
(Levy, 2008). In his study of public diplomacy as a means to solve intractable inter-state
conflicts, Darnton (2020) focused on Argentina and Brazil’s Cold War rapprochement as
a most-likely case for public diplomacy as a tool of conflict resolution. This was because
Argentina and Brazil didn’t have any characteristics, such as a territorial dispute over land
both countries considered ‘sacred’ that would make it a hard case for rapprochement.
The next two comparative case selection criteria are drawn from Mill’s Method of
Agreement and Method of Difference and were further developed by Przeworski and Teune
(1970). The most-similar case comparison involves selecting cases that are almost
identical in all but one independent variable, but do not share the same dependent
variable and test for whether or not the one divergent independent variable accounts for
divergent outcomes. Przeworski and Teune refer to this research design as Most Similar
Systems Design, in which common factors are controlled and the divergent factor is
argued to account for a divergent outcome (Przeworski and Teune, 1970; Faure, 1994).
The least-similar case comparison involves selecting cases that share only a single
independent variable and test for whether or not that variable accounts for a shared
dependent variable. Drawing on Mill’s Method of Difference, the least-similar case com
parison attempts to bring together cases, or countries, that share little in common except
a single variable and a particular outcome the researcher seeks to explain (Faure, 1994).
Of course, in practice, it is impossible to either find cases that truly only share one
independent variable, or in relation to the most similar method, share all but a single
independent variable, and neither can cope with dependent variables that have multiple
causes (Bennett, 2004).
Therefore, the most-similar and least-similar case designs should be taken as general
case selection criteria. For example, most-similar case comparisons typically can include
countries in a single region, such as studies of economic growth in the East Asian ‘tigers,’
or democratization in the post-Soviet Baltic states (Ishiyama, 1993). Least-similar case
comparisons often include countries taken from geographically and culturally distinct
regions, such as can be found in He’s (2012) study of balancing behaviour among China,
the United States, and Russia.
The combined cross case and over-time comparison requires you to select multiple
cases and compare them across different points in time. This design allows for you to
generate more cases out of a few. For example, when exploring state cooperation with
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia it was possible to look at
Croatia and Serbia under presidential authoritarian regimes (before 2000) and their dem-
ocratic successors (after 2000). Table 11.4 illustrates what had initially been a case study
with only two cases was expanded to four once an over-time comparison component was
added to the case design.
Table 11.4 Cross Case and Over-Time Comparison
Croatia Serbia
Presidential Authoritarian A1 B1
Parliamentary Democracy A2 B2
Finally, the deviant cases are those cases, which do not conform to theoretical expecta-
tions, and your task is to understand why. These are cases that are dis-confirmatory or
a specific theoretical conjecture. On all accounts they should conform, on the basis of
theoretical expectation, but they do not. Take for example the democratic peace theory,
which holds that no two democracies will go to war with each other. Miriam Fendius
Elman (1977), however, selected a case of two democracies going to war to establish new
findings that suggest we should look more closely at the types of democracies in explain-
ing why democracies do not go to war with other democracies.
Now that we have outlined common strategies for case study selection, we can turn
to how you will go about linking your observations within the case study to observed
outcomes through process tracing and the identification of causal mechanisms.
Causality and Comparative Research Design: Causal

Mechanisms and Process Tracing
As noted in the introduction to the previous section, there is no one size fits all answer
to the question of how many cases you can include within a comparative case study.
As a result, comparative research includes qualitative small-n research, with just a cou-
ple or a few cases and mid-size comparative design that includes up to a dozen cases.
Beyond a dozen cases, it becomes impractical for both the researcher and the reader to
sift through in-depth studies of nuanced processes, and large-n quantitative tools and
methods presented in Chapter 6 would be of better use. An important tool that helps you
demonstrate causality in your case studies, no matter what case study selection criteria
you have applied, is that of process tracing (Chapter 5). Case studies, by definition,
provide contextually rich descriptions of how a certain historical episode took place,
and through a structured case design you can explore in detail the underlying processes
that link your independent variables and dependent variables. In short, your aim is to
trace the sequence of events that brought about the outcome you are attempting to
explain. You accomplish this through field research, such as interviewing participants in
the event under examination. In short, process tracing allows you to also explore what
causal mechanisms brought about a particular outcome in your case study, and thus pro-
vide deeper explanatory insight for the reader.
For example, in my cross case over-time comparative study of state compliance with
orders issued by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, I explored
why states complied or failed to comply with orders issued by the Tribunal. I wanted to
understand the motivations and processes that brought about compliance outcomes and
see whether causal mechanisms of power, interests or norms explained state behaviour.
In order to do this, I selected cases where states were ordered to transfer individuals
indicted by the Tribunal and explored how states responded to Tribunal requests in the
1990s and the 2000s.
Table 11.5 Creating Cross Case Comparisons and Structuring Your Case Study
International Criminal Justice and the Politics of Compliance (Lamont, 2010)

Aim: Explain variation in state cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) among former Yugoslav states.
Case selection criteria: Former Yugoslav states that were subject to requests to cooperate from the ICTY.
(Continued)
Table 11.5 (Continued)
International Criminal Justice and the Politics of Compliance (Lamont, 2010)

Cases: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro.
Hypotheses tested: State cooperation can be explained by power, self-interest, or norms?
Problems of Comparison: Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo were under international administration
and had robust international peacekeeping forces deployed on their territories, which could execute
arrest orders on behalf of the Tribunal independently, so these cases were studied separately.
Findings: Material- or norm-based approaches alone cannot explain outcomes, but rather legal
argumentation to rationalize compliance or non-compliance acts in the 1990s either facilitated or
complicated later acts of compliance in the 2000s.
In the above example, the question was focused on states’ compliance with ICTY arrest
orders, which meant that case selection was made relatively easy. I was able to include
all relevant cases as I only looked at those cases where a state was faced with comply-
ing with an arrest order issued against one of its own nationals. This excluded, for
example, the state of Slovenia, which, while part of the ‘former Yugoslavia’, was not
confronted with such an order. Second, the period of time under study was relatively
easy to delineate. The Tribunal was established in 1993 and stopped issuing new indict-
ments in 2005 and as of 2008 had security custody of most of those indicted, so the
temporal scope of these case studies was limited to 1993 until 2008. Finally, as many
of these states underwent significant political changes in the early 2000s, and for the
most part the conflict took place in the 1990s, I divided each study cross time looking
at first the 1990s and then the 2000s and highlighted potential explanatory variables
and processes through looking at both the domestic and international politics of com-
pliance decisions.
When thinking of your own case study project, you will note the better you under-
stand your case, the easier it will be to justify your case selection. In order to design the
aforementioned case study, it was important to know from what period of time the ICTY
was issuing indictments and which states received the preponderance of these indict-
ments. While 161 individuals were indicted by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal secured
custody of all individuals at-large, one could argue a quantitative study of compliance
would tell us a lot about state cooperation with the Tribunal. However, as noted earlier,
a quantitative ‘counting’ of outcomes, transfers to Tribunal custody, would only give us
the causal effect, that the Tribunal was able to gain custody of war crimes fugitives. But,
the focus on arrests only cannot tell us much as to the processes that underlie decisions
to cooperate with the Tribunal on the part of states.
Thus, the lesson drawn from the above example, that the most important consid-
eration that you should consider when designing your own case study is making sure
your research question ‘fits’ your research design. If we take the questions drawn from
Table 2.1, in Chapter 2, you will note that they are all questions that merit a case study
design. If for example, we take the question, what explains populist candidate Rodrigo
Duterte’s election as President of the Philippines? we have a clearly bounded single country
case study that seeks to explain a single event. An essay that responds to this question
will produce a historically focused explanation of a single event. But, at the same time,
the question is limited in the sense that it does not ask about populist presidential can-
didates in general, but rather attempts to understand the case of the Philippines. This is
not to say that your response to the research question will not have implications for a
broader category of similar cases, for example other states where populist leaders have
experienced electoral success, but rather that the factors that explain Duterte’s electoral
success in the Philippines, on the basis of your case study, be assumed to account for
populist politics in other countries.
Case Study Design: An Interpretivist Perspective

While previous sections focused on strategies for case study design that aim to maximize
causal inference, this section will explore case study design in the context of interpretive
research. You will notice that there is some overlap in practices, such as process tracing,
and case selection strategies. This highlights the extent to which case study research
design has proven to be a useful strategy for both positivist and interpretive researchers.
Lai and Roccu (2019) highlight how case studies are central to many interpretive
research designs. And, they also point out that critical researchers in IR do not carry
out case study research with the same purpose in mind as positivist researchers (Lai and
Roccu, 2019: 71–2). As noted in the section above, comparative case study design strat-
egies assumes your case study design is based on the logic of generalizability and causal
inference. Interpretive researchers design research with a number of goals in mind; how-
ever, in general, the focus is on identifying and exploring how social mechanisms shape
or constrain action in IR as we see with critical discourse analysis (Chapter 10).
However, it is important to stress, that case studies in interpretive research also focus
on a bounded event, place, or time period, and we need to be clear as to what we aim to
learn from our case or cases. It is important to note here that normative theory work that
explores a particular idea or concept over a large stretch of time and space, such as Walzer’s
Just and Unjust Wars, would not constitute a case study. Therefore, a mapping of the idea of
liberalism over centuries would not be a case study. However, if we are to look at liberalism
in a particular context, such as in Japan, we would be working with a case study.
Table 11.6 Strategies for Interpretive Case Study Design

Exemplary case(s) This type of case study is aimed Wedeen (2008) explores national solidarity
at finding an example case (or in weak states through an in-depth study
cases), to provide the reader of Yemen; Autesserre (2010) explores
with an in-depth exploration of a how dominant peacebuilding cultures
particular social phenomenon of precluded action on local violence in the
interest Democratic Republic of Congo
(Continued)
Table 11.6 (Continued)

Cartographic This type of case study allows the Conley (2019) focuses on a museum
case(s) researcher to focus on a particular in Ethiopia to re-think core conceptual
entity or practice in order to map categories of memory studies
out specified ideas or concepts
Genealogies This type of case study allows a Vitalis (2015) traces how race shaped
researcher to trace a particular the development of the discipline of
discourse or practice over time. international relations
Case selection will be guided
by tracing how this discourse or
practice was understood and
constituted over time
The case design criteria mapped out in Table 11.6 are meant to help you think about case
selection in interpretive case study design. Keep in mind these are not meant as fixed
typologies, as the aims of projects can overlap, but they are meant to help you to start
thinking about your project.
The first typology, that of exemplary cases, describes cases that are explored in order
to provide the reader with an in-depth exploration of a phenomenon that is of wider
interest, such as nationalism. In Wedeen’s Peripheral Visions (2008), Wedeen explores ‘the
making of national attachments’ in places where state institutions are weak (2008: 2).
Wedeen does this through a deep immersion into her case, Yemen, through the conduct
of ethnographic fieldwork (2008: 17–18).
Another example is Autesserre’s The Trouble with the Congo (2010). While Wedeen
sought to explore core assumptions that underlie the concept of nationalism, Autesserre
sought to examine a big picture question: why do international peacebuilding interven-
tions fail? Autesserre answers this question with reference to culture, but Autesserre does
not aim to develop linear causal arguments so as to support law-like statements (2010:
29), but instead to establish the conditions of possibility for events (2010: 29–30). In
short, Autesserre’s project aims to respond to the ‘how possible’ typology of questions
discussed in Chapter 2. Both of the above examples are close to the extended case study
methodology, that aims to link local contexts and everyday practices to broader phenom-
ena, proposed for interpretive researchers by Lai and Roccu (2019: 73).
The second typology of cases is more cartographic, or oriented towards the mapping
of ideas, concepts or practices within a bounded case study. A good example of this
type of project is Conley’s Memory from the Margins (2019). Conley provides an in-depth
study of the Red Terror Martyrs Memorial Museum in Ethiopia in order to ‘re-think’ core
conceptual categories and to break ‘concepts down into their composite parts, revealing
internal tensions’ (2019: 32). Indeed, through a study of memory practices at a particu-
lar location, in this case a museum, Conley contests assumptions in the literature about
the didactic role of how memory of mass violence can be ‘tamed’ to contribute to any
particular political agenda (2019: 236).
The third typology presented is genealogies. Genealogies are an increasingly com-

mon research method in IR (Vucetic, 2011; Bonditti et al. 2015). They take a particular
discourse or practice in IR, and instead of assuming it is of fixed meaning, place it into
historical context (Bonditti et al., 2015: 159). This allows the researcher to go beyond
ahistorical accounts of IR to highlight how many taken-for-granted terms and practices
‘come with a lot of baggage’ (Bonditti et al., 2015: 161). The example used here is Vitalis’
White World Order – Black Power Politics (2015). Here Vitalis examines the emergence of
IR as a field of study in the United States and reveals to the reader how many taken-for-
granted concepts in IR are deeply embedded in notions of race.
With these three typologies in mind, you can now try to justify a case study on inter-
pretive grounds. You will note that instead of coming up with hypotheses, as you did
earlier in this chapter, you will now think about what kind of phenomenon, discourse, or
practice you would like to explore and which case would help you explore this and why?
Thinking about Interpretive Case Study Design

• What phenomenon, discourse, or practice is the focus of your study? And why?
• What is your research strategy? (exemplary case, cartographic case, or genealogi-
cal case)
Chapter Summary
Case study research is commonly used in IR, but at the same time case study design is not
as simple as the method might appear. Case studies are cases with purposes, or the study of
a single unit or a small number of units in order to understand other similar units. The first
step of case study research design is to ask a research question, which either attempts his-
torical explanation, to deepen our understanding of a particular idea or concept, or to test
hypotheses or generate new ones. As such, the goal of a good case study is to both produce
knowledge about the case, but also provide some cumulative knowledge about the broader
universe of cases. The second step is to select your cases and justify your case selection
criteria. Your case study design will then inform the operationalization of your case study.
There are numerous ways in which you can justify a case study. However, it is import-
ant to ensure your case study justification is internally consistent with methodological
choices presented in Chapter 2. Positivist research questions will aim to maximize causal
inference and therefore case study selection will be guided by causal inference. On the
other hand, interpretive research projects are aiming to gain deeper knowledge about their
case, whether it be to learn more about a particular concept, such as nationalism or peace-
building, to map how these concepts relate to each other, or to trace a genealogy of these
concepts through time. While the strategies presented here are not meant to be exhaustive,
they should help you to think critically about your case study research design choices.

1 This book provides an in-depth overview of strategies of case study design that
will be helpful to more advanced students in thinking about case study selection:
George, Andrew L. and Bennett, Andrew (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development
in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2 This article provides students with a good positivist overview of definitions of case
studies and how case studies can contribute to positivist research: Gerring, John
(2004) ‘What is a case study and what is it good for?’, American Political Science
Review, 98 (2): 341–54.
3 Lai and Roccu make an interpretivist case for an extended case study method: Lai,
Daniela and Roccu, Roberto (2019) ‘Case study research and Critical IR: The case
for an extended case study methodology” International Relations, 33 (1): 67–87.
4 This article provides an exploration of the role of case studies in developing causal
explanations: Levy, Jack S. (2008) ‘Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of
inference’, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25 (1): 1–18.
TWELVE
WRITING UP YOUR RESEARCH
learning objectives
• Explain and understand the purpose of core components of a paper or thesis

• Apply strategies for writing up your research
• Understand how to write a research proposal
• Identify common obstacles to writing up and to be able to identify ways of
overcoming these obstacles
Writing up can be the most challenging, but also the most rewarding part of the research
process. While committing your findings on paper can feel like a daunting task, it is
important to remember that you already have the nuts and bolts of your paper in front
you. You have your research question, you have settled on your research design, and you
have collected and analyzed your data. Now what is left is to share your findings.
At this point, chances are you already have substantial sections of your paper or thesis
written in some sort of draft form. You might have started to map the structure of your lit-
erature review, or have written out your methodological choices, and you likely also have a
lot of notes on data collection and analysis. What you need to do now is to transform all of
these disparate notes into a single cohesive and cogently argued paper or thesis. This process
is what is commonly referred to as writing up, and it is this process that is the focus of this
chapter. The writing up process will be explored by first discussing how theses and longer
research papers are structured. Next, the chapter will turn to providing you with some gen-
eral tips and strategies for undertaking the writing up process. And finally, a final section on
troubleshooting and overcoming last minute obstacles to completing your research project.
The Components of a Research Paper

Whether you are writing a short essay, an undergraduate or master’s thesis, a PhD dis-
sertation, or a journal article for peer review, IR research papers are structured around
core components that are common to almost all research work across the social sciences.
This section will provide you with an explanation of what makes up each of these core
components. You might want to think of them as building blocks, but as will be pointed
out in the next session, they should not be stacked together like standalone pieces in a
puzzle, but rather there must be a red line of argumentation that goes through them from
your introduction to your conclusion. Transitions between sections will help you draw
these connections to make your redline visible to the reader.
The core components of an IR research paper are listed in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1 Sample Structure of a Research Paper
Title Page
Table of Contents
Abstract
Preface and Acknowledgments
I Introduction
II Literature Review
III Methodology/Research Design/Methods
IV Data Analysis
V Conclusions
VI Bibliography/References/Works Cited
Writing Up Your Research 229
Title, Table of Contents, Abstract, and Preface

For essays, theses, or dissertations you will likely be required to provide a title page. In
addition the title of your work and the date of submission, you may be asked to also
provide the name of the class, the name of the class professor, your name, student num-
ber, and email address. You should consult your class syllabus or glance over previously
summited theses or dissertations on file in your institution’s library to get a sense of
relevant title page conventions. Your work’s title, however, is entirely up to you. While
you probably have thought about the title of your work at the very beginning, now that
you have your research findings you might want to revisit what you initially had in mind
in the context of what you have learned. There are three things that you should keep in
mind when coming up with a title:
1 Does it capture your reader’s attention?

