International Institutions and Global Governance: The Turn to Mechanisms and Process (SWP 26)

The past decade has seen a sustained move by students of international institutions and organizations to viewing their subject matter as independent variables affecting state interests and policy. Conceptually, this has put a premium on identifying the mechanisms connecting institutions to states; methodologically, there has been a growing concern with measuring process. While this move has produced rich and analytically rigorous studies that demonstrate the multiple roles – good and bad – institutions play in global politics, significant challenges remain. In terms of design, scholars often neglect the problem of equifinality – where multiple causal pathways may lead to the same outcome – and instead conduct process tracing only on their preferred argument. Theoretically, the focus on process seems to reduce the power and generalizability of arguments about institutions. Finally, the potential for process tracing to help combine rationalist and constructivist insights remains largely unfulfilled

Socialization and Organized Political Violence: Theoretical Tools and Challenges (SWP 28)

Socialization – or the process of inducting new members into the norms and rules of a given community – has a long history in the social sciences.  Early work by sociologists and anthropologists was followed by a political socialization research program in political science. After a lull in the 1990s, interest has revived among political scientists. Work by both IR scholars and comparativists treats socialization as a key dynamic fostering order and disorder at the international, national and sub-national levels. A review of contemporary socialization research shows that earlier theoretical and methodological weaknesses are being addressed, and that the utility of the concept has been established. However, within political science, there is still a clear need for cross fertilization. Collaboration among  IR theorists and comparativists will produce better arguments about socialization – including in studies of civil conflict

Theoretical Synthesis in IR: Possibilities and Limits (SWP 6)

This is a draft chapter for Sage Handbook of International Relations, 2nd Edition, which offers a critical assessment of bridge building and pluralism in contemporary international-relations (IR) theory. I begin by placing recent moves towards theoretical synthesis in context, asking why one saw an upsurge of interest in bridge-building only beginning in the mid-1990s. Then I assess these efforts in three areas – international institutions, normative theory, and studies of civil war – in each case, detailing how and to what extent theoretical pluralism has come to define a particular subfield. I argue that contemporary IR does look different, and better, thanks to synthesis and bridge building. In conclusion I note two challenges – theoretical cumulation and meta-theory. These, I argue, should be at the heart of a reinvigorated research program on synthesis, one where theory is taken seriously and epistemological divides are transgressed

Methods in Constructivist Approaches to International Security (SWP 55)

Constructivists employ a characteristic set of mainly qualitative methods in their work on international security.  Over time, they have come – theoretically – to focus centrally on process; this has put a premium on methods that can capture and measure it.  In early constructivist work, methods were not a high priority – but this has changed for the better.  Unfortunately for these scholars, the social science world around them has not stood still.  A revolution in qualitative methods means that constructivists students of international security will – methodologically – need in the future ‘to run harder simply to stay in place.

The Social Dynamics of Civil War: Insights from Constructivist Theory (SWP 10)

With roots in sociology, anthropology and political theory, constructivism has made many inroads in contemporary political science. It has provided new insights on agency (as socially embedded), institutions (as community builders), an array of group processes (socialization, social influence, persuasion, deliberation) and power relations (social and discursive). More important, it has applied such insights empirically, thus also addressing all-important issues of data and method. After briefly reviewing this work, I suggest several ways in which it can help us better understand the social dynamics of civil war. Yet, this should not be a one way street. Constructivists also have much to learn – in theorizing violence, ‘nasty’ socialization, and, more generally, the dark side of politics

Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practices (SWP 21)

This paper has two overarching goals – to summarize recent developments on the philosophical and practical dimensions of process tracing, and to identify features common to best practices of it on different kinds of arguments, with different kinds of available evidence, in different substantive research domains. First, we define process tracing and discuss its foundations in the philosophy of social science. Next, we address its techniques and evidentiary sources, and advance ten criteria for judging its quality in particular pieces of research. Finally, we analyze the methodological issues specific to process tracing on general categories of theories, including structural-institutional, cognitive-psychological, and sociological.&nbsp

Process tracing and international political economy

Published online: 10 November 2021This handbook is currently in development, with individual articles publishing online in advance of print publication.As a methodological choice, process tracing and qualitative International Political Economy (IPE) would seem a natural fit. These scholars employ case study research designs and theorize in terms of processes and mechanisms—a combination that leads to process tracing as a key method. Yet, in qualitative IPE, one sees little process tracing; or better said, it is there, but only partly operationalized or used implicitly. Surveying the contemporary qualitative IPE literature, this chapter advances two arguments. First, these scholars utilize a narrative style that hides their methods, including process tracing. The result is an empirics–method disconnect, where readers are unsure how data for the narrative was gathered and causal inferences or interpretive understandings gleaned from it. Second, qualitative IPE scholars should do their process tracing better. However, in making this methodological move they should resist the temptation to pull process tracing “off the shelf” and use it. Rather, they should address three cutting-edge issues for process tracers: transparency and formalization; within process-tracing methods; and developing a robust interpretive variant

Law, Environment, and the “Nondismal” Social Sciences

Over the past 30 years, the influence of economics over the study of environmental law and policy has expanded considerably, becoming in the process the predominant framework for analyzing regulations that address pollution, natural resource use, and other environmental issues. This review seeks to complement the expansion of economic reasoning and methodology within the field of environmental law and policy by identifying insights to be gleaned from various “nondismal” social sciences. In particular, three areas of inquiry are highlighted as illustrative of interdisciplinary work that might help to complement law and economics and, in some cases, compensate for it: the study of how human individuals perceive, judge, and decide; the observation and interpretation of how knowledge schemes are created, used, and regulated; and the analysis of how states and other actors coordinate through international and global regulatory regimes. The hope is to provide some examples of how environmental law and policy research can be improved by deeper and more diverse engagement with social science