2 Does it identify your research topic and cases?
3 Does it suggest an argument or contribution your research makes?
One important thing to keep in mind, is that you should keep your title short and con-
cise. Let’s look at some examples of article and book titles that won the International
Studies Association’s Human Rights Section’s best book or article awards in the past
few years.
Table 12.2 Recent ISA Award-winning Book and Article Titles in Human Rights
The Logics of Gender Justice: State Action on Women’s Rights around the World (Mala Htun and S.
Laurel Weldon)
The Making of International Human Rights: The 1960s, Decolonization, and the Reconstruction of
Global Values (Steven L.B. Jensen)
Making and Unmaking Nations: War, Leadership, and Genocide in Modern Africa (Scott Straus)
The World Bank as an Enforcer of Human Rights (Kelebogile Zvobgo and Benjamin A.T. Graham)
The Assault on Civil Society: Explaining State Crackdown on NGOs (Suparna Chaudhry)
Discourses of Secular and Sacred Rights in Post-Revolutionary Tunisia (Stefan Borg)
You will see that for some titles, a colon is used to separate the first part of a title that is
intentionally provocative and attention getting, such as Chaudry’s Assault on Civil Society
(2017). This part of the title is used to catch the reader’s attention. It can then be followed
by a more specific identification of the research topic or cases. In Chaudry’s case this was
‘explaining state crackdown on NGOs.’ Depending on your topic, you might also choose
a title that conveys the contents of your project in a single phrase, such as Zvobgo and
Graham’s The World Bank as an Enforcer of Human Rights (2020). While the choice is largely
stylistic, you will want to think about how to work in your case, or cases, into the title
while also hinting at your contribution in a manner that catches your reader’s attention.
Next, you will turn to your table of contents. A table of contents is a roadmap for your
reader on both the overall structure of your work, and also where to find specific sections
of your work by page number. In dividing your work into sections, you can generally rely
on the structure of a research paper presented in Table 12.1. Remember though, whether
you are coming up with section titles or chapter titles, make sure that you don’t rely on
generic organizational signposts as titles or section headers. For example, your literature
review does not need to be called your literature review, but rather you can come up
with a section title that reflects the issues that your literature review will address. For
example, if you are reviewing literature on international justice, you might call the sec-
tion, Contested Justice. Alternatively, if you are reviewing literature on the Responsibly to
Protect, you could call the section, Debating the Responsibility to Protect. These are just a
couple of examples of how to craft your own section, or chapter titles. A rule of thumb
to remember is that ‘Chapter 1’ is an organizational signpost, not a chapter title. Instead,
tell the reader about what they can expect to find in each chapter. If you are having trou-
ble doing this, you can use the same guidance for coming up with the chapter of your
work to try to formulate section or chapter titles.
One final note regarding your table of contents will be the need to add page number-
ing for each chapter or section. Adding page numbers to your table of contents might
have been a more time-consuming task in the past, but luckily today word processing
software packages include templates that will make it easy for you to generate a table of
contents with up-to-date page numbering for each section or chapter.
Your abstract is a short paragraph of about 200 words in which you summarize your
work’s main arguments and contributions. It justifies the relevance of the work, provides
the research question, a brief explanation of the methodology or methods used, and key
findings. In fact, even if you are not required to write an abstract for a paper, thinking
about how you would formulate an abstract is an extremely helpful way of making sure
that your paper is cogently structured and that there are no big gaps in logic in what
you are writing. You probably have read many abstracts when conducting your literature
search. Sometimes you might have even made decisions on what articles you need to read
and what articles are not relevant to your topic on the basis of your reading of abstracts.
The following box provides an example of an abstract from an article on the Chinese
Communist Party’s global outreach by Hackenesch and Bader (2020) in International
Studies Quarterly. You will notice that this abstract starts off with a very clear justification
of why the authors have chosen to look at this topic by telling us the paper ‘addresses a
largely overlooked actor in China’s foreign relations’ (Hackenesch and Bader, 2020: 723).
You will also notice in the abstract that the authors also present their data collection and
analysis strategies and give the reader an insight into their findings.
A Sample Abstract on China’s Foreign Relations

This paper addresses a largely overlooked actor in China’s foreign relations, the
International Department of the Communist Party of China (ID-CPC). Using publicly
available documentation, we systematically analyze the patterns of the CPC’s external
relations since the early 2000s. Building on an intense travel diplomacy, the ID-CPC
maintains a widely stretched network to political elites across the globe. The ID-CPC’s
engagement is not new; but since Xi Jinping took office, the CPC has bolstered its
efforts to reach out to other parties. We find that party relations not only serve as an
additional channel to advance China’s foreign policy interests. Since President Xi has
come to power, party relations also emerged as a key instrument to promote China’s
vision for reforming the global order. Moreover, China increasingly uses the party chan-
nel as a vehicle of authoritarian learning by sharing experiences of its economic mod-
ernization and authoritarian one-party regime. The cross-regional analysis of the CPC’s
engagement with other parties helps us to better understand the role of the CPC in
Chinese foreign policy-making, pointing to a new research agenda at the intersection of
China’s foreign relations, authoritarian diffusion, and transnational relations.
Source: Hackenesch, Christine and Bader, Julia (2020) ‘The Struggle for minds and influence: The
Chinese Communist Party’s global outreach’, International Studies Quarterly, 64 (3): 723–33.
Next, the preface and acknowledgements sections are generally the last components that
will precede the core of your paper, thesis or dissertation. A Preface is an introduction to a
longer work that is written by the author and can be used to tell a personal story of what
inspired your interest in the topic at hand. Often prefaces also include acknowledge-
ments where you can thank your advisor(s), your family, and also others who supported
you while you were engaged in the research and writing process.
Now that we have worked through the elements of the front matter of your work, the
title page, table of contents, abstract, and a preface and acknowledgements, we can now
turn to the main body of your research work. When you get to the main body of your
work, each of these sections of your essay should include an introduction, body section
and conclusions. The length of each section, and whether or not each section will consti-
tute a subheading within an essay or its own chapter will depend on the length of your
work. You should always consult your advisor for any specific institutional guidelines on
structure that you might be asked to follow.
The following sections will now present the core parts of a paper or thesis in
greater detail.
The Introduction
The introduction is a critically important part of your research paper or thesis. Much
like your title and abstract, while it comes up front in your finished work, to be effective
you will need to revise it only after you have completed writing your other sections to
ensure that it accurately introduces your reader to what they are about to read. So what
do you need to include in your introduction? Well, first you need to tell your reader why
your topic is interesting. Now, of course, the reason why you have selected your topic is
because you find it interesting, but here you need to communicate to your reader why
it is of interest to others working on this topic or to IR scholarship more broadly: Are
you engaging with a puzzle that challenges existing theoretical assumptions? Are you
uncovering new insights from new empirical data on your research topic? These are some
of the things that you will need to explain in your introduction so that your work’s con-
tribution is clear to your readers.
In short, your introduction will serve to both seize your reader’s attention and inform
your reader up front of what to expect. In policy writing and in think tanks this is known
as presenting your bottom line up front. We are not fiction writers, and we should not
aim to hold our audience in suspense. Your paper or thesis is not a mystery novel. Your
reader should not be left thinking: whoa, I was not expecting that conclusion at all on
the basis of everything that was presented in this thesis, how is this finding even possi-
ble? If your professor is left asking this question in a paper you have submitted for class,
you will likely see your grade suffer. In sum, your introduction should be attention get-
ting, but also contain a clear topic statement, why it is important, and a roadmap that
will provide the reader with the structure of the work.
The Literature Review

Your literature review provides an organizational and analytical summary of existing work
on your topic. As you will recall from Chapter 4, your literature review should accomplish
the following: First, you should inform your reader of major points of disagreements in
scholarship or policy literature on your topic. For example, if writing about the topic of
nuclear proliferation, you might find that some authors view the proliferation of nuclear
weapons as something that would contribute to peace, while others argue nuclear pro-
liferation makes the use of nuclear weapons in conflict much more likely. Next, you will
need to demonstrate how your research question relates to existing debates and analytical
frameworks. For example, your study of nuclear proliferation in South Asia aims to shed
light on the debate over nuclear proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons in armed
conflict. Finally, you need to present how your main argument relates to the existing liter-
ature. Overall, when writing up your literature review you will start with existing debates
and move through the literature to home in on your main argument. Doing this will help
you focus on those debates that are most relevant to your research question. The follow-
ing box provides an excerpt from a lengthier literature review that provides an example of
how literature can be organized on the topic of migration and human rights.
For more on how to go about conducting the literature review, you can turn back to
Chapter 4.
An Example Literature Review on

Migration and Human Rights
Over time, the literature has coalesced around a few commonly accepted arguments
and findings that we draw on for our argument. The first is that physical integrity
rights abuses are a control mechanism available to all states (Poe, 2004). Furthermore,
states often resort to the use of repression when they feel threatened and when other
options to control the population (like offering concessions or using appeasement) are
too costly (Poe, 2004; Regan and Henderson, 2002). This can occur when faced with
violent internal challengers (Chenoweth et al., 2017; Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011;
Stephan and Chenoweth, 2008) – commonly referred to as the ‘law of coercive respon-
siveness’ (Davenport, 2007). Abuses can also be used in response to a perceived threat,
especially when that alters a regime leader’s perception of their own stability (Poe,
2004). Not all abuses, however, may be the result of a threat to political survival: police
and security forces may use abuses when they perceive themselves to be threatened
and unmonitored, not directly as a result of regime orders. The fact that a perception
of threat can lead to human rights violations may unfortunately play a role in the link
between migration and human rights violations within states.
Source: Avdan, Nazli, Bsisu, Naji, and Murdie, Amanda (2020) ‘Abuse by association: Migration
from terror-prone countries and human rights abuses’, International Interactions, 47 (2): 237–65.
Methodology and Research Design

At some point either in your introduction, or in a dedicated section, you will need to set
out your methodology and justify your research design. You will recall from our earlier
discussions of methodological pluralism, discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, that
because IR is a discipline with an openness to a wide range of different methodologies and
epistemological stances, it is essential that we clearly set out the methodological standards
against which our work will be evaluated. What does this mean? Well, is your study a pos-
itivist account of explaining particular outcomes like identifying what factors contribute
to the success or failure of peace agreements? Or is your study a more interpretivist study
of the meanings of peace in IR? Both sets of questions have their own internal logics to
them and the extent to which your reader can engage with your argument will be in part
determined by whether or not your reader understands your own methodological stances.
In short, your methodology and research design section will tell the reader ‘how’ you
will answer your research question. Although this section’s content may vary signifi-
cantly depending on which methodological approaches you engage with, it should be
clear to the reader what methodological choices you have made and how you understand
and use key concepts, such as causality.
It is here you will also justify your research design. Is your paper or thesis a large-n
study? If so, you will need to specify data sources, operationalization, and measure-
ment strategies (Bryman, 2008: 670). In terms of operationalization, what specific
datasets will you be relying on and where were they found? Will you be collecting your
own primary data? If so, how (e.g., surveys, questionnaires, content analysis) and under
what conditions (e.g., sampling strategies) did you collect this data? What specific vari-
ables will you be testing and what specific statistical tests will you be carrying out? What
are the advantages and limitations to such a research design?
When addressing measurement, you should be explicit about measurement tools that
you are using such as coding. You should justify your coding or scaling choices that you
made, and what you hoped to achieve through this process. For more on quantitative
research operationalization and measurement, you can turn back to Chapter 6.
The methods and methodologies section can best be seen as a way to answer relevant
questions about your study, to justify the methods used. What if you are carrying out
a small-n study focused on one or a few cases? Why have you zoomed in on these par-
ticular cases? Will you be process tracing? Are you relying on a specific method of case
comparison discussed in Chapter 11? Or are you focusing on excavating the genealogy of
a specific concept or practice in IR? While the questions you will need to address will vary
depending upon your own methodological choices and research design, it is crucial that
these questions are answered. In addition, you will need to tell the reader about what
kinds of primary and secondary sources you will be relying upon. Like with quantitative
work mentioned earlier, if you are relying on primary data (e.g., interviews, focus groups,
archival research) you will need to tell the reader about the circumstances under which
you secured access to this data, in the case of interviews you will need to tell the reader
about who you interviewed and how many interviews you carried out. Of course, if you
have promised anonymity to your research participants it is crucial that you do not vio-
late this and therefore you may only provide non-identifiable biographic information.
For more on qualitative data collection, you can turn back to Chapters 5 and 9.
In sum, your discussion of methodology and research design needs to make your
research choices explicit. Otherwise, it will be impossible to evaluate your contribu-
tion to existing debates and literature. Transparency in methodological choices and
research design will allow other researchers to trace or depending on the work, replicate,
your findings.
Data Analysis
The data analysis section of your essay will constitute the bulk of your writing. It is also
the core of your paper or thesis. Here, your focus should be on presenting your data
analysis to the reader in a manner that is understandable and engaging. You might think
about this as telling a story. Although the content of your data analysis section will vary
significantly from paper to paper or from one thesis to another, there are a few more
general pieces of advice that you should keep in mind. The first is pay close attention to
structure. You should always make sure that you follow the same basic structure for every
section within your data analysis so as to allow the reader to more easily follow the logic
of your research process, your findings, and your arguments. For example, in Nathan
Munier’s (2020) study of state compliance with the Kimberley Process, an international
agreement that aimed to prevent conflict diamonds from being sold on international
markets. Munier used a most similar case comparison research design to explain varia-
tions in compliance and cooperation in Namibia, Angola, Sierra Leone, and Zimbabwe.
Each of Munier’s case studies followed a similar chapter structure that began with a
contextualizing story of the history of diamond dependence in Namibia, Angola, Sierra
Leone, and Zimbabwe respectively. And then, each case study also consistently explored
each hypothesis that was set out at the beginning of the study.
The second is to be transparent in your presentation of your data and your findings.
The data analysis section of your work is likely to be the lengthiest portion of your work
in terms of word count, because it is here you will be faced with operationalizing your
methods of study and analyzing your data either empirically or interpretively. You will
need to weave your empirical data into your overall analysis and you also need to be sure
that you do not fail to present data that falls outside of your expectations. This is known
as cherry-picking your findings, and it will be obvious to your reader that you are not
telling the entire story.
Third, consider ways to visualize your data. In some cases, when relying on quantita-
tive methods, you will have scatter plot charts or regression curves that you will include
so that your readers can easily consult these visual representations to make sense of your
data analysis. In other cases, you might want to include a time series visualization to plot
events along a timeline if telling a process story or documenting trends over time.
The Conclusion
Your conclusion is where you will drive home your contribution and make how you
arrived at your findings explicit one last time. As mentioned earlier, we are not writing
mystery novels and by this point your main argument and findings should be clear so
you might think you are being repetitive. There is nothing wrong with this as nothing in
your conclusion should be new or come as a surprise to your reader.
You will of course be aware of the fact that conclusions can take on many different
forms. However, there are four points that you should try to address and can be applied
generally across projects.
1 Remind the reader why your topic is important and what you have argued.
2 Briefly highlight your key findings.
3 Tell the reader what your findings mean for IR, or more specifically the literature
and the debates with which you engaged.
4 Acknowledge any limitations or avenues for further research.
While the conclusion section is often relatively short compared to other parts of your paper
or thesis, it is where you need to tell the reader what your main take away points are and
what you want them to learn from your research. Remember, that you will have done the
bulk of the work demonstrating and justifying your findings in the data analysis section,
so your conclusion should not include any new data or analysis. Instead, your starting
point should be going back to your research question or research hypotheses and making
sure that you have provided a clear response to each question you have posed. Sometimes
you may not have a clear-cut answer to the question you asked. Do not worry if this is the
case. This is often the case in IR research. The social world does not provide us this kind of
certainty to make bold statements and often our findings will include a number of caveats
or reservations. It is helpful in your conclusion to keep in mind the importance of being
humble in your findings, and not to overstate your claims (Roselle et al., 2020: 104–5).
Bibliography and Referencing

Remember that transparency is one of the essential requirements for a piece of writing
to be considered academic writing. In Chapter 3, we examined how giving credit to the
ideas and work of others goes to the heart of academic honesty. As a result, every research
work will require you to provide your references and works cited. This part of your work
should always reflect the conventional referencing style requested by your institution
or academic publisher. The two common styles used in IR include in-text citations or
footnote references. Less common in IR are endnotes, which are similar to footnotes,
but appear at the end of a research essay or chapter. Referencing guidelines are often
widely circulated and easily accessible. Often for in-class essays you will find referencing
guidelines in your class syllabus. Because many software packages can help you format
your references, here the focus will be on providing some guidance on how in-text refer-
ences and footnotes are used.
Chicago Manual of Style

For a comprehensive resource that can answer pretty much any question you have
regarding referencing, you can turn to the Chicago Manual of Style which will provide
you with conventions for both in-text and footnote referencing.
Web address: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/
In-text citations allow the reader to quickly see the relevant source while reading your
work. In-text references generally include the author’s surname and the year the work
cited was published. For example:
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, also known as the Tokyo
Tribunal, continues to shape our understanding of Japan’s conduct during the
Second World War and also postwar debates on war guilt (Totani, 2008).
If you do not include a page number, as in the example above, the assumption will
be that you are referencing the overall argument being made in the work. If you are ref-
erencing something from a specific page(s), it is necessary to include this information so
that your reader can more easily locate your source. For example:
The Tokyo Tribunal was to be one of multiple international courts to be

established in the aftermath of the Second World War (Totani, 2008: 22).
The above reference provides your reader with the exact place in the source where they
can turn to in order to find the cited passage.
Footnotes are provided in the form of superscript numbers in the text, with the refer-
ence usually provided at the bottom of the page. If the references appear only at the very
end of a work, then this is an endnote. Footnotes would generally appear as follows1:
1
Imperialism and racism shaped how the discipline of International Relations was
studied and taught from its emergence in the early 20th century (Vitalis, 2005).
As with in-text citations, if you are referencing a main argument in the text, you do
not need to specify page numbers. However, if you are referencing a specific observation
or facts then you should provide page numbers.
Remember, whatever style you have been asked to use, you should always be consistent
in your usage. Never mix styles or provide bibliographic information in an inconsistent
manner.
Now that you have a firm understanding of the core components of a research
paper or thesis in IR, we can turn to some general considerations and strategies for the
writing process.
Writing Up Your Research: Getting Started

Before going into some general strategies and considerations for the writing up process,
it is helpful to once again remind yourself that research is not a linear process. Often
you will find yourself going back and forth as you revisit choices made earlier on in
the research process. There is nothing wrong with this. Research is a process in which
questioning our earlier choices and perhaps making alterations on the basis of what you
discover later in the process will only make your findings stronger.
That being said, when beginning to write up your work, the first step is to revisit your
research outline. Now you likely already have a rough outline that you sketched when
working on your research design; however, now is the time for you to begin to map out
your written work. Your research outline that you will write prior to writing up should
be much more detailed, and keep in mind your project may have changed during the
data collection and analysis stage of your research, and questions that you could not
resolve at the beginning, or uncertainties about the data, may have now been clarified.
Alternatively, you may need to adjust the structure of your outline due to unanticipated
discoveries you made during the data collection and analysis stage of your research. You
should provide some indication of the internal structure of each of these sections in your
outline. Before you begin your writing process try to map out the structure of your work,
along the lines of the following example:
I Introduction
a What is my topic/question?
b Why is it important?
II Literature Review
a Approach #1 to my topic
b Approach #2 to my topic
c (if applicable) Approach #3 to my topic
d (if applicable) Additional approaches as warranted
III Methodology
a Research Design – why and how it fits with your research question?
b Research Method – how have you collected and analyzed your data? How will
this method or method(s) provide an answer to your question?
IV Data Analysis
a Examples: Case Studies (Empirical or Interpretive)/Large-n Statistical Analysis/
Formal Models/Discourse Analysis/Content Analysis
V Conclusions
a What are the results of your analysis
b Have you answered the question?
c Generated new questions?
Once you have your outline try to see if it is internally coherent. Can you follow your
argument from the outline? Are there major gaps in logic that are apparent? Do you still
have questions about how you are able to respond to your question? Try giving your
outline to a classmate or a colleague and see if the outline makes sense to them. If not,
try to go back to your data and think about how you can most logically structure your
argument.
Writing Tips and Strategies

As noted earlier in the chapter, you most likely have already started writing significant
sections of your research prior to formally embarking upon the writing up phase of the
process. For example, you might have already started to work on drafts of your litera-
ture review section and methodology sections. Nevertheless, the writing stage of your
research should be enjoyable as you will have already made all your difficult research
choices, collected your data, analyzed your data, and come up with some responses to
your research questions.
There are some general rules of thumb that will help guard against some common
missteps in the academic writing process. The first is not to deploy rhetorical tricks or
omissions to persuade your reader. You are not a politician trying to win someone’s vote.
Your primary aim is to help us learn more about your topic and to understand your
argument.
Second, even though your argument is likely complex and nuanced, your writing
should be simple and straightforward. Unduly long sentences with many clauses make
your logic and your argument harder to follow. Using short and precise sentences will help
you get your point across and avoid the danger of your sentences being misunderstood.
Likewise, make good use of paragraphs. Your paragraphs should not be overly long. Once
you have a made a point, move on a start a new paragraph.
Third, avoid unnecessary jargon. When it is necessary to use, make sure that you
define specialist or technical terms for your reader. Often jargon is necessary given the
specialized nature of our work, but we cannot assume all of our readers will be subject
matter experts on our topic.
Fourth, avoid the passive voice. The passive voice obscures the subject of your sen-
tence. In other words, the reader does not know who or what is responsible for a particular
action. For example, take the sentence, ‘In January 2021, the government of Myanmar
was overthrown.’ From this sentence there is no way to identify the most important
aspect of the event being described – who carried out a coup against Myanmar’s elected
government? Now read, ‘In January 2021, Myanmar’s military, the Tatmadaw, overthrew
the democratically elected government of Myanmar.’ As you can see, the latter formula-
tion makes clear who carried out the coup.
Fifth, don’t overquote. Your research paper is about telling us about your ideas and
should be written in your own voice. You should not use the words of others as crutches.
Therefore, it is best to only use direct quotes when absolutely necessary. Every time you
do use a direct quote you should state the name of the author, and make sure the quote
flows nicely with your own writing. This is usually done by explaining to the reader the
importance of your quote, and what you are using the quote for to illustrate (Lipson,
2005: 153–4).
Finally, use an appropriate tone in your writing. Avoid overly casual terminology, but
there is also no need to be overly rigid or to write in a voice that is not your own. The
appropriate tone should be appropriate for your audience. In general, academic writing
is written in a formal tone that is respectful of the audience and other perspectives on a
topic. If you have specific questions as to whether or not the usage of particular pronouns
such as I, consult with your professor or advisor as to expectations regarding the use of
the first person, and be aware that some professors will ask you not use the first person
in your writing. That being said, sometimes it can be overly awkward to impose a general
rule against speaking in the first person in a research essay. Sometimes, it makes more
sense to simply state:
I argue that the discourse of counter-terrorism has led to a security-focused approach

toward foreign policy-making in relation to North Africa.
However, the same idea can be conveyed more formally below:
It is argued here that the discourse of counter-terrorism has led to a security-focused

approach toward foreign policy-making in relation to North Africa.
This is common in some kinds of writing where the author takes a more detached stance
from the object they study. You are likely to encounter this style of writing in positivist
work where authors typically avoid inserting themselves into their research essays by
limiting the use of the first person. Meanwhile, the use of the first person can be seen
more readily in interpretive scholarship, which sees the researcher as actively interacting
with their object of study.
Writing Up Your Research: Wrapping Up

Once you have completed writing the first draft of your essay from start to finish, you
should feel a sense of accomplishment. You are almost there. However, at this point your
work is not yet quite complete. After hours of writing and days or months of looking at
the same drafts, it can be difficult to find typos, errors, or other omissions. You might find
it helpful to put your draft to the side for a few days before proofreading it. Or you may
ask a friend, classmate, or colleague to have a look. In any piece of writing, proofreading
is always an important part of the process that will help you avoid having embarrassing
mistakes appear in your finished work. Over time, you will find yourself having revised
multiple drafts of your work. Your final work that you submit for grading, submit for a
thesis or dissertation defence, or to a publisher for publication, should never be a first
draft. Your first draft is just that – a first draft. It is your first attempt at writing up. Often
when you return to your first draft you will be surprised by the amount of editing that
remains to be done at this stage. You might find yourself removing entire paragraphs,
or inserting new paragraphs to provide further explanation. In addition, you might find
logical gaps in your argument. In your mind your argument might be clear, but remem-
ber, that you can only be assessed on what you have put on paper. Alternatively, you
might discover errors in data collection or analysis that require you to go back to your
data. None of these things should cause you undue concern. With good time manage-
ment, you should still have the time to go back and improve your work.
Troubleshooting and Overcoming Obstacles

While this chapter has provided you with the basic structure of a research paper or thesis
and also some general strategies for writing, you might encounter some obstacles that
many writers are confronted with when writing up their research. One of these obsta-
cles is known as writer’s block. Sometimes you will hit a wall in the writing process, and
you won’t be able to proceed. It might be that you keep going back and deleting what
you have written because you are not happy with it, or it could be that you feel like you
have nothing to write at all. If you encounter this problem, it is important not to panic or
loose confidence. Writer’s block is common, and everyone encounters it now and then.
What can you do to move beyond it? While each one of us has our own unique approach
to writing, one thing you might consider trying is to move on to a different part of your
project. After working through another section, you might feel more inspired to come
back to where you had left off. If this doesn’t work, you might try to think about what is
causing your inability to write? Is it that you are lost in the literature or the data? If so,
try to come back to your research question. Alternatively, you might be feeling doubts
about your research project. This often happens as we are excited at the outset of a pro-
ject, then once we read more about it, we might feel that our question or initial premise
was not as interesting as we once thought. Rather than let this discourage you, take it as
affirmation that your topic is something that has inspired a lot of research and do not
lose confidence in your own contribution.
Another challenge that you might face in longer pieces of writing like theses or disser-
tations is keeping track of your overall argument over the course of a project that might
span many months, or even years. Alternatively, you might be having difficultly present-
ing large amounts of data. If this is the case, visualization of your overall argument in
arrow diagram form, or visualization of your data through graphs, time-series diagrams,
or event plots can help you and your reader get a bird’s eye view of where you are going.
Finally, time management is an important skill that will help you avoid sitting up late
at night trying to finish a project against a very tight deadline. In student papers, poor
time management is often reflected in the form of sloppiness, whether in relation to data
analysis or writing up. It is also an easy problem to avoid. If you get started on your proj-
ect early, and you draft a clear project schedule with internal deadlines for different steps
of the writing process, you will be able to ensure that you will not feel under pressure to
hand in a draft of your work that you are not yet ready to submit.
Research Proposals
Normally, for longer pieces of work, your supervisor will ask you to provide a research
proposal in which you are expected to present your research topic, research question,
and research design. When crafting your proposal, you will start by demonstrating why
your research topic is of interest to the field of IR. Is your topic at the centre of a major
theoretical debate? Is your research question of pressing policy relevance? Would a pol-
icy response to your research question potentially impact a large segment of the world’s
population? In short, the first few lines of your research proposal should be devoted to
providing some form of justification for your topic.
Your research proposal will also require you to demonstrate that your project is feasible
within the timeframe your supervisor expects you to complete your research and writing.
This means that your research question is explicitly stated and is consistent with the
example research questions noted above for either positivist or interpretive research. If
your question is overly broad or effectively unanswerable, you will be asked to go back
to the stage of research question development. This also means you have taken into
consideration what kind of data you will need to collect in order to answer your research
question. Is there an existing dataset which you can make use of? Will you be collecting
primarily textual documents that are readily available? Or, will you need to conduct
significant fieldwork? For shorter research projects, asking a question that requires you
to collect primary data through fieldwork will require you to be extra careful in terms of
time management.
What is a Research Proposal?

A Research Proposal is normally a short document. Often for undergraduate work they
can be only about 750 words (2 pages), but for more substantial projects, such as post-
graduate theses they can be considerably longer.
A Research Proposal is a document in which you clearly and concisely provide an over-
view of your thesis project to your supervisor. After reading your research proposal, your
supervisor should know why you have chosen your research topic, be familiar with what
scholarly or policy debates your thesis engages, know what research question(s) you aim
to answer, and understand how you will go about answering your research question(s).
Once you have clearly stated your research question, you will need to discuss your research
design. Ensuring your research design is an appropriate fit for your research question is
perhaps the most challenging task facing you when writing a research proposal. You
will need to set yourself a strategy for answering your research question. As noted in the
preceding discussions of positivist and interpretive research design, the focus and there-
fore your strategy for answering your research question must be contingent with the kind
of question you have posed. You will want to consider, among other questions, things
like, will you be using a case study design? If so, is it a single case study, or a comparative
case study? What do you hope you will find in your case study? Will it affirm or disprove
conjectured hypotheses? Will it help you explain an event through process tracing?
Next your proposal should make explicit how you will collect data and how you will
analyze the data you have collected. Questions you will want to consider may include
will you be relying on large datasets and will you be using statistical tests to interpret your
data? Or, will you be relying on textual documents, such as policy papers and speeches,
to provide a discourse analysis of your topic? Make sure you are clear about what kinds
of sources you will be using for your thesis.
Once you have justified your topic, stated your research question, set out your research
design and strategies for data collection and analysis, you should provide your supervisor
with a list of references consulted during your research proposal preparation process. This will
help give your supervisor a better understanding of where you are coming from, in terms of
literature, and whether or not there might be gaps in your reading on the topic. Furthermore,
as was noted in Chapter 4, this will help you to get started in writing your literature review.
Your Research Proposal

A research proposal is often a required part of the research process that serves as
a bridge between you becoming interested in a potential research topic and the
research process itself. A research proposal is usually no more than 1–2 pages. While
requirements for what you should include in a research proposal differ across academic
programs, all research proposals should include your main research question, why it
matters, how – in terms of methods – you will go about answering your research ques-
tion, and some form of indicative reading list.
When preparing a research proposal, it is essential to follow any guidelines you have
been provided regarding the structure, content, and length of a research proposal.
Generally, you will need to consider and include the following:
Start with a justification for your chosen topic

When beginning your research proposal, it is helpful to start with a justification, in the-
oretical and/or policy-terms, for why your research topic is of interest, or of potential
interest, to the scholarly or policy community.
An effective way of explaining your topic’s importance is to describe how your topic
is addressed by scholars or practitioners in the field.
You might want to consider the following:
• Are there major debates among scholars or policymakers regarding your topic?
• How does this debate matter to the wider policy community or the broader public?
What is its potential impact?
• If your topic is not at the focus of a major debate, why does it deserve more attention?
If you have chosen a topic that appears at first glance to be narrow with little, or no,
directly relevant scholarly literature, you can ask yourself what is your topic a case of?
State your research question

Once you have provided a justification for why your topic is of interest, state your main
research question. In order to make sure you are asking a question that is not purely
descriptive try to think about the ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ dimensions of your research topic.
For example, what are the causes of the 2020 election protests in Belarus? Or, how effective
has EU policy towards Belarus been in promoting democracy during the post-Soviet era?
How will you answer your research question? Research

Design and Methodology
Next you will answer your question. In particular, you will need to pay attention to your
research design and establish strategies for data collection and analysis.
Research Design: Ensuring your research design is an appropriate fit for your research
question is perhaps the most challenging task facing you when writing an analytical essay.
You will need to set yourself a strategy for answering your research question. For example,
will you be using a case study design? If so, is it a single case study, or a comparative case
study? What do you hope you will find in your case study? Will it affirm or disprove conjec-
tured hypotheses? Will it help you explain an event through process tracing?
Data Collection and Analysis: Your essay should make explicit how you have col-
lected data and how you analyzed the data you have collected. Things to think about
are whether or not you will be able to rely on and make use of large datasets, primary
sources, or secondary sources.
Don’t forget your Indicative Bibliography

Chapter Summary
Writing up a research paper or thesis is where you get to tell us the story of your research.
Why is it important? What have previous studies on your topic missed? How will your
findings change the way we theorize about or make policy for your given topic? These are
the questions that you will answer in writing up your work. Writing up is about sharing
your research findings and the more effort you put into it, the more people will likely
engage with your work. Alternatively, if you are writing an essay for assessment as part of
a class, a nicely polished essay is often what makes the difference between a good student
and one who really stands out.
The first part of this chapter provided you with a roadmap and explanation of the var-
ious components, or key parts, of a research essay or thesis. Most writing within the field
follows a similar structure, albeit there is scope for deviation when it comes to things like
how you present your methodology or literature review. Data analysis is the heart of your
work, and where you will probably spend the most time as it is here where you will tell
the story of your data collection, and show your reader your analysis.
Remember, the primary aim of all research-based writing in the field is to com-
municate certain findings of scholarly, or policy relevance, to a particular audience.
This requires us to be effective writers so as to be effective communicators. While this
chapter presented you with an overview of writing up, there are a number of additional
writing resources that you can draw upon to improve your writing. Finally, it is import-
ant to underline that you should always write with your audience in mind, whether
that be your university professor, your thesis advisor, a specialist community of experts,
academic colleagues, or the wider public.

1 This is an accessible text that draws upon many examples from teaching and
supervision to provide you with practical tips for writing up: Lipson, Charles (2005)
How to Write a BA Thesis: A Practical Guide from Your First Ideas to Your Finished Paper.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. See Chapters 9 ‘Writing Your Best’
(pp. 143–58), 10 ‘Effective Openings, Smooth Transitions, and Strong Closings’
(pp. 159–76), and 11 ‘Good Editing Makes Good Writing’ (pp. 177–92).
2 This book provides you with an accessible set of writing rules that will help you
improve your writing skills: Shon, Phillip C. (2017) The Quick Fix Guide to Academic
Writing: How to Avoid Big Mistakes and Small Errors. London: Sage.
GLOSSARY
Abduction A mode of reasoning in which researchers start with observations and

propose the most likely explanation for these observations on the basis of what is
known.
Abstract A one-paragraph summary of your research provided at the beginning of a

scholarly journal article or dissertation. It justifies the relevance of the work, provides
the research question, a brief explanation of the methodology or methods used, and
key findings.
Agent-Based Modeling Computer assisted mathematical simulation models that

generate data on how autonomous agents interact within a given environment that can
be analyzed inductively.
Analytic Eclecticism A position that allows researchers to draw upon diverse theoretical
approaches and constructs in order to respond to real world problems.
Behaviouralism An approach to International Relations (and Political Science) that

posits natural science methods can be imported into the social sciences.
Biases This refers to practices that can lead to a systematic distortion in research
findings that usually results from a researcher’s own beliefs or assumptions, either
knowingly or unknowingly, distorting data collection, data analysis, or conclusions.
Bivariate Regression Analysis A statistical test that allows for researchers to see
whether or not a relationship exists between two variables.
Case Study A research design where the researcher studies a single case, which can be
an event or instance of something, or draws comparisons between a small number of
cases, in order to contribute to theory and debates beyond the empirical focus of the
case(s) itself.
Causal Effects The outcomes brought about by a posited causal variable.
Causation This implies that a change in one variable causes a change in another.
Causal Inference The process of drawing causal conclusions about an outcome on the
basis of observed data.
Causal Mechanisms Independent stable factors that under certain conditions link
causes to effects.
Causal Relationship This usually describes a relationship between variables in which

one variable causes the other.
Chi-Squared Test A test which determines the extent to which two variables are
related.
Coding The categorization and quantification of material for analysis. Coding is often
used to categorize unstructured data gathered by the researcher for entry into datasets.
Coefficient of Determination This refers to the proportion of variance in the

dependent variable that is predictable from the independent variable.
Comparative Method This refers to a research pratice where a small number of cases
are studied for the purpose of comparison.
Constructivism This term is used to refer to a theoretical approach to International

Relations, and is sometimes used to refer to a broader epistemological tradition
referred to in this book as interpretivism. In relation to constructivism as a theory
of International Relations, constructivists emphasize the role of norms in explaining
certain outcomes, or they emphasize the need to interrogate social meaning.
Content Analysis A form of data analysis that allows researchers to examine large
amounts of data derived from social communication through categorization and coding.
Contrapuntal Reading A method developed by Edward Said that examines colonial

texts from both the perspective of the colonizer and the colonized.
Convergent Mixed Methods Research This is a mixed methods research strategy that
sees quantitative and qualitative research as complementary data points in relation to a
particular research question and are usually analyzed at the same time.
Correlation Reference to the co-variance of two variables. Because a change in one

variable appears to coincide with the change in another it is often confused with
causation.
Critical Realism Philosophical propositions about the social sciences that seek to
establish a position between positivist and interpretive work. Critical realists accept
a ‘real world’ that is the object of study, but we can only make sense of this world
through our observations of it.
Critical Theory Theories that aim to examine and transform the social conditions under
which humanity is held back from emancipation. While today, critical theory is associated
with a wide range of theories, it is often associated with its origins in the Frankfurt School.
Dataset A collection of related information, usually coded in numeric form.
Deductive Reasoning The testing of theoretical propositions against empirical data.
Dependent Variable The object that requires explanation or a particular outcome that
you wish to explain.
Glossary 247
Descriptive Statistics A form of statistical analysis that helps provide means to

describe data. It is often used to help present or visualize trends or to collect data.
Digital Research This refers to the use of online or other digitally mediated resources
in the conduct of research.
Discourse Analysis A form of qualitative data analysis that focuses on the interpretation
of meaning mainly from written and oral texts.
Discrete Data A type of data that can only take certain values, such as numbers of
individuals.
Efficient Causality A positivist understanding of causality in which causal variables

can be identified as bringing about a specific outcome.
Elite Interviews This refers to interview research where the researcher interviews
those who work professionally on their topic or those who hold senior positions
within their respective organizations.
Emergent Causality An understanding of causality that focuses on the emergence of

conditions that made a particular range of outcomes possible.
Empiricism Research that focuses on the evaluation of empirical evidence, or evidence

that is observed.
Endogeneity This refers to a type of problem that results from a variable that was not
included in a study influencing the variables under examination.
Epistemology The study of knowledge and how knowledge is produced.
Excavation The use of texts, or other social artefacts, such as images or physical
objects, to better understand the social world that produced these social artefacts.
Explanatory Sequential Research This is a sequential mixed methods research strategy

design where quantitative data starts the process, and qualitative data is then used to
test whether conjectured explanations hold.
Explanatory Variable (see Independent Variable)
Experimentation The experiment is a scientific method imported from the natural

sciences that normally tests hypotheses to determine if a conjectured relationship or
process will either verify or falsify these hypotheses.
Exploratory Sequential Research A sequential mixed methods research design in

which qualitative data is used to start the process, and quantitative data is then used to
test assumptions from the initial qualitative study.
Falsifiable This refers to the position that an observation can be found to be false
through observation or experimentation.
Fieldwork The gathering of primary data, either through accessing primary source
documents, or through interviews, participant observation, questionnaires, surveys or
other methods aimed at eliciting responses from human subjects.
Formalization The translation of verbal arguments or statements into mathematical form.
Formal Language In mathematics, this refers to words formed with letters or symbols
and conforms to specific rules.
Formal Method The application of mathematical or statistical tools to the study of

International Relations.
Formal Models These are abstract representations of relationships or strategic

interactions that are usually stated in mathematical form.
Focus Group A form of group interview in which a group facilitator leads a discussion
on a specific topic in groups of six to ten participants. Generally, researchers will carry
out multiple focus group discussions on a given topic.
Frankfurt School Refers to an influential school of social theory that was created in
Frankfurt a.M., Germany at the Institute for Social Research. The Frankfurt School is
credited with the founding of critical theory.
Game Theory The application of mathematical models to understand strategic

interaction among actors.
Gender Mainstreaming A United Nations endorsed concept where gendered

perspectives and impacts of policies or actions are taken into account with an aim to
promote the achievement of gender equality.
Genealogy A method whereby the emergence of a discourse is traced and analyzed

within the historic context of its emergence.
Gini Coefficient A value between 0 and 1 that represents the degree of inequality in
the distribution of income and wealth in a country by measuring its distance from an
ideal distribution in which all income and wealth are equally distributed.
Hermeneutics A method of interpretation of modes of communication. It is often

used to analyze text by understanding an empirical event in relation to its wider
context.
Human Subjects When people participate in research, these people are referred to as
human subjects.
Hypotheses Statements that make a claim as to a relationship between two or more

variables, usually your independent and dependent variables.
Independent Variable (‘Explanatory Variable’) Something that is conjectured to

explain or cause a certain outcome (the dependent variable).
Nested Analysis Statistical analysis that serves as a basis for mixed methods case
selection in sequential research designs where a quantitative study will precede a
qualitative study.
Nominal Data A level of measurement in which data are not presented in any specific
order and do not indicate any numeric value of measurement. When coded, numbers
for nominal data are arbitrarily assigned.
Glossary 249
Inductive Reasoning The generation of theoretical propositions out of our empirical

observations.
Inferential Statistics The use of statistical tests to establish correlations/relationships in

numerical data that has been collected.
Interpretivism One of two broad epistemological traditions in IR, the other being
positivism. It rejects the notion that natural science methods can help explain the
world around us, and instead focuses on social meanings embedded within IR through
the interrogation of ideas, norms, beliefs and values. This approach traditionally
rejects the possibility of universal, generalizable laws, and has also been referred to as
constructivism, reflectivism, or post-positivism.
Interval Data This is commonly thought of as one of the most precise levels of
measurement, alongside ratio data, as there is a uniform distance between values.
Interview research A form of qualitative data collection whereby the researcher asks
questions of a research participant. Interviews can take on many forms. The most
common are structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews.
Interview Consent Form A document that is prepared for field research that allows you
to secure the informed consent of research participants.
Large-n This refers to studies that have a large number of cases.
Level of Measurement This refers to a classifactory system that distinguishes between

different properties of what is being measured. These include nominal data, ordinal
data, interval data, and ratio data.
Literature Review An analytical summary of existing scholarly research on a certain

topic that establishes and organizes existing concepts and theoretical frameworks for
the reader.
Measurement The assignment of numeric values to establish the exact properties of a

particular object or event.
Methodological Pluralism A research practice in IR in which research is held to the

standards and logics of the methodological approach set out by the researcher in their
study, as opposed to being judged by the methodological standards of alternative
approaches.
Methodology The study of ways through which we acquire knowledge.
Mixed Methods Research Research designs that combine quantitative and qualitative
methods.
Multivariate Regression Analysis A statistical test that allows for researchers to test
whether or not a relationship exists between three or more variables.
Natural Language Refers to any language that evolved naturally among humans, such
as English or Arabic. Contrast with formal language, which was created according to
conformity with specific rules.
Non-Cooperative Games This is a modelling of strategic interaction that is derived

from game theory, in which players compete against one another.
Normative Theory A branch of theory in IR that aims to make ethical or moral

judgments on behaviour or to interrogate ethical or moral standards.
Null Hypothesis A type of hypothesis that suggests there is no relationship between

variables.
Official Documents Published documents released by a state, organization or business.
Ontological Puzzle This refers to the type of questions that can be of interest to
interpretive researchers. It is contrasted with cause-and-effect puzzles of interest to
empirical researchers.
Ontology The study of being, or the nature of social entities.
Oral histories A practice that involves the collection and analysis of data collected
from individuals with first-hand knowledge or experience of a past event.
Ordinal Data A level of measurement that refers to data which are listed in order, or
ranked, in mutually exclusive categories.
Peer Review This refers to a blind review process undertaken by scholarly publishers
whereby a manuscript submitted for publication is reviewed by two or more
anonymous reviewers.
Philosophy of Science This refers to a branch of philosophical inquiry that focuses on

a number of inter-related questions that include what makes scientific inquiry distinct
from other types of inquiry, what is science, the logic by which scientific claims are
made, the relationship between theory and data, and establishing what scientific fields
have in common.
Plagiarism The intentional or unintentional use of someone else’s words or ideas

in your own work without appropriate attribution, usually done through lack of
referencing.
Positionality Refers to how different relative positions of power, or different social

positions, shape identities.
Positive Theory Theories that contain generalizable law-like statements.
Positivism A set of epistemological assumptions that embrace natural science methods

to explain and make generalizations about the world around. It is based on the
assumption that knowledge can be accumulated through experience and observation,
which can result in universal, generalizable laws. This tradition has also been referred
to, and confused with naturalism, empiricism, or behaviouralism.
Post-Positivism A philosophical stance that rejects the proposition that the world can
be studied in an unbiased and value neutral manner.
Primary Sources Original documents, authored by individuals who had direct access to
the information that they are describing, or have directly experienced a particular event.
Glossary 251
Process Tracing The tracing of processes that link possible causes with observed
outcomes.
Qualitative Content Analysis A specific form of content analysis which lends itself
to the analysis of large amounts of data in textual form through the quantification of
concepts or categories.
Qualitative Methods Data collection and data analysis strategies that rely upon the
collection, and analysis of, non-numeric data. This does not have to be restricted to
textual data and can also include speech, film and other forms of communicative
works.
Quantitative Methods Data collection and analysis strategies that draw upon
quantifiable data for analysis through measurement, statistical, or other computational
techniques. This can entail the use of statistical analysis or formal models.
Quasi-Experimental Research These are experiments where an independent variable is

manipulated without randomly assigning individuals to groups.
Question-based Research Research where the researcher poses a question that

typically attempts to explain an uncertain relationship between two or more
variables to find law-like generalizations (positivist research) or one that highlights
the relevance of the meaning and observable implications behind actions
(interpretive research).
Random Sampling A quantitative sampling technique which usually relies on random

number generation to ensure that every individual within a population has the same
probability of being selected for participation in research.
Ratio Data A level of measurement that like interval data, refers to data with a
uniform distance between individual values, but cannot be measured below zero.
Rational Choice An attempt to explain the behaviour of actors in terms of choice,

preference, and expected outcomes. Under this theory, it is assumed that individuals
have the knowledge and capacity to balance costs and benefits before making decisions.
Reflexive Interviews An interview approach in which the interviewee is able to

respond to the interview in order to establish an inter-subjective understanding of the
interview material and allows the interviewee to share meaning to limit interpretation
by the interviewer.
Reflexivity The practice of critical reflection on our own positionality, biography and
biases and the ways in which they relate to our research.
Representations How meanings are socially reproduced through shared understandings.
Research Design Is a research plan that sets out how the research will go about
responding to a research question. It can also be seen as the basic structure of a research
paper.
Research Puzzle Something about your research topic that confounds expectations or
is otherwise surprising.
Research Question The central and guiding question of a research essay.
Research Summary A short description of your research written for the purpose of
your field research that provides an explanation of your research project and how your
findings will be used to research participants.
Retroduction A mode of reasoning whereby you work backward to explain how a

certain observed practice became possible.
Scaling A form of measurement that allows for qualitative data to be converted into
numeric units.
Secondary Sources Documents, which make reference to, and analyze, primary sources.
Semi-Structured Interviews An interview format that is commonly used because it

allows the researcher to pose their questions, but also to ask follow up questions that
reflect the interview participant’s responses.
Snowball Sampling This refers to a strategy to access human subjects during the
course of fieldwork that has the researcher rely on the first individuals you meet
during the course of your research to introduce you to other potential research
participants.
Speech Act Theory Posits that language performs roles that go beyond describing a
material reality.
Spurious Relationship This is when there appears to be a relationship between two

variables, but the relationship is actually produced by a third variable.
Stratified Sampling A quantitative sampling strategy in which a population is

subdivided into groups on the basis of shared characteristics. Research participants
are then selected from these groups on the basis of random sampling or systemic
sampling.
Standard Error This refers to thee standard deviation of the sampling distribution of a
statistic.
Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis refers to the analysis of large sets of numeric
data in either the form of descriptive statistics or inferential statistics.
Structured Interview An interview format whereby the individual administering the

interview keeps strictly to a script of questions and the respondent is asked to select
from a pre-determined menu of response options.
Systemic Sampling A quantitative sampling strategy in which every individual is

assigned a number by the researcher and research participants are selected at regular
intervals.
Theory A set of logically interrelated propositions about the world around us.
Thick Description A desciption of social action that includes not just the physical act,
but also meanings and interpretations of actors in their social context.
Glossary 253
Transparency In the context of research, this means making your research choices
and how you conducted your research explicit to your readers. For example, how you
gathered and analyzed your data.
Triangulation This can either refer to a strategy for data collection, whereby the
researcher relies on multiple sources of data, such as interviews, media reports and
official documents, or it can refer to a strategy for bringing together distinct research
methods, such as quantitative and qualitative methods to confirm conclusions.
Unstructured Interviews An interview format that is more analogous to a

conversation. The researcher will at the beginning prompt a conversation on a given
topic, but then allows the conversation to evolve naturally.
Variables Refers to values that are isolated for study as explanatory or causal variables
(independent variables) or as outcomes (dependent variables).
REFERENCES
Aboagye, Festus (2012) ‘More state sovereignty and regime security than human security’,
in M. Brosig (ed.), The Responsibility to Protect – From Evasion to Reluctant Action? The Role
of Global Middle Powers. Johannesburg, South Africa: HSF, ISS, KAS & SAIIA.
Ackerly, Brooke and True, Jacqui (2008) ‘Reflexivity in practice: Power and ethics in
feminist research on International Relations’, International Studies Review, 10 (4):
693–707.
Alise, Mark A. and Teddlie, Charles (2010) ‘A continuation of the paradigm wars?
Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences’
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4 (2): 103–26.
Alles, Delphine, Guilbaud, Auriane, and Lagrange, Delphine (2018) ‘Interviews in
International Relations’, in G. Devin (ed.) Resources and Applied Methods in International
Relations. New York, NY: Palgrave.
American Anthropological Association (AAA) (2012) ‘Principles of professional respon-
sibility’, AAA Ethics blog, November 1. http://ethics.americananthro.org/category/
statement/ (accessed May 21, 2021).
American Anthropological Association (AAA) Executive Board (2007) American
Anthropological Association’s Executive Board Statement on the Human Terrain System
Project, October 31, 2007. http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-aaa/files/production/
public/FileDownloads/pdfs/pdf/EB_Resolution_110807.pdf (accessed May 21, 2021).
American Historical Association (2019) ‘Statement on standards of professional
conduct (updated 2019)’, historians.org. https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-
professional-development/statements-standards-and-guidelines-of-the-discipline/
statement-on-standards-of-professional-conduct#Plagiarism (accessed May 21, 2021).
American National Election Studies (2021) ‘Data Center’. https://www.electionstudies.
org/data-center
Andersen, Erika (2012) ‘True fact: The lack of pirates is causing global warming’, Forbes,
March 23. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-
of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/ (accessed May 28, 2021).
Aradau, Claudia and Huysmans, Jef (2013) ‘Critical methods in International Relations:
The politics of techniques, devices, and acts’, European Journal of International Relations,
20 (3): 596–619.
Ashley, Richard K. (1984) ‘The poverty of neorealism’, International Organization, 38 (2):
225–86.
Ashworth, Lucian M. (2014) ‘Of great debates and the history of IR: Why the “Great
Debate” story is wrong’, E-IR, February 12. https://www.e-ir.info/2014/02/12/of-great-
debates-and-the-history-of-ir-why-the-great-debate-story-is-wrong/ (accessed May 28,
2021).
Autesserre, Séverine (2010) The Trouble with Congo: Local Violence and the Failure of
International Peacekeeping. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Avdan, Nazli, Bsisu, Naji, and Murdie, Amanda (2020) ‘Abuse by association: Migration
from terror-prone countries and human rights abuses’, International Interactions, 47 (2):
237–65.
Balnaves, Mark and Caputi, Peter (2001) Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods.
London: Sage.
Bartolucci, Valentina (2010) ‘Analyzing elite discourse in Morocco and its implications:
The case of Morocco’, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 3 (1): 119–35.
Baumrind, Diana (2015) ‘When subjects become objects: The lies behind the Milgram
legend’, Theory & Psychology, 25 (5): 690–6.
BBC News (2014) ‘Facebook emotion experiment sparks criticism’, BBC News, 30 June.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28051930 (accessed May 21, 2021).
Bennett, Andrew (2004) ‘Case study methods, design, use and comparative advantage’,
in D.F. Sprinz and Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias (eds), Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods
for Studying International Relations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
pp. 19–55.
Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2015) ‘Process tracing: From philosophical roots
to best practices’, in A. Bennet and J.T. Checkel (eds), Process Tracing: From Metaphor to
Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 3–38.
Bennett, Andrew and Elman, Colin (2007) ‘Case study methods in the International
Relations subfield’, Comparative Political Studies, 40 (2): 170–95.
Beach, Derek and Kaas, Jonas G. (2020) ‘The great divides: Incommensurability, the
impossibility of mixed-methodology, and what to do about it’, International Studies
Review, 22 (2): 214–35.
Berg, Bruce L. and Lune, Howard (2012) Qualitative Methods for the Social Sciences (8th
edition). New York, NY: Pearson.
Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit (2013) ‘The mind of a con man’, The New York Times, April 26.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-
fraud.html (accessed May 21, 2021).
Bhattarai, Basundhara (2019) ‘How do gender relations shape a community’s ability to
adapt to climate change? Insights from Nepal’s community forestry’, Climate and
Development, 12 (10): 876–87.
Bleiker, Roland (2015) ‘Pluralist methods for visual global politics’, Millennium: Journal of
Bleiker, Roland (2018) ‘Mapping visual global politics’, in R. Bleiker (ed.), Visual Global
Politics. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 1–29.
Bliesemann de Guevara, Berit and Boas, Morten (eds) (2021) Doing Fieldwork in Areas of
International Intervention: A Guide to Research in Violent and Closed Contexts. Bristol:
Bristol University Press
References 257
Bode, Ingvild (2020) ‘Women or leaders? Practices of narrating the United Nations as a
gendered institution’, International Studies Review, 22 (3): 347–69.
Boduszyński, Mieczysław (2013) ‘Comparing Western democratic leverage: From Tirana
to Tripoli’, Croatian Political Science Review, 50 (5) 189–203.
Bogod, David (2004) ‘Nazi hypothermia experiments: Forbidden data?’, Anaesthesia,
59 (12) 1155–6.
Bohman, James (2021) ‘Critical theory’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
(Spring 2021). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/critical-theory/
Bonditti, Philippe, Neal, Andrew, Opitz, Sven, and Zebrowski, Chris (2015) ‘Genealogy’,
in C. Aradau, J. Huysmans, A. Neal, and N. Voelkner (eds), Critical Security Methods:
Frameworks for Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 159–88.
Brandt, Allan M. (1978) ‘Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study’,
The Hastings Center Report, 8 (6): 21–9.
Braumoeller, Bear F. and Sartori, Anne E. (2004) ‘The promise and perils of statistics in
International Relations’, in D.F. Sprinz and Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias (eds), Cases, Numbers,
Models: International Relations Research Methods. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press. pp. 129–51.
Briggs, John and Sharp, Joanne (2004) ‘Indigenous knowledges and development: A post-
colonial caution’, Third World Quarterly, 25 (4): 661–76.
Brownlee, Jason (2007) Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bryman, Alan (2008) Social Research Methods (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bull, Hedley (1966) ‘International theory: The case for a classical approach’, World Politics,
18 (3): 361–77.
Bunselmeyer, Elisabeth and Shulz, Phillip (2020) ‘Quasi-experimental research designs
as a tool for assessing the impact of transitional justice instruments’, The International
Journal of Human Rights, 24 (5): 32–40.
Burchill, Scott (2001) ‘Introduction’, in S. Burchill, R. Devetak, A. Linklater, M. Paterson,
C. Reus-Smit, and J. True (eds), Theories of International Relations. New York, NY:
Palgrave. pp. 1–28.
Campbell, David (1998) National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Carr, Edward Hallett (2001) The Twenty Years Crisis 1919–1939. New York, NY: Perennial
Harper Collins.
Cederman, Lars-Erik (2003) ‘The size of wars: From billiard balls to sandpiles’, The
American Political Science Review, 97 (1): 135–50.
Chaudry, Suprana (2017) ‘The assualt on civil society: Explaining state repression of
NGOs’, Winner of the Best Paper award in the Human Rights Section, International
Studies Association Annual Convention 2017.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. and Bennett, Andrew (2015) ‘Beyond metaphors: Standards, theory,
and the “where next” for process tracing’, in A. Bennett and J.T. Checkel (eds) Process
Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 260–75.
Chernoff, Fred (2005) The Power of International Theory: Reforging the Link to Foreign Policy-
Making Through Scientific Enquiry. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cohn, Carol (1987) ‘Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals’, Signs,
12 (4): 687–718.
Collier, Andrew (1994) Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy.
London: Verso.
Collier, David (2011) ‘Understanding process tracing’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 44
(4): 823–30.
Collier, Paul and Sambanis, Nicholas (eds) (2005) Understanding Civil War: Evidence and
Analysis, Vol. 1. Washington D.C: The World Bank.
Collier, Paul, Hoeffler, Anke, and Sambanis, Nicholas (2005) ‘The Collier-Hoeffler
model of civil war onset and the case study project research design’, in P. Collier and
N. Sambanis (eds), Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis, Vol. 1. Washington
D.C: The World Bank. pp. 1–34.
Conley, Bridget (2019) Memory from the Margins: Ethiopia’s Red Terror Martyrs Memorial
Museum. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Connolly, William E. (2004) ‘Method, problem, faith’, in I. Shapiro, R.M. Smith, and
T.E. Masoud (eds), Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 332–49.
Coppedge, Michael, Gerring, John, Knutsen, Carl Henrik, Lindberg, Staffan I., Teorell,
Jan, Altman, David […] and Ziblatt, Daniel (2020) ‘V-Dem Codebook v10’, Varieties of
Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
Corti, Louise, Day, Annette, and Blackhouse, Gill (2000) ‘Confidentiality and informed
consent: issues for consideration in the preservation of and provision of access to quali-
tative data archives’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1 (3). https://doi.org/10.17169/
fqs-1.3.1024
Cox, Robert (1981) ‘Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond International Relations
Theory’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 10 (2): 126–55.
Crawford, Timothy W. (2008) ‘Wedge strategy, balancing, and the deviant case of Spain,
1940–41’, Security Studies, 17 (1): 1–38.
Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J. David (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches (5th edition). London: Sage.
Cristol, Jonathan. (2019) ‘International Relations Theory’, in P. James (ed.) Oxford
Bibliographies in International Relations. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/
document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0039.xml (accessed May 15,
2021).
Cronin-Furman, Kate and Lake, Milli (2018) ‘Ethics abroad: Fieldwork in fragile and vio-
lent contexts’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 51 (3): 607–14.
Cruz, Melany and Luke, Darcy (2020) ‘Methodology and academic extractivism: The
neo-colonialism of the British university’, Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 5
(1–2): 154–70.
Darnton, Christopher (2018) ‘Archives and inference: Documentary evidence in case
study research and the debate over U.S. entry into World War II’, International Security
43 (3): 84–126.
References 259
Darnton, Christopher (2020) ‘Public diplomacy and international conflict resolution:

A cautionary case from Cold War South America’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 16 (1):
1–20.
David, Roman (2011) Lustration and Transitional Justice: Personnel Systems in the Czech
Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
de Carvalho, Benjamin, Leira, Halvard and Hobson, John M. (2011) ‘The big bangs of IR:
The myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919’, Millennium: Journal
of International Studies, 39, (3): 735–58.
de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno (2002) ‘Accomplishments and limitations of a game-theoretic
approach to International Relations’, in F.P. Harvey and M. Brecher (eds), Evaluating
Methodology in International Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
pp. 59–80.
Doctor, Austin C. (2020) ‘Foreign fighters and conflict-related sexual violence’,
International Studies Quarterly, 65 (1): 65–81.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1993) ‘Foreign policy as social construction: A post-positivist analy-
sis of U.S. counterinsurgency policy in the Philippines’, International Studies Quarterly,
37 (3): 297–320.
Douglas, Jack D. (1976) Investigative Social Research: Individual and Team Field Research.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Duncombe, Constance (2019) ‘The politics of Twitter: Emotions and the power of social
media’, International Political Sociology, 13 (4): 409–429.
Dunn, Kevin C. (2008) ‘Historical Representations’, in A. Klotz and D. Prakash (eds),
Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide. New York, NY: Palgrave.
pp. 78–92.
Dunn, Kevin C. and Neumann, Iver (2016) Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social
Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Earnest, David C. (2008) ‘Coordination in large numbers: An agent-based model of
international negotiations ’, International Studies Quarterly, 52 (2): 363–82.
Elman, Miriam Fendius (1997) Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Epstein, Charlotte (2008) The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of Anti-
Whaling Discourse, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (2015) ESRC Framework for research ethics.
London: Economic and Social Research Council. https://esrc.ukri.org/files/funding/
guidance-for-applicants/esrc-framework-for-research-ethics-2015/ (accessed May 28,
2021).
Fairclough, Norman (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (2nd
edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
Faure, Andrew Murray (1994) ‘Some methodological problems in comparative politics’,
Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6 (3): 307–22.
Fearon, James, D. (2004) ‘Why do some civil wars last so much longer than others?’,
Journal of Peace Research 41 (3): 275–301.
Fielding, Nigel G., Lee, Raymond M. and Blank, Grant (eds) (2016) The SAGE Handbook of
Online Research Methods (2nd edition). London: Sage.
Finn, Peter (2020) The PhD and the powerful: A British International Studies Association
Postgraduate Network Briefing Paper. London: BISA. https://www.bisa.ac.uk/sites/default/
files/2020-05/The%20PhD%20and%20the%20Powerful.pdf (accessed June 2, 2021).
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn (2001) ‘Taking stock: The constructivist
research program in International Relations and Comparative Politics’, Annual Review
of Political Science, 4 (1): 391–416.
Flowerdew, John (2012) Critical Discourse Analysis in Historiography: The Case of Hong
Kong’s Evolving Political Identity. Houndmills, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006) ‘Five misunderstandings about case-study research’, Qualitative
Inquiry, 12 (2): 234–7.
Foucault, Michel (2002) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Freedom House (2021) Freedom in the World. https://freedomhouse.org/report/free
dom-world
Friedrichs, Jörg (2008) Fighting Terrorism and Drugs: Europe and International Police
Cooperation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Friedrichs, Jörg and Kratochwil, Friedrich (2009) ‘On acting and knowing: How prag-
matism can advance International Relations research methodology’, International
Organization, 63 (4): 701–31.
Fujii, Lee Ann (2017) Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Gabriel, Trip (2010) ‘Plagiarism lines blur for students in the digital age’, The New York
Times, August 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html
(accessed May 21, 2021).
Gaibulloev, Khusrav, Piazza, James A., and Sandler, Todd (2017) ‘Regime types and terrorism’,
International Organization, 71: 491–522.
Gallagher, Julia (2017) ‘Research and interview approaches in International Relations’,
OUPBlog, February 23. https://blog.oup.com/2017/02/international-relations-research-
interview/ (accessed May 21, 2021).
Garcés-Mascareñas, Blanca (2015) ‘Revisiting bordering practices: Irregular migration,
borders, and citizenship in Malaysia’, International Political Sociology, 9 (2): 128–42.
Geertz, Clifford (1972) ‘Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight’, Daedalus, 101 (1):
1–37.
Geertz, Clifford (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in
the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gerring, John (2004) ‘What is a case study and what is it good for?’, American Political
Science Review, 98 (2): 341–54.
Gerring, John (2007) ‘Is there a (viable) crucial case method?’, Comparative Political
Studies, 40 (3): 231–53.
Gerring, John (2012) Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework (2nd edition).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References 261
Gilpin, Robert (2001) Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic
Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Goldstein, Joshua S. (2010) ‘On asterisk inflation’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 43 (1):
59–61.
Greitens, Sheena Chestnut and Truex, Rory (2020) ‘Repressive experiences among China
scholars: New evidence from survey data’, The China Quarterly, 242: 249–375.
Gustafsson, Karl and Hagström, Linus (2018) ‘What is the point? Teaching graduate stu-
dents how to construct political science research puzzles’, European Political Science,
17: 634–48.
Guzzini, Stefano (ed.) (2012) The Return of Geopolitics in Europe? Social Mechanisms and
Foreign Policy Identity Crises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen (trans. C. Lenhardt and S. Weber Nicholsen) (1999) Moral Consciousness
and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hackenesch, Christine and Bader, Julia (2020) ‘The struggle for minds and influence: The
Chinese Communist Party’s global outreach’, International Studies Quarterly, 64 (3):
723–33.
Hagström, Linus and Gustafsson, Karl (2019) ‘Narrative power: How storytelling shapes
East Asian international politics’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32 (4):
387–406.
Hansen, Lene (2011) ‘Theorizing the image for security studies: Visual securitization
and the Muhammad cartoon crisis’, European Journal of International Relations, 17
(1): 51–75.
Hardy, Cynthia, Harley, Bill, and Phillips, Nelson (2004) ‘Discourse analysis and content
analysis: Two solitudes?’, Qualitative Methods, 2 (1): 19–22.
Harris, Gardiner (2008) ‘Study on lung cancer financed with money from tobacco com-
pany’, The New York Times, 26 March. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/business/
worldbusiness/26iht-smoke.4.11445428.html (accessed May 21, 2021).
Harrison, Lisa and Callan, Theresa (2013) Key Research Concepts in Politics and International
Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harvey, Frank P. and Brecher, Michael (eds) (2001) Evaluating Methodology in International
Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hawkesworth, Mary (2015) ‘Contending conceptions of science and politics:
Methodology and the constitution of the political’, in Interpretation and Method:
Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn (2nd edition). New York, NY:
Routledge. pp. 27–49.
He, Kai (2012) ‘Undermining adversaries: Unipolarity, threat perception, and negative
balancing strategies after the Cold War’, Security Studies, 21 (2): 154–91.
Henderson, Errol A. (2013) ‘Hidden in plain sight: Racism in International Relations
Theory’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26 (1): 71–92.
Herrera, C.D. (2001) ‘Ethics, deception, and “those Milgram experiments”’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 8 (4): 245–56.
Hesse, Arielle, Glenna, Leland, Hinrichs, Clare, Chiles, Robert, and Sachs, Carolyn (2019)
‘Qualitative research ethics in the Big Data era’, American Behavioral Scientist, 63 (5): 560–83.
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene (2012) ‘Feminist approaches to triangulation: Uncovering subju-

gated knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research’, Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 6 (2): 137–46.
Hoffman, Matthew J. (2008) ‘Agent-based modeling as qualitative method’, in A. Klotz
and D. Prakash (eds), Qualitative Methods in International Relations. New York, NY:
Palgrave. pp. 187–210.
Holohan, Siobhan (2019) ‘Some human’s rights: Neocolonial discourses of Otherness in
the Mediterranean refugee crisis’, Open Library of Humanities, 5 (1): 27.
Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hope, Aimie L.B. and Jones, Christopher R. (2014) ‘The impact of religious faith on atti-
tudes to environmental issues and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies: A
mixed methods study’, Technology in Society, 38: 48–59.
Horkheimer, Max (trans. Matthew J. O’Connell and Others) (1972) Critical Theory: Selected
Essays. New York, NY: Continuum.
Howlett, Marc Alan, McWilliams, Melissa A., Rademacher, Kristen, Maitland, Theresa
Laurie, O’Neill, J. Conor, Abels, Kimberly, Demetriou, Cynthia, and Panter, Abigail
(2020) ‘An academic coaching training program for university professionals: A mixed
methods examination’, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. http://doi.org/1
0.1080/19496591.2020.1784750
Hughes, Christopher W. (2016) ‘Japan’s “resentful realism” and balancing China’s rise’,
The Chinese Jounral of International Politics, 9: 109–150.
Innes, Alexandria J. (2015) Migration, Citizenship and the Challenge for Security: An
Ethnographic Approach. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Ireland, Patrick R. (2018) ‘The limits of sending-state power: The Philippines, Sri Lanka, and
female migrant domestic workers’, International Political Science Review, 39 (3): 322–37.
International Studies Association (ISA) (2021) ‘ISA policy and procedures on plagiarism’,
isanet.org 2014. https://www.isanet.org/ISA/Governance/Policy-and-Procedures/ID/8/
ISA-Policy-and-Procedures-on-Plagiarism (accessed May 21, 2021).
Ishiyama, John T. (1993) ‘Founding elections and the development of transitional par-
ties: The cases of Estonia and Latvia, 1990–1992’, Communist and Post-Communist
Studies, 26 (3): 277–99.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2016) The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations:
Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics, (2nd edition).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Jacobs, Alan M. (2015) ‘Process tracing and the effects of ideas’, in A. Bennett and
J.T. Checkel (eds) Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 41–73.
Jacobsen, Karen and Landau, Lauren B. (2003) ‘The dual imperative of refugee research:
Some methodological and ethical considerations in social science research and forced
migration’ Disasters, 23 (3) 185–206.
Jacoby, Tami (2006) ‘From the trenches: dilemmas of feminist IR fieldwork’, in B.A.
Ackerely, M. Steern and J. True (eds), Feminist Methodologies for International Relations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 153–73.
References 263
Jensen, Benjamin M., Whyte, Christophere, and Cuomo, Scott (2020) ‘Algorithms at war:
The promise, peril, and limits of artificial intelligence’, International Studies Review,
22(3): 526–50.
Jernnäs, Maria and Linnér, Björn-Ola (2019) ‘A discursive cartography of nationally deter-
mined contributions to the Paris Climate Agreement’, Global Environmental Change,
55: 73–83.
Johnson, Jesse C. (2017) ‘External threat and alliance formation’, International Studies
Quarterly, 61: 736–45.
Johnson, R. Burke, Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., and Turner, Lisa A. (2007) ‘Toward a defi-
nition of mixed methods research’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2): 112–33.
Kahler, Miles (1998) ‘Rationality in International Relations’, International Organization,
52 (4): 919–41.
Kaplan, Morton A. (1966) ‘The new great debate: Traditionalism vs. science in International
Relations’, World Politics, 19 (1): 1–20.
Katzenstein, Peter (ed.) (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World
Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J., Keohane, Robert O., and Krasner, Stephen D. (1996) ‘International
organization and the study of world politics’, International Organization, 52 (4): 645–85.
Keane, Pheobe. (2020) ‘How the oil industry made us doubt climate change’, BBC News,
20 September. https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382 (accessed May 21, 2021).
Kim, Hunjoon and Sikkink, Kathryn (2010) ‘Explaining the deterrence effect of human
rights prosecutions for transitional countries’, International Studies Quarterly, 54 (4):
939–63.
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sydney (1994) Designing Social Inquiry:
Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O. and Verba, Sydney (2010) ‘The importance of research
design’, in H.E. Brady and D. Collier (eds), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools,
Shared Standards (2nd edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 111–22.
Klotz, Audie (1995) ‘Norms reconstituting interests: Global racial equality and U.S. sanc-
tions against South Africa’, International Organization, 49 (3): 451–78.
Klotz, Audie and Prakash, Deepa (eds) (2008) Qualitative Methods in International Relations:
A Pluralist Guide. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Knopf, Jeffrey W. (2006) ‘Doing a literature review’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 39 (1):
127–32.
Kramer, Adam D.I, Guillory, Jamie E., and Hancock, Jeffrey T. (2014) ‘Experimental evi-
dence of massive scale emotional contagion through social networks’, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 111 (24): 8788–90.
Kuehn, David. (2013) ‘Combining game theory models and process tracing: Potential
and limits’, European Political Science, 12: 52–63.
Kuhn, Steven (2019) ‘Prisoner’s dilemma’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/
entries/prisoner-dilemma/ (accessed May 31, 2021).
Kukhianidze, Alexander, Kupatatdze, Alexander, and Gotsiridze, Roman (2004) Smuggling
through Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region of Georgia. Tblisi: TraCCC Georgia Office.
Kupatadze, Alexander (2010) ‘Organized crime and the trafficking of radiological materi-
als’, The Nonproliferation Review, 17 (2): 219–34.
Kurki, Milja (2007) ‘Critical realism and causal analysis in International Relations’,
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 35 (2): 361–78.
Kurki, Milja (2008) Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kurze, Arnaud and Vukušić, Iva (2012) ‘Afraid to cry wolf: Human rights activists’ strug-
gle of transnational accountability efforts in the Balkans’, in O. Simic and Z. Volcic
(eds), Transitional Justice and Civil Society in the Balkans. New York, NY: Springer.
pp. 201–15.
Lai, Daniela and Roccu, Roberto (2019) ‘Case study research and critical IR: The case for
an extended case study methodology’, International Relations 33 (1): 67–87.
Lake, David A. (2014) ‘The challenge: The domestic determinants of international rivalry
between the United States and China’, International Studies Review 16 (3): 442–47.
Lall, Ranjit (2010) ‘The financial consequences of rating international institutions:
Competition, collaboration, and the politics of assessment’, International Studies
Quarterly. doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaa082
Lamont, Christopher K. (2010) ‘Compliance or strategic defiance: The Croatian
Democratic Union and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’,
Europe-Asia Studies, 62 (10): 1683–1705.
Lamont, Christopher K. (2010) International Criminal Justice and the Politics of Compliance.
Farnham: Ashgate.
Lampe, Klaus von (2012) ‘Transnational organized crime challenges for future research’,
Crime, Law and Social Change 58 (2): 179–94.
Lane, Christopher (1994) ‘Kant or cant: The myth of democratic peace’, International
Security, 19 (2): 5–49.
Larson, Deborah Welch (2017) ‘Archival research in foreign policy’, Oxford Research
Encyclopedias, 22 August. doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.389
Lee, Alexander (2015) ‘How (and how not) to use archival sources in political science’
Working Paper, Department of Political Science, University of Rochester. http://www.
rochester.edu/college/faculty/alexander_lee/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/archives.pdf
Leech, Beth L. (2002) ‘Asking questions: Techniques for semi-structured interviews’, PS:
Political Science & Politics, 35 (4): 665–8.
Leiby, Michele L. (2009) ‘Wartime sexual violence in Guatemala and Peru’, International
Studies Quarterly, 53 (2): 445–68.
Lepgold, Joseph (1998) ‘Is anyone listening? International Relations Theory and the
problem of policy relevance’, Political Science Quarterly, 113 (1): 43–62.
Leung, Janny H.C. and Durant, Alan (eds) (2018) Meaning and Power in the Language of
Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levy, Jack S. (2002) ‘Qualitative methods in International Relations’, in F.P. Harvey
and M. Brecher (eds), Evaluating Methodology in International Studies. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press. pp. 131–60.
Levy, Jack S. (2008) ‘Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference’, Conflict
Management and Peace Science, 25 (1): 1–18.
References 265
Li, Xiaojun, Wang, Jianwei, and Chen, Dingding (2016) ‘Chinese citizens’ trust in Japan
and South Korea: Findings from a four-city survey’, International Studies Quarterly,
60 (4): 778–89.
Lian, Hongping (2019) ‘Positionality and power: Reflexivity in negotiating the relation-
ship between land-lost farmers and the local government in China’, International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18: 1–13.
Lieberman, Evan S. (2005) ‘Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative
research’, American Political Science Review, 99 (3): 435–52.
Linklater, Andrew (1992) ‘The question of the next stage in International Relations
Theory: A critical-theoretical point of view’, Millennium, 21 (1): 77–98.
Liou, Yu-Ming and Musgrave, Paul (2016) ‘Oil, autocratic survival, and the gendered
resource curse: When inefficient policy is politically expedient’, International Studies
Quarterly, 60 (3): 440–56.
Lipson, Charles (2005) How to Write a BA Thesis: A Practical Guide from Your First Ideas to
Your Finished Paper. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lowe, Will. (2004) ‘Content analysis and its place in the (methodological) scheme of
things’, Qualitative Methods, 2 (1): 25–7.
Lynch, Julia F. (2013) ‘Aligning sampling strategies with analytic goals’, in L. Mosley (ed.)
Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. pp. 31–44.
Mac Ginty, Roger (2014) ‘Everyday peace: Bottom-up and local agency in conflict-
affected societies’, Security Dialogue, 45 (6): 548–64.
MacKay, Joseph and Levin, Jamie (2015) ‘Hanging out in international politics: Two
kinds of explanatory political ethnography for IR’, International Studies Review, 17 (2):
163–88.
Magcamit, Michael Intal (2020) ‘Imagined insecurities in imagined communities:
Manufacturing the ethnoreligious others as security threats’, International Studies
Quarterly, 64 (3): 684–98.
Maliniak, Daniel, Parajon, Eric, and Powers, Ryan (2020) ‘Epistemic communities and
public support for the Paris Agreement on Climate Change’, Political Research Quarterly.
doi.org/10.1177/1065912920946400
Mansfield, Edward D. and Pevehouse, Jon C. (2000) ‘Trade blocs, trade flows, and inter-
national conflict’, International Organization, 54 (4): 775–808.
Maoz, Zeev (2002) ‘Case study methodology in international studies: From story-telling
to hypothesis testing’, in F.P. Harvey and M. Brecher (eds), Evaluating Methodology in
International Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. pp. 161–86.
Maoz, Zeev (2011) Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure and Impact of International
Networks, 1816–2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maoz, Zeev and San-Akca, Belgin (2012) ‘Rivalry and state support for Non-State Armed
Groups (NAGs), 1946–2001’, International Studies Quarterly, 56 (4): 720–34.
Margry, Peter Jan (2020) ‘On scholarly misconduct and fraud, and what we can learn
from it’, Ethnologia Europaea, 49 (2): 133–44.
Maroškovà, Tereza and Spurná, Karolína (2021) ‘Why did they comply? External incen-
tive model, role-playing and socialization in the alignment of sanctions against Russia
in Albania and Montenegro’, Journal of European Integration.
McHenry, Dean E. Jr. (2015) ‘The Numeration of Events’, in D. Yanow and P. Schwartz-
Shea (eds), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn
(2nd edition). New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 239–54.
MacKay, Joseph and Levin, Jamie (2015) ‘Hanging out in international politics: Two kinds
of explanatory political ethnography for IR’, International Studies Review, 17 (2): 163–88.
Mearsheimer, John J. (2010) ‘The gathering storm: China’s challenge to US power in
Asia’, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3(4): 381–96.
Mertus, Julie A. (2009) ‘Introduction: Surviving field research’, in C.L. Sriram, J.C. King,
J.A. Mertus, O. Martin-Ortega, and J. Herman (eds), Surviving Field Research: Working in
Violent and Difficult Situations. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 1–7.
Miles, Bart (2010) ‘Discourse analysis’, in N.J. Salkind (ed.), Encyclopedia of Research
Design. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n115
Milgram, Stanley (1963) ‘Behavioral study of obedience’, The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 67 (4): 371–8.
Milliken, Jennifer (1999) ‘The study of discourse in International Relations’, European
Journal of International Relations, 5 (2): 225–54.
Mills, Kurt (2015) International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect,
Prosecute, and Palliate. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Milner, H.V. (1998) ‘Rationalizing politics: The emerging of international, American and
comparative politics’, International Organization, 52 (4): 759–86.
Mintz, Alex, Redd, Stephen B. and Vedlitz, Arnold (2006) ‘Can we generalize from student
experiments to the real world in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International
Relations?’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50 (5): 757–76.
Moe, Kristine (1984) ‘Should the Nazi research data be cited?’, The Hastings Center Report,
14 (6): 5–7.
Moravcsik, Andrew (2000), ‘The origins of human rights regimes: Democratic delegation
in postwar Europe’, International Organization 54 (2): 217–52.
Morency-Laflamme, Julien (2018) ‘A question of trust: Military defection during regime
crises in Benin and Togo’, Democratization, 25 (3): 464–80.
Morgenthau, Hans (revised by Kenneth W. Thompson and W. David Clinton) (2005)
Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (7th edition). New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Moses, Jonathon, W. and Knutsen, Torbjorn L. (2012) Ways of Knowing: Competing
Methodologies in Social and Political Research (2nd edition). Houndmills, London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Munier, Nathan (2020) The Political Economy of the Kimberley Process. Cambridge:
Musgrave, Paul. (2020) ‘The beautiful, dumb dream of McDonald’s peace theory’ Foreign
Policy, November 26, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/26/mcdonalds-peace-nagor
nokarabakh-friedman/
Nair, Deepak (2021) ‘“Hanging out” while studying “up”: Doing ethnographic fieldwork
in International Relations’, International Studies Review. doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab001
National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (2021) Final Report. https://www.
nscai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Full-Report-Digital-1.pdf
References 267
Neumann, Iver B. (2008) ‘Discourse analysis’, in A. Klotz and D. Prakash (eds), Qualitative
Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide. New York, NY: Palgrave. pp. 61–77.
Newnham, Randall E. (2004) ‘“Nukes for sale cheap?” Purchasing peace with North
Korea’, International Studies Perspectives, 5 (2): 164–78.
Nicholson, Michael (1992) Rationality and the Analysis of International Conflict . Cambridge:
Nicholson, Michael (2002) ‘Formal methods in International Relations’, in F.P. Harvey
Nielsen, Karina, Randall, Raymond, and Christensen, Karl B. (2015) ‘Do different train-
ing conditions facilitate team implementation? A quasi-experimental mixed methods
study’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11 (2): 223–47.
Noda, Orion (2020) ‘Epistemic hegemony: the Western straightjacket and post-colonial
scars in academic publishing’, Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 63 (1). doi.
org/10.1590/0034-7329202000107
Nome, M.A. and Weidmann, N.B. (2013) ‘Conflict diffusion via social identities:
Entrepreneurship and adaptation’, in J.T. Checkel (ed.), Transnational Dynamics of Civil
War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 173–202.
Nonhoff, Martin (2017) ‘Discourse analysis as critique’, Palgrave Communications,
3 (17074).
Norman, J.M. (2009) ‘Got trust? The challenges of gaining access in conflict zones’, in
C.L. Sriram, J.C. King, J.A. Mertus, O. Martin-Ortega and J. Herman (eds), Surviving
Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations. New York, NY: Routledge.
pp. 71–90.
Norman, Ludvig (2015) ‘Interpretive process tracing and causal explanations’, Qualitative
& Multi-Method Research, 13 (2): 4–9.
Ochs, Juliana. (2011) Security and Suspicion: An Ethnography of Everyday Life in Israel.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Odell, John S. (2001) ‘Case study methods in international political economy’,
International Studies Perspectives, 2 (2): 161–76.
OECD (2013) ‘Country fact sheet: Norway’. https://www.oecd.org/gov/GAAG2013_CFS_
NOR.pdf
OECD (2021) ‘OECD Better Life Index’. https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org
Parashar, Swati, Tickner, J. Ann, and Darby, Phillip (2016) ‘Feminism and postcolonial-
ism: The twain shall meet’, Postcolonial Studies, 19 (4): 463–77.
Parker, Ian (2015) Psychology after Discourse Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Critique. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Pavlaković, Vjeran (2008) ‘Red stars, black shirts: Symbols, commemorations, and con-
tested histories of World War Two in Croatia’, The National Council of Eurasian and
East European Research (NCEEER). https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2008_822-16h_
Pavlakovic.pdf (accessed September 14, 2021).
Pavlaković, Vjeran (2010) ‘Croatia, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia, and General Gotovina as a political symbol’, Europe-Asia Studies, 62:
1707–40.
Pavlaković, Vjeran and Perak, Benedikt (2017) ‘How does this monument make you feel?
Measuring emotional responses to war memorials in Croatia?’, in T. Sindbæk Andersen
and B. Törnquist-Plewa (eds), The Twentieth Century in European Memory: Transcultural
Mediation and Reception. Leiden: Brill. pp. 268–304.
Pepinsky, Thomas B. (2005) ‘From agents to outcomes: Simulation in International
Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 11 (3). doi.org/10.1177/135406
6105055484
Peskin, Victor (2008) International Justice in Rwanda and the Balkans: Virtual Trials and the
Struggle for State Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pessoa, Alex Sandro Gomes, Harper, Erin, Santos, Isabela Samogim, and Carvalho da Silva
Gracino, Marina (2019) ‘Using reflexive interviewing to foster deep understanding of
research participants’ perspectives’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods. doi.
org/10.1177/1609406918825026
Petrović, Tanja (2013). Interview, June 28, 2013.
Petrović, Vladimir (2015) ‘Power(lessness) of atrocity images: Bijeljina photos between
perpetration and prosecution of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia’, International
Journal of Transitional Justice 9 (3): 367–85.
Pew Research Center (2021) ‘Our methods’. https://www.pewresearch.org/our-methods/
u-s-surveys/writing-survey-questions
Polat, Rabia Karakaya (2018) ‘Religious solidarity, historical mission and moral superi-
ority: Construction of external and internal “others” in AKP’s discourses on Syrian
refugees in Turkey’, Critical Discourse Studies, 15 (5): 500–16.
Pole, Christopher J. and Lampard, Richard (2002) Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative
and Quantitative Methods in Social Research. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Powers, Penny (2001) The Methodology of Discourse Analysis. Sudbury, MA: Jones and
Bartlett.
Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New
York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
Puri, Shalini and Castillo, Debra A. (eds) (2016) Theorizing Fieldwork in the Humanities:
Methods, Reflections, and Approaches to the Global South. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rambukkana, Nathan (2019) ‘The politics of gray data: Digital methods, intimate proxim-
ity, and research ethics for work on the “Alt-Right”’, Qualitative Inquiry, 25 (3): 312–23.
Richards, David (1996) ‘Elite interviewing: Approaches and pitfalls’, Politics, 16 (3):
199–204.
Richardson, Lewis Fry (1960) The Statistics of Deadly Quarrels. Pacific Grove, CA: Boxwood.
Richmond, Oliver (2012) A Post-Liberal Peace. New York, NY: Routledge.
Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Stephen C., and Sikkink, Kathryn (eds) (1999) The Power of Human
Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, Rebecca (ed.) (2013) An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education (3rd
edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rosato, Sebastian (2003) ‘The flawed logic of democratic peace theory’, American Political
Science Review, 97 (4): 585–602.
Roselle, Laura, Spray, Sharon, and Shelton, Joel T. (2020) Research and Writing in
International Relations (3rd edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
References 269
Rosendal, G. Kristen (2005) ‘Governing GMOs in the EU: A deviant case of environmen-
tal policy-making’, Global Environmental Politics, 5 (1): 82–104.
Rousseau, D. and van der Veen, A.M. (2005) ‘The emergence of a shared identity: An
agent based computer simulation of idea diffusion’, Journal of Conflict Resolution,
49 (5): 686–712.
Routley, Laura and Wright, Katharine A.M. (2021) ‘Being Indiana Jones in IR: The pressure
to do “real” fieldwork’, in R. Mac Ginty, R. Brett and B. Vogel (eds), The Companion to
Peace and Conflict Fieldwork. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rozen, Joel (2015) ‘Civics lesson: Ambivalence, contestation, and curricular change in
Tunisia’, Ethnos: A Journal of Anthropology, 80: 605–626.
Russo, A. and Strazzari, F. (2020) ‘Caring, protecting and disciplining: The surveillance of
social science researchers in the dangerhood?’, in N. Graeger and H. Leira (eds), The
Duty of Care in International Relations: Protecting Citizens Beyond the Border. New York,
NY: Routledge. pp. 34–52.
Sabaratnam, Meera (2020) ‘Is IR Theory white? Racialized subject-positioning in three
canonical texts’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 49 (1): 3–31.
Said, Edward (1977) Orientalism. London: Penguin.
Sambanis, Nicholas (2005) ‘Using case studies to refine and expand the theory of civil
war’, in P. Collier and N. Sambanis (eds), Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis.
Washington D.C: The World Bank. pp. 303–34.
Sato, Shohei (2017) ‘“Operation Legacy”: Britain’s destruction and concealment of colo-
nial records worldwide’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 45 (4):
697–719.
Schilling, Mark (2014) ‘Debate still rages over Abe-endorsed WWII drama’, The Japan
Times, February 20. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2014/02/20/films/debate-
still-rages-over-abe-endorsed-wwii-drama/
Schmidt, Brian (2002) ‘On the history and historiography of International Relations’,
in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and B.A. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations.
London: Sage. pp. 3–22.
Schneider, Florian (2018) ‘Mediated massacre: Digital nationalism and history discourse
on China’s web’, The Journal of Asian Studies, 77 (2): 429–52.
Scott, Greg and Garner, Roberta (2013) Doing Qualitative Research: Design, Methods, and
Techniques. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Seawright, Jason (2016) Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative
Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shachtman, Tom (2013) ‘It’s time to abandon “Munich”’, Foreign Policy, September 29.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/29/its-time-to-abandon-munich/ (accessed June 4,
2021).
Shim, David (2014) Visual Politics and North Korea: Seeing is Believing. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Shim, David and Nabers, Dirk (2013) ‘Imaging North Korea: Exploring its visual rep-
resentations in International Politics’, International Studies Perspectives, 14: 289–306.
Shuster, E. (1997) ‘Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code’, The New
England Journal of Medicine, 337 (20): 1436–40.
Smith, Steve (1995) ‘The self-image of a discipline: A genealogy of International Relations

Theory’, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds), International Relations Theory Today. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–37.
Smith, Steve (2002) ‘The United States and the discipline of International Relations:
“Hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline”’, International Studies Review, 4: 67–85.
Šimunić, Ana-Maria (2013) `Bias in research’, Biochemia Medica, 23: 12–15.
Sokolić, Ivor (2016) ‘Researching norms, narratives, and transitional justice: focus group
methodology in post-conflict Croatia’ Nationalities Papers, 44 (6): 932–949.
Sokolić, Ivor (2019) International Courts and Mass Atrocity: Narratives of War and Justice in
Croatia. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Spivak, Gayatri (1988) ‘Can the subaltern speak?’, in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds), Marxism
and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana, Il: University of Illinois Press. pp. 271–313.
Sprinz, Detlef and Wolinsky-Nahmias, Yael (eds) (2004) Cases, Numbers, Models:
International Relations Research Methods. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Sriram, Chandra Lekha, King, John C., Mertus, Julia A., Martin-Ortega, Olga, and Herman,
Johanna (eds) (2009) Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations.
London: Routledge.
Stemwedel, Janet D. (2014) ‘What is philosophy of science (and should scientists care?)’,
Scientific American, April 7. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/
what-is-philosophy-of-science-and-should-scientists-care/ (accessed May 17, 2021).
Stritzel, Holger (2012) ‘Securitization, power, intertextuality: Discourse theory and the
translations of organized crime’, Security Dialogue, 43 (6): 549–67.
Subotić, Jelena (2020) ‘Ethics of archival research on political violence’, Journal of Peace
Research. doi.org/10.1177/0022343319898735
Tansey, Oisin (2007) ‘Process tracing and elite interviewing: A case for non-probability
sampling’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 4 (4): 765–72.
Tickner, J. Ann (2005) ‘What is your research program? Some feminist answers to
International Relations methodological questions’, International Studies Quarterly,
49 (1): 1–22.
Tingley, Dustin (2014) ‘Survey Research in International Political Economy’ International
Interactions, 40 (3), 443–51.
Tosa, Hiroyuki (2009) ‘Anarchical governance: Neoliberal governmentality in resonance
with the state of exception’, International Political Sociology, 3 (3): 414–30.
Totani, Yuma (2008) The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Pursuit of Justice in the Wake of World
War II. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tucker, Todd N. (2016) ‘Grounded theory generation: A tool for transparent concept
development’, International Studies Perspectives, 17(4): 426–38.
V-Dem Institute (2021) ‘V-Dem: Global standards, local knowledge’, v-dem.net. Gothenburg:
V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/en/ (accessed May 28, 2021).
van Evera, Stephen (1997) Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
van Ingen, Michiel (2020) ‘Sublating the naturalism/anti-naturalism problematic: Critical
realism, critical naturalism, and the question of methodology’, International Studies
Review, 23 (3): 835–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa080
References 271
Vanderheiden, S. (2011) ‘Globalizing responsibility for climate change’, Ethics &

International Affairs, 25 (1): 65–84. doi.org/10.1017/S089267941000002X
Vigneswaran, Darshan (2020) ‘Europe has never been modern: Recasting historical narra-
tives of migration control’, International Political Sociology, 14 (1): 2–21.
Vitalis, Robert (2015) White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American
International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Vogt, Manuel (2016) ‘A new dawn? Indigenous movements and ethnic inclusion in Latin
America’, International Studies Quarterly, 60 (4): 790–801.
von Neumann, John and Morgenstern, Oskar (1944) The Theory of Games and Economic
Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vrasti, Wanda (2008) ‘The strange case of Ethnography and International Relations’,
Millennium Journal of International Studies, 37 (2): 279–301.
Vucetic, Srdjan (2011) ‘Genealogy as a research tool in International Relations’, Review of
Vultee, Fred (2010) ‘Securitization: A new approach to the framing of the “War on
Terror”’, Journalism Practice, 4 (1): 33–47.
Walt, Stephen M. (2011a) ‘How to do social science’, Foreign Policy, September 29. http://
www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/28/how_to_do_social_science (accessed May 15,
2021).
Walt, Stephen M. (2011b) ‘International affairs and the public sphere’, Essay Series:
Transformations of the Public Sphere, Social Science Research Council (SSRC),
July 21. http://publicsphere.ssrc.org/walt-international-affairs-and-the-public-sphere/
(accessed May 15, 2021).
Walt, Stephen M. (2014) ‘Is Barak Obama more of a realist than I am?’, Foreign Policy, 14
August. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/19/is_barack_obama_more_
of_a_realist_than_i_am_stephen_m_walt_iraq_russia_gaza (accessed May 15, 2021).
Walter, Barbara F. (2002) Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1996) ‘International politics is not a foreign policy’, Security Studies,
6 (1): 54–7.
Walzer, Michael (1977) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Wedeen, Lisa (2008) Peripheral Visions: Publics, Power, and Performance in Yemen. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wendt, Alexander (1998) ‘On constitution and causation in International Relations’,
Review of International Studies, 24 (5): 101–18.
Wilkinson, Cai (2013) ‘Ethnographic methods’, in L.J. Shepherd (ed.), Critical
Approaches to Security: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. Abingdon: Routledge.
pp. 129–45.
Wilkinson, Cai (2015) ‘On not just finding what you (thought you) were looking
for’, in D. Yanov and P. Schwartz-Shea (eds), Interpretation and Method: Empirical
Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn (2nd edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
pp. 387–405.
Williams, John H.P. and Zeager, Lester A. (2004) ‘Macedonian border closings in the
Kosovo refugee crisis: A game-theoretic perspective’, Conflict Management and Peace
Science, 21 (4): 233–54.
Wittig, Timothy (2009) ‘Financing terrorism along the Chechnya-Georgia border,
1999–2002’, Global Crime, 10 (3): 248–60.
Wittig, Timothy (2011) Understanding Terrorist Finance. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Wodak, Ruth (2008) ‘Introduction – discourse studies – important concepts and terms’,
in R. Wodak and M. Krzyźanowksi (eds), Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social
Sciences. Houndmills, London: Palgrave. pp. 1–29.
World Bank (2021) ‘The World Bank in South Africa: Overview’ https://www.worldbank.
org/en/country/southafrica/overview
World Health Organization (WHO) (2021) ‘COVAX: Working for global equitable access
to COVID-19 vaccines’, World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/initiatives/
act-accelerator/covax (accessed May 15, 2021).
Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine (eds) (2015) Interpretation and Method:
Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn (2nd edition). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Zinnes, Dina A. (2002) ‘Reflections on quantitative international politics’, in F.P. Harvey
Zvobgo, Kelebogile (2020) ‘Demanding truth: The Global Transitional Justice Network
and the creation of truth commissions’, International Studies Quarterly, 64 (3): 609–25.
Zvobgo, Kelebogile and Graham, Benjamin A.T. (2020) ‘The World Bank as an enforcer of
human rights’ Journal of Human Rights, 19 (4): 425–48.
INDEX
Note: Page numbers in italics indicate tables and figures. Page numbers in bold refer to terms
in the glossary.
abduction, 41–2, 42–3, 245 Bader, J., 230–1

Aboagye, F., 52 Balnaves, M., 126
abstract, 230–1, 245 Bartolucci, V., 52
abstract simulation modelling, 149–50 Baumrind, D., 68
academia.edu, 103 BBC News, 70, 103, 110
academic writing see writing; writing up Beach, D., 153
access, 168–70, 171, 186–8 behaviouralists, 14
Ackerly, B., 65 behaviorism, 245
acknowledgements, 231 Bennett, A., 106, 147–8, 149, 150, 198, 206,
agent-based modelling (ABM), 150, 245 207, 212, 213, 218, 220
agent-structure debate, 46 Berg, B.L., 91, 109, 110
aggression, 196 Bhattacharjee, Y., 76
AKP party, 203 bias, 67, 99, 151, 169, 179, 189, 206, 218, 245
Albania, 108 bibliographical reference, 74
Alise, M.A., 140 bibliographies, 236–7
Alles, D., 178 big data, 103
American Anthropological Association, 69, 70 bivariate regression analysis, 129, 245
American Historical Association, 74 bivariate statistical tests, 128–9
American National Election Studies, 125 Bleiker, R., 96, 104, 111
analytic eclecticism, 154, 155, 157, 245 Bode, I., 163, 165
Andersen, E., 132 Boduszyński, M., 48
anonymity, 69, 71, 172, 234 Bogod, D., 67
anonymization, 191 Bohman, J., 51
anything goes approach to ethics, 72 Bonditti, P., 200, 225
appeasement, 196 Brandt, A.M., 64
Arab Spring, 29–30, 47–8, 51 Braumoeller, B.F., 118
Arab world, 40 Brazil, 219
Aradau, C., 27 Briggs, J., 164
archival fieldwork, 168 Brownlee, J., 40
archival research, 97–100, 161–2 Bryman, A., 64, 72, 94–5, 97, 117, 132, 140,
archives, 206 142, 233
Argentina, 219 Bull, H., 14, 118
Army Human Terrains System Project, 69 Bunselmeyer, E., 149
Artificial Intelligence (AI), 41–2, 88 Burundi, 145
Ashley, R., 27 Bush, G.W., 4
Ashworth, L.M., 6
Assault on Civil Society (Chaudry), 229 Callan, T., 97
audio recordings, 172, 188–9, 190, 191 Cambridge referencing style, 76
Autesserre, S., 224 Campbell, D, 94
authoritarian resilience, 40 Caputti, P., 126
cardinal preference, 133–4 Cold War International History Project, 99, 100
cartographic cases, 224 Collier, P., 107, 144–5, 147, 154
case selection criteria, 218–19 Collier-Hoeffner model, 144–5
case studies, 210–13, 246 colonial knowledge production, 164
mixed methods research (MMR), 142, 143, colonial texts, 58
145, 147–8 colonialism, 16
case study research, 54, 209–26 comparative methods, 210, 246
case selection criteria, 218–19 case study design, 216–21
case studies, 210–13 and causality, 221–3
COVID-19, 117 see also case studies
research design, 216–25 comparisons, 217
comparative methods, 216–23 conceptual analysis, 58
interpretive research, 57, 213, 223–5 conceptual definitions, 119–20
positivist research, 55–6 conclusion, 235, 238
research questions, 214–15, 216, 221–2 confidentiality, 69, 71
theory and methodology, 213–14 conflict, 132, 144–5
Castillo, D.A., 164 conflict management, 116
categorization, 110 conflict settings, 170, 173
causal claims, 21 see also post-conflict settings
causal effects, 212, 246 conflicts of interest, 66–7
causal explanations, 214 Conley, B., 224
causal inference, 95, 119, 140, 149, 214, Connolly, W.E., 50
216, 246 constructivism, 16, 95–6, 246
causal mechanisms, 21, 107, 108, 212, 246 constructivist research, 25
archives, 98 content analysis, 109–11, 196, 246
case study research, 221–3 contrapuntal reading, 58, 246
discourse analysis, 198 convergent mixed methods research, 142–3,
mixed methods research (MMR), 147, 148 144, 246
causal relationships, 47, 118, 246 Copenhagen School of Security Studies, 200
causality, 21–2, 24, 40 Coppedge, M., 121
critical discourse analysis, 202 correlation, 132, 246
critical realism, 154 corroboration, 151–2
interpretive research, 50 Corti, L., 173
mixed methods research (MMR), 147, 152 course syllabi, 84
single case analysis, 217 COVAX program, 6
transparency, 155–6 COVID-19, 6, 117–18, 175
causation, 55, 132, 246 Cox, R., 14, 27, 73
certainty, 206 Creswell, J.W., 142
Checkel, J.T., 106, 147–8, 149, 150, 198, Crimea, 108
206, 207 criminal justice, 122
Chernoff, F., 154, 155 criminal offenses, 173
Chicago Manual of Style, 236 Cristol, J., 13–14
China, 65–6, 163, 230–1 critical discourse analysis, 201–5
chi-squared test, 128–9, 246 critical questions, 52
citations, 87 critical race theory, 19
civil war, 144–5 critical realism, 154–5, 157, 246
climate change, 20 critical theory, 14, 17, 24, 27, 51–2, 247
codes of conduct, 70–1, 171 critical theory research design, 57–8
coding, 117, 120–3, 126, 246 criticism, 155–6
and content analysis, 110–11 Croatia, 57, 105, 165, 170, 185, 205
in mixed methods research (MMR), 151 Cronin-Furman, K., 164
nominal data, 124 cross case comparisons, 219, 220, 221–2
writing up, 233–4 crucial cases, 219
coefficient, 120 Cruz, M., 164
coefficient of determination, 130, 246
Cohn, C., 199 Darby, P., 16
Cold War, 116, 132, 135 Darnton, C., 98, 219
Index 275
data, fabrication and distortion of, 76–7 digital technology, 75, 188
data analysis, 3, 5, 28–9, 141 direct quotes, 75–6
mixed methods research (MMR), 147–51 discourse, 197–8
qualitative methods, 105–12 discourse analysis, 109, 165, 195–208, 247
content analysis, 109–11 critical discourse analysis, 201–5
discourse analysis, 109 discourse, 197–8
process tracing, 106–9 methods, 200
thick descriptions, 106 for positivist research, 205–8
triangulation, 105–6 discrete data, 128, 247
visual analysis, 111–12 Doctor, A.C., 143
quantitative methods, 151 document types, 98
advantages and limitations, 117–19 documentary sources, 95–6, 205, 206
coding, 120–3, 124 see also primary sources; secondary sources
from conceptual to operational document-based research, 97–100, 108
definitions, 119–20 doubly decisive test, 207
level of measurement, 124–5 Douglas, J.D., 72
mathematical models, 132–6 Duncombe, C., 103
statistical analysis, 128–32 Dunn, K.C., 197, 198, 201, 202, 204
triangulation, 123 duty of care, 167
units of analysis, 123–4
as research paper component, 234–5, 238 Earnest, D.C., 150
data collection, 3, 5, 28, 29, 141 Economic and Social Research Council
mixed methods research (MMR), 152–3 (ESC), 71
qualitative data, 96–105 edited volumes, 83
archival and document-based research, education, 123
97–100 efficient causality, 50, 247
digital research, 101–4 elite interviews, 179, 183, 247
focus groups, 97 elites, 184, 186, 188
interviews, 96 Elman, C., 218
visual data, 104–5 Elman, M.F., 220–1
quantitative methods, 117, 125–8, 151, emergent causality, 50, 247
182–3 empirical simulation modelling, 149
data scale, 124 empiricism, 1, 247
data sets, 55–6, 96, 118 endnotes, 236
databases, 99–100, 103 endogeneity, 132, 247
dataset, 247 epistemology, 18–19, 154, 155, 247
David, R., 68, 152 Eternal Zoo, 214–15
de Carvhalo, B., 16 ethical clearance, 67
de Mesquita, B.B., 132 ethical codes of conduct, 70–1, 171
decision trees, 134 ethical standards, 27
deductive categorization, 110 ethics, 17
deductive reasoning, 41, 42, 44, 117, 247 see also research ethics
democracies, 4–5, 118, 119, 121, 122, 144 ethics cultures, 72
Democratic Peace Theory, 13, 14, 15, 56, 220–1 Euro-centrism, 161–2
democratization, 47–8 European Union (EU), 48, 108, 110, 154, 184
dependent variables, 45, 47, 146, 247 evidence, 206–7
descriptive statistics, 128, 247 exam performance, 42
Designing Social Inquiry (King), 23, 141 excavation, 57–8, 247
deviant cases, 219, 220–1 exemplary cases, 223, 224
digital archives, 99–100, 102, 166 experimentation, 54, 55, 247
digital data, 69–70 experiments, 67
digital encyclopedias, 103 explanatory sequential research, 143, 144, 247
digital fieldwork, 161, 163 explanatory variables, 46, 247
digital methods, 69–70 see also independent variables
digital research, 75, 101–4, 166 explanatory variations, 44
digital scholarly databases, 103 exploratory sequential research, 143, 144, 247
digital search tools, 104 external incentive model, 108
Facebook, 70, 102, 103 governmentality, 201

falsifiable, 54, 247, 248 ‘Great Debates’, 6, 14–15
Faure, A.M., 220 Greitens, S.C., 168
Fearon, J.D., 116 grey data, 70
feeling thermometers, 125 grounded theory, 14
feminist IR, 16, 22, 65, 150, 160, 164 Gustafsson, K., 40, 200
field research, 221 Guzzini, S., 108
Fielding, N.G., 161
fieldwork, 159–76, 248 Hackenesch, C., 230–1
access and trust, 168–70 Hagström, L., 40, 200
activities, 162 ‘hanging out’, 162–3
ethical considerations, 164, 167, 170 Hansen, L., 111, 112
informed consent, 170–3 Hardy, C., 199
positionality, 65–6 Harris, G., 66
practical considerations, 166–8 Harrison, L., 97
in practice, 173–4 Harvard referencing style, 75
primary and secondary data, 165–6 Hawkesworth, M., 18
research questions, 164–5 He, K., 220
fieldwork activities, 162 Henderson, E.A., 16
films, 214–15 hermeneutics, 23, 26, 49, 248
Finn, P., 179 Herrera, C.D., 64
Finnemore, M., 25 Hesse, A., 69
flexibility, 174, 175, 188 Hesse-Biber, S., 150–1
Flyvbjerg, B., 218 Hidden in Plain Sight (Henderson), 16
focus groups, 97, 163, 167, 172, 248 Hiroshima, 111
footnotes, 76, 236, 237 Hoffman, M.J., 150
foreign policy analysis, 46 Hollis, M., 24
formal language, 118, 119, 217, 248 Holohan, S., 204
formal methods, 132, 248 Holterman, H., 148
formal modelling, 117, 134, 150 hoop test, 206, 207
formal models, 117, 132, 133–4, 248 Hope, A.L.B., 143
formalization, 116, 248 Horkheimer, M., 14, 27, 51
Foucauldian discourse analysis, 200–1 Howlett, M.A., 143
Foucault, M., 19, 27 ‘how-possible’ questions, 205, 224
Frankfurt School, 27, 51–2, 248 human emancipation, 51
fraudulent research, 76–7 human rights, 119, 152
Freedom House, 47, 121, 122 ISA award winning book and article
Friedrichs, J., 41–2, 43 titles, 229
Fujii, L.A., 178 literature review, 232–3
full disclosure, 68–9, 71, 171 human rights treaties, 118, 124
human subjects, 67–9, 167, 171, 248
Gallagher, J., 180 see also research participants
game theory, 132–6, 149, 248 Hussein, S., 122
Garner, R., 96, 104, 178, 185 Huysmans, J., 27
Geertz, C., 56, 106, 166 hypotheses, 21, 44, 45–8, 215, 248
gender mainstreaming, 199, 248
genealogy/genealogies, 57, 199–200, 224, idealists, 14
225, 248 ideational concepts, 49
generalizability see causal inference images see visual data
George, A.L., 212, 213 independent variables, 45, 46, 47, 149, 248
Gerring, J., 142, 211, 212, 219 India, 151
Gilpin, R., 86 indigenous groups, 148
Gini coefficient, 120, 248 inductive categorization, 110
global challenges, 2 inductive reasoning, 41, 42, 44, 48, 117,
Goldstein, J.S., 131 150, 249
Google Scholar, 85 inequality, 120
Index 277
inferences, 181 post-interview checklist, 192

inferential statistics, 128, 249 pre-interview checklist, 189
informed consent, 68, 126, 170–3, 180, 187 interviews, 96
intelligence information, 122 definition, 178
International Criminal Court, 21, 57, 89–90, distortion of evidence, 76–7
142–3, 168 elite, 179, 183, 247
International Criminal Tribunal for former in fieldwork, 163, 168, 171–2
Yugoslavia, 33, 165–6, 205, 215, 220, formats, 180–5
221–2 process tracing, 107, 108
International Criminal Tribunal for reflexive, 180, 251
Rwanda, 149 semi-structured, 152, 163, 165, 181, 183–5,
international law, 49 188, 252
international politics, 25–6 structured, 181, 182–3, 188, 190–1, 252
International Relations (IR) unstructured, 181–2, 185, 188, 191, 253
disciplinary history, 14–15 see also focus groups
founding story, 15–17 in-text citations, 236
major journals, 85 in-text references, 75
multimethodology, 153–6 introduction, 231–2, 237
research agenda, 34 Iraq, 122
research in, 2–4 ISA award winning book and article titles, 229
strategic games, 135–6 Ishiyama, J.T., 220
thinking critically about, 31–3
International Studies Association, 74 Jackson, P.T., 3, 12, 17, 18, 23, 94–5, 154,
International Studies Quarterly, 230–1 155, 156
Internet, 75, 101–2, 172 Jacobs, A.M., 207
Internet sources, 101, 102–4 Jacobsen, L., 64, 169
interpretive process tracing, 108–9 Jacoby, T., 160, 164, 168
interpretive research design, 56–7 Japan, 184, 214–15
interpretivism, 1, 15–17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, Japan–South Korea relations, 30, 31
26–7, 141, 249 hypotheses, 45–6
case study design, 223–5 interpretivist research questions, 49, 50–1
case study research, 213 positivist research questions, 43–5
causality, 21 jargon, 239
discourse analysis, 198–9 Jensen, B.M., 88
and mixed methods, 150–1 Johnson, R., 140–1
qualitative methods, 94, 95 Jones, C.R., 142
research questions, 48–51 Just and Unjust Wars (Walzer), 27, 53, 223
intertextuality, 200 Just War Theory, 53
interval data, 124, 249
interval questions, 126–7 Kaas, J.G., 153
interview checklist, 190 Kahler, M., 117
interview consent form, 171–2, 189, 249 Kaplan, M.A., 14
interview data, 190–2 Katzenstein, P., 219
interview formats, 180–5 Keane, P., 66
interview participants, 186–8, 191 Keohane, R., 22
interview questions, 179, 184–5, 188, keyword searches, 84–6
189–90 Kim, H., 95, 96
interview request email, 187 Kimberley Process, 234
interview research, 177–93, 249 King, G., 23, 24, 25–6, 95, 142, 213
after the interview, 190–2 Klotz, A., 94, 95–6
before the interview, 188–9 Knopf, J.W., 87
during the interview, 189–90 knowledge, 27
interview checklist, 190 colonial, 164
interview formats, 180–5 and power, 19
participants, 186–8, 191 subjugated, 150–1
positionality and reflexivity, 179–80 worldly, 156
knowledge gaps, 181 Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, 110

Knutsen, T.L., 68, 117, 212 Margry, P.J., 76
Kramer, A.D.I., 70 Marošková, T., 108
Kratochwil, F., 41–2 mathematical language, 116, 118, 119
Kuehn, D., 149 see also formal language
Kukhianidze, A., 165, 171, 173 mathematical modelling, 150
Kurki, M., 24, 50, 154 see also formal modelling
Kyrgyzstan, 151 mathematical models, 117, 128, 132–6
see also formal models
Lai, D., 223, 224 McDonald’s, 4
Lake, D.A., 81 McHenry, D.E. Jr., 151
Lake, M., 164 meaning-making, 49, 201
Lamont, C.K., 87, 143, 166, 221–2 Mearsheimer, J.J., 81
Lampard, R., 22 measurement, 116, 233, 249
Landau, L.B., 64, 169 media websites, 103, 110
Lane, C., 95, 96 medical ethics, 67
language, 52, 199 medical science, 64, 67
see also discourse analysis; formal language; Memory from the Margins (Conley), 224
natural language Mertus, J.A., 166
large-n analysis, 142 methodological choices, 22–4
large-n research, 55, 123, 221, 249 methodological pluralism, 12–13, 24–7, 153,
Larson, D.W., 98 233, 249
layering, 203 see also mixed methods research (MMR);
least-likely case study, 218, 219 multimethodology
least-similar case comparisons, 219, 220 methodology, 1–2, 5–7, 15, 18, 19, 20–1,
Lee, A., 97 94, 249
Leech, B.L., 171 case study research, 213–14
Lepgold, J., 14 and discourse analysis, 199
level of measurement, 124, 249 multimethodology, 153–6
Levin, J., 106, 178 as research paper component, 233–4, 238
Levy, J.S., 94, 210, 211, 219 research proposals, 243
Li, X., 163 methods see research methods
Lian, H., 65–6 migration, 232–3
Libya, 59, 101, 179, 214 Miles, B., 198
Lieberman, E.S., 146 Miligram experiment, 68
life expectancy, 128–9, 129–31 Mills, K., 27, 52
linear regression model, 129 Milner, H.V., 132
Lipson, C., 212, 239 Mintz, A., 68
literature reviews, 79–92, 249 mixed methods research (MMR), 139–57, 249
new or innovative topics, 88 analysis, 147–51
pitfalls, 91 data collection, 152–3
purpose, 80–2 definition, 140–1
resources, 84–7 multimethodology, 153–6
types of, 82–4 and nested analysis, 147
what to include, 87–8 practical guide, 151–3
writing process, 88–91 research design, 142–7
writing up, 230, 232–3, 238 and triangulation, 145
literature search, 84–7 moderators, 97
Lowe, W., 129 modes of reasoning, 41–3, 50–1
Luke, D., 164 Moe, K., 67
Lune, H., 91, 109, 110 monographs, 83, 86–7
Lynch, J.F., 186 Montenegro, 108
Moravcsik, A., 46
Mac Ginty, R., 166 Morgenstern, O., 132, 133
MacKay, J., 106, 178 Morgenthau, H., 25
Magcamit, M.I., 108 Moses, J., 68, 117, 212
Index 279
Most Similar Systems Design, 220 online forums, 163

most-likely case study, 218, 219 online sources, 101, 102–4
most-similar case comparisons, 218, 219–20 ontological assumptions, 51
multimethodology, 153–6 ontological puzzles, 56, 250
multivariate regression analysis, 129, ontology, 18, 19, 154, 250
131–2, 249 open-ended questions, 185
Munier, N., 234 operational definitions, 119–20
Musgrave, P., 4 operationalization, 120–1, 123
oral histories, 172, 173, 185, 250
Nabers, D., 111 ordinal data, 124, 250
Nair, D., 162–3 ordinal preference, 133
narrative analysis, 200 ordinal variables, 129
National Security Archive, 99, 100 over-time comparisons, 219, 220, 221–2
National Security Commission on Artificial
Intelligence, 88 page numbers, 230
nationalism, 224 Palestine, 171
NATO, 214 Parashar, S., 16
natural language, 94, 249 participant observation, 162–3
Nazi-regime, 67 passive voice, 239
neoliberal institutionalists, 26 Pavlaković, V., 57, 104, 105
neoliberalism, 201 paywalls, 103
neo-liberalists, 16 peace research, 13
neo-realists, 16 see also Democratic Peace Theory
nested analysis, 146–7, 250 Pearson correlation coefficient, 129, 130
Neumann, I., 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, peer review, 75, 250
202, 204 peer reviewed articles, 83
New York Times, 75, 102 per capita GDP, 120, 128–9, 129–31
Newnham, R.E., 219 Perak, B., 104, 105
news websites, 103 Peripheral Visions (Wedeen), 224
Nicholson, M., 117, 118, 128, 134 Pessoa, A., 180
Nielsen, K., 149 Petrović, T., 172
Noda, O., 16 Pew Research Centre, 127
Nome, M.A., 150 philosophy of science, 6, 22, 94–6, 250
nominal data, 124, 250 plagiarism, 73–5, 250
nominal questions, 126 Polat, R.K., 203–4
non-cooperative games, 134–6, 250 Pole, C.J., 22
Nonhoff, M., 201–2 policy analysts, 87
non-probability sampling, 186 political violence, 123, 197
Norman, J.M., 167, 169, 171 positionality, 65–6, 150, 179–80, 250
Norman, L., 109 positive theory, 54, 250
normative questions, 53 positivism, 1, 15–17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25–6,
normative theory, 17, 24, 27, 52–3, 202, 250–1
223, 250 case studies, 213, 214
normative theory research design, 58 causality, 154
North Korea, 111 discourse analysis, 198, 205–8
note-taking, 76–7, 91, 185, 189, 191 qualitative methods, 94, 95, 141
nuclear arms reduction, 135 see also post-positivism
null hypothesis, 129, 130, 250 positivist research design, 54–6
numbers, 116 positivist research questions, 43–5, 48
see also mathematical language; statistical post-conflict settings, 169–70, 173
analysis post-foundational IR, 155
Nuremberg Code, 67, 68 post-interview checklist, 192
NVivo, 181, 191 post-positivism, 26, 154, 251
poststructuralists, 201
observation, 54–5 power, 6–7, 19
official documents, 98, 250 power politics, 164
power relationships, 168, 170, 173, 179, 202 units of analysis, 123–4
Powers, P., 199 see also mixed methods research (MMR)
preface, 231 quantitative research, 56
preferences, 133–4 quasi-experimental research, 148–9, 251
pre-interview checklist, 189 question-based research, 38–9, 46, 251
primary data, 234 critical theory, 51–2
primary sources, 98, 108, 165–6, 213, 251 hypotheses, 45–8
Prisoner’s Dilemma, 135 interpretivist research questions, 48–50
probability level (p-value), 128–9, 130–1 and modes of reasoning, 50–1
probability sampling, 186 normative theory, 52–3
process stories, 205–7 positivist research questions, 43–5
process tracing, 106–9, 251 research puzzles, 40–1
case study research, 211, 212, 221–3 and modes of reasoning, 41–3
discourse analysis, 198 research topics, 40
fieldwork, 165, 168, 172 see also research questions
interviews, 181 questionnaires, 126, 151, 152
mixed methods research (MMR), 147–8 quoting, 75–6, 239
semi-structured interviews, 191
Przeworski, A., 219, 220 race, 16, 52
public criticism, 155–6 see also critical race theory
Puri, S., 164 racism, 16
Rambukkana, N., 70
qualitative case selection, 144–5, 146 random sample, 127
qualitative content analysis, 181, 251 random sampling, 182, 186, 251
qualitative methods, 28–9, 68, 93–113, 117, rapport, 183, 190
211, 251 ratio data, 124, 251
data analysis, 105–12 ratio variables, 129
content analysis, 109–11 rational choice, 117, 251
discourse analysis, 109 realists, 14, 96
process tracing, 106–9 reasoning, modes of, 41–3, 50–1
thick descriptions, 106 rebel group violence, 148
triangulation, 105–6 recordings, 172, 188–9, 190, 191
visual data, 111–12 record-keeping, 76–7, 91
data collection, 96–105 see also note-taking
archival and document-based research, referencing, 75–6, 236–7
97–100 reflexive interviews, 180, 251
digital research, 101–4 reflexivity, 65–6, 150, 174, 179–80, 251
focus groups, 97 see also self-reflection
interviews, 96 regression analysis, 129–32
visual data, 104–5 reliability, 121–2
definition, 94 representations, 49, 51, 198, 203, 252
and philosophy of science, 94–6 research, 2–4
positivism, 94, 95, 141 definition, 22
see also case studies; mixed methods and methodological choices, 22–4
research (MMR) research choices, 29–32
quantitative data, 125–8 research design, 53–4, 252
quantitative methods, 28–9, 54, 95–6, 115–37, case study research, 216–25
151, 251 comparative method, 216–21
advantages and limitations, 117–19 interpretivist perspective, 223–5
coding, 120–3, 124 climate change, 20
from conceptual to operational definitions, critical theory, 57–8
119–20 focus groups, 97
data collection, 117, 125–8, 182–3 interpretive, 56–7
level of measurement, 124–5 mixed methods research (MMR), 142–7
mathematical models, 132–6 normative theory, 58
statistical analysis, 128–32 obstacles, 59
triangulation, 123 positivist, 54–6
Index 281
as research paper component, 233–4 and literature reviews, 90, 232

research proposals, 243 positivist, 43–5, 48
and research questions, 58 and quantitative research, 56
social networks, 103 and research design, 53–4, 55, 55, 58
research ethics, 63–78 research proposals, 243
and digital methods, 69–70 and research puzzles, 40–1
ethical codes of conduct, 70–1 and research skills, 39
ethics cultures, 72 wider research context, 80–1
fabrication and distortion of data, 76–7 see also interview questions; question-based
fieldwork, 164, 167, 170 research; survey questions
human subjects, 67–9 research skills, 39
interviews, 180, 187 research summary, 171, 252
plagiarism, 73–5 research topics, 40, 59, 243
referencing and quoting, 75–6 researchgate.net, 103
reflexivity and positionality, 65–6 Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, 52
research funding, 66–7 retroduction, 41, 42, 43, 252
self-reflection on, 73 review articles, 83
research funding, 66–7 Richards, D., 183
research methodology see methodology Richardson, L.F., 95
research methods, 1–2, 5–7, 15, 18, 28–9, risk, 167
94–5, 234 Risse, T., 94
see also comparative methods; mixed Roccu, R., 223, 224
methods research (MMR); qualitative role-playing, 108
methods; quantitative methods Rome Statute, 89–90
research papers Rosato, S., 144
components, 228–37, 228 Roselle, L., 235
bibliography and referencing, 236–7 Routley, L., 164
conclusion, 235, 238 Russia, 108, 110
data analysis, 234–5 see also Soviet Union
front matter, 229–31 Russia Today, 110
introduction, 231–2 Russo, A., 167
literature review, 232–3 Rwanda, 149
methodology and research design,
233–4, 238 Sabaratnam, M., 16, 17, 19
writing up, 237–40 Said, E., 58, 164
tips and strategies, 238–40 Sambanis, N., 144–5
research participants, 67–9, 167 sampling, 127–8, 169–70, 182
ethical research, 71 sampling strategies, 186
informed consent, 68, 170–3, 180, 187 sanctions alignment, 108
interviews, 186–8, 191 Sartori, A.E., 118
random sampling, 182 scales, 127
sampling, 127–8, 169–70 scaling, 252
trust, 173–4 Schelling, T., 132
research practice, 4–5, 28–9 Schilling, M., 215
research process, 54 Schmidt, B., 14–15
research proposals, 241–3 scholarly databases, 86
research purpose, 19, 28, 28–9, 211 Schwartz-Shea, P., 48
climate change, 20 Scott, G., 96, 104, 178, 185
research puzzles, 40–1, 49, 81, 252 search tools, 104
and modes of reasoning, 41–3 Seawright, J., 140
research questions, 38, 252 secondary sources, 98, 166, 252
case study research, 214–15, 216, 221–2 self-plagiarism, 74
climate change, 20 self-reflection, 73, 180
critical discourse analysis, 204–5 see also reflexivity
and fieldwork, 164–6 semi-structured interviews, 152, 163, 165,
interpretivist, 48–51 181, 183–5, 188, 191, 252
justification, 81–2 Shachtman, T., 196
Sharp, J., 164 table of contents, 229–30

Shim, D., 96, 104, 111 Tansey, O., 181, 186
Shulz, P., 149 technostrategic language, 199
Shuster, E., 67 Teddlie, C., 140
Sikkink, K., 25, 95, 96 terrorism, 52
simulation modelling, 149–50 Teune, H., 219, 220
single case studies, 217 textbooks, 86
situationist ethics culture, 72 theory, 13–14, 46, 54, 95–6, 253
small-n qualitative work, 142 case study research, 213–14
small-n research, 216–17, 221 theory-building, 14, 41, 42, 44
Smith, S., 17, 24, 57 theory-testing, 14, 41, 42, 44, 217
smoking gun test, 206, 207 thick descriptions, 106, 109, 147, 253
snowball sampling, 169–70, 186, Tickner, J.A., 22
187, 252 time management, 241
social media, 70, 102, 163 Tingley, D., 127
social networks, 103 title page, 229
social science, 56 tone, 239
human subjects, 67–8 topic selection, 59
research funding, 66–7 Tosa, H., 201
social world, 106, 235 Totani, Y., 236
socialisation, 108 traditionalists, 14
Sokolić, I., 97, 165 transcription, interviews, 190–1
South Korea see Japan–South Korea relations transparency, 253
Soviet Union, 135 data analysis, 235
specificity, 119 discourse analysis, 205
speech act theory, 200, 252 fieldwork, 171, 172, 173
Spivak, G., 164 interview data, 76
spurious, 152 interviews, 189
spurious relationship, 252 mixed methods research (MMR), 155–6
spurious relationships, 132 quantitative methods, 118, 119
spuriousness, 118 research choices, 64
Spurná, K., 108 writing up, 236
standard error, 130, 131, 252 triangulation, 253
state sovereignty, 52 discourse analysis, 207
statistical analysis, 117, 128–32, 146, 147, interviews, 181, 191
217, 252 mixed methods research (MMR), 140,
statistical methods, 118 144–5, 150–1, 151–2
statistics, 116 qualitative methods, 105–6
strategic games, 134–6 quantitative methods, 123
Strategy of Conflict (Schelling), 132 semi-structured interviews, 185
stratified sampling, 128, 252 Trouble with the Congo (Autesserre), 224
strawman argument, 77, 91 True, J., 65
Strazzari, F., 167 Truex, R., 168
Stritzel, H., 200 trust, 64, 169, 173–4, 180
structural realism, 213 truth commissions, 163
structure, 46, 234 Tucker, T.N., 14
structured interviews, 181, 182–3, 188, Tunisia, 29, 40, 107
190–1, 252 Turkey, 202–4
student performance, 42 Twitter, 70, 102, 103
subjugated knowledge, 150–1 two player game matrixes, 134
Subotić, J., 168
survey questions, 126 Ukraine, 110
surveys, 126–8, 163 Understanding Civil War (Collier and Sambanis),
Syrian refugees, 202–4 144–5
systemic research, 155 uniqueness, 206
systemic sampling, 127–8, 253 United Kingdom, 67, 71, 173, 180, 196, 204
Index 283
United Nations, 199 Waltz, K., 25–6, 213

United States, 4, 110, 198 Walzer, M., 27, 53, 223
Army Human Terrains System Project, 69 war, 4–5, 53, 197–8
Artificial Intelligence (AI), 88 see also Democratic Peace Theory
Cold War, 135 wealth, 120
Iraq invasion, 122 Wedeen, L., 224
Japan–South Korea relations, 44, 45–6 Wendt, A., 57, 154
Libya, 59, 179 western-centricity, 16
US-China policy, 6 White World Order (Vitalis), 225
units of analysis, 123–4 Wiedemann, N.B., 150
universalist ethics culture, 72 Wikipedia, 75, 102
unstructured interviews, 181–2, 185, 188, Wilkinson, C., 106, 151
191, 253 within-case analysis, 217
Wodak, R., 202
validity, 121, 122 Woodrow Wilson Center for International
Van Evera, S., 13, 48, 54, 55, 206 Scholars, 99–100
van Ingen, M., 43 World Health Organization (WHO), 6
variables, 44, 45, 46–7, 123, 253 worldly knowledge, 156
nested analysis, 146 Wright, K.A.M., 164
Pearson correlation coefficient, 129 writing, 3–4
quasi-experimental research, 149 literature reviews, 88–91
relations between, 117 research proposals, 241–3
spurious relationship, 118 writing process, 237–40
Variety of Democracies (V-Dem) project, tips and strategies, 238–40
121, 122 writing up, 227–44
video recordings, 190 research paper components, 228–37, 228
Vigneswaran, D., 161–2 bibliography and referencing, 236–7
violationist ethics culture, 72 conclusion, 235, 238
violent conflict, 144–5 data analysis, 234–5, 238
virtual platforms, 188 front matter, 229–31
visual analysis, 111–12 introduction, 231–2, 237
visual data, 104–5, 235, 241 literature review, 232–3, 238
visual methods, 96 methodology and research design,
Vitalis, R., 16, 19, 52, 225, 237 233–4, 238
Vogt, M., 148 writing process, 237–40
von Neumann, J., 132, 133
Vrasti, W., 106 Yanow, D., 48
Vucetic, S., 225 Yugoslavia, 31–2, 33, 48, 57, 165–6, 172, 205,
Vultee, F., 200 220, 221–2
Walt, S.M., 12 Zimbabwe, 180, 192, 234

Walter, B.F., 116 Zvogbo, K., 163

Research Methods in International Relations 2nd Ed 230623 082354

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Methods in International Relations 2nd Ed 230623 082354

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd

Editor: Andrew Malvern Library of Congress Control Number: 2021937178

1 Methodology and Methods in International Relations 11

2 Research Questions and Research Design 37

4 Writing a Literature Review 79

5 Qualitative Methods in International Relations 93

6 Quantitative Methods in International Relations 115

7 Mixed Methods Research in International Relations 139

8 Fieldwork in International Relations 159

9 Interview Research in International Relations 177

10 Discourse Analysis in International Relations 195

11 Case Study Research in International Relations 209

12 Writing Up Your Research 227

What’s New in the Second Edition 1

1 Methodology and Methods in International Relations 11

2 Research Questions and Research Design 37

From Research Question to Research Design 53

4 Writing a Literature Review 79

5 Qualitative Methods in International Relations 93

6 Quantitative Methods in International Relations 115

Learning Objectives 115

7 Mixed Methods Research in International Relations 139

Learning Objectives 139

8 Fieldwork in International Relations 159

Learning Objectives 159

9 Interview Research in International Relations 177

Learning Objectives 177

Approaching Interview Participants 186

10 Discourse Analysis in International Relations 195

Learning Objectives 195

11 Case Study Research in International Relations 209

Learning Objectives 209

12 Writing Up Your Research 227

Learning Objectives 227

1.1 Positivism and Interpretivism Spectrum in IR 23

2.1 Research Question to Case Study 55

7.1 MMR and Triangulation 145

1.1 Climate Change: Research Purposes, Research Questions, and

2.1 Modes of Reasoning in Qualitative Research 42

4.1 Selected Major Journals in International Relations 85

6.1 From Concept to Coding 121

8.1 Fieldwork Activities 162

9.1 Sampling Strategies 186

10.1 Methodology and the Study of Discourse in IR 199

11.1 Case Study Definitions 213

12.1 Sample Structure of a Research Paper 228

Christopher Lamont is Assistant Dean of E-Track Programs and Associate Professor of

Research Methods in International Relations (RMIR) is a companion for students and

What’s New in the Second Edition

knowing how to operate construction equipment without an architectural plan of what

Thinking About Research in IR

Introducing Research and Writing in International

A Guide to Research Practice

H1: Democracies do not go to war with other democracies.

Research Methods as Research Choices

Your Methodology and Methods Roadmap

• Explain the meaning of methodological plurality in IR

IR Theory and Methodology

Asking Questions about our World and

Positivism and Interpretivism in IR Research

How Methodology Matters

Key Terms: Methodology, Epistemology and Ontology