Description - PS 560: International Relations: Theory and Methodology

PS 560: International Relations: Theory and Methodology (Fall 2004)

Instructor:Scott BennettOffice: 318 Pond Building

Class Time: Friday 9:00 AM – 12:00PMOffice Phone: 865-6566

Office Hours: Wednesday2:00 – 4:00 PMEmail: or

And by appointment

This seminar is an introduction to the study of international relations at the graduate level. We will examine principal problems, issues, and trends in the subfield of international politics on the basis of a sample of the scholarly literature in the subfield. We will be surveying major traditional and contemporary theory building efforts as well as contemporary research techniques and orientations in international relations.

Two themes will run through the course: theory and testing. We will deal with issues of theory and testing from several perspectives, asking and giving different answers to a number of questions through the semester. With regard to theory, we’ll ask, What is a theory? Why be theoretical? How general can theories hope to be? How can we apply general theories to specific events? How can theory inform policy-makers? We will examine some of the major theories that exist in IR. We will also examine a number of different approaches to developing theory, including inductive and deductive (game-theoretic) approaches to theory building.

With regard to testing, we will ask, What is testing? Why test? What are methods of testing? We will consider the benefits (and drawbacks) of several different methodological approaches to testing including historical approaches, the use of single and multiple case studies, and the use of quantitative methods.

After discussing general issues of theory and data, important literature will be surveyed in chunks that cover the main areas of current research in the field. We will consider rational-choice and psychologically-based theories; consider major theories of conflict and cooperation; and consider different influences on decision makers from the system, dyadic, domestic, and individual levels of analysis.

By the end of the seminar students should have gained an appreciation for different levels of analysis and different influences on leaders, the importance of being “theoretical” at some level, the importance of evidence, the basic requirements for setting up an empirical test of theories, and the pros and cons of different methods of theory building and theory testing.

Readings

The required books for this seminar are:

Hoover, Kenneth, and Todd Donovan. 1995. The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 6th ed.

Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven, CT: Yale.

Huth, Paul K. 1998. Standing Your Ground. New Haven, CT: Yale.

Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony. Princeton, NJ: Princeton.

Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

There is also a coursepack of articles which you are required to read. You may borrow the entire set of articles from my office to photocopy it, or “check out” individual articles from the labeled mailbox in room 203.

I recommend that any student who plans to study international relations for very long invest in a historical atlas. This is especially important for IR students if you are not familiar with world history over the past 200 years, and will be useful to you both now and in the future. Any historical atlas would be useful for you, so the choice of book is yours. What you should look for is a book that combines short summaries of facts and key dates with maps. You’ll be more likely to use it than a text that has lots of words.

All participants in the seminar are expected to do the required reading. Since the course is a seminar, it is assumed that everyone will have completed the reading before each class. The reading list is broken down into required and optional readings. The optional readings will be particularly useful when in comes to picking out readings and topics for your major review essay.

I expect this course to have significant discussion, and while I will lead discussion, I do not plan to spend the entire class lecturing. To facilitate discussion, I expect you to write down questions and important issues coming out of the week's readings and topics ahead of time, and raise them as topics for discussion. These could be real questions (e.g. "What did Waltz mean when he said X?") or merely observations intended to spark discussion (e.g. "I think Larson is exactly right when she said Y" or "Huth is totally wrong here"). The more of these points you have written down before class, the more interesting our discussions will be. When we move on to more specialized topics later in the semester, I may ask a different person to assist me as discussion leader each week.

Assignments

Students will be expected to submit written reviews of the Waltz, Keohane, and Huth books, and either the Bueno de Mesquita or Axelrod book (your choice). Reviews should follow the format of a review article like you find in the American Political Science Review. In general an academic book review contains three sections: 1) a brief discussion of the major theory, method(s), and evidence in the book, to show what the book is trying to accomplish and what approach it is taking to do that; 2) a critique of the work on its own terms (e.g. does it answer the question it asks, is it internally coherent, is the method used correctly, is the evidence convincing, what improvements could be made); 3) a critique of the book from a broader perspective (e.g. is the question important or trivial, is the method the right one to use, does it tie into other work, does it contribute to theory or applied research in international politics). These reviews will be due in class the main week we will discussing the book (weeks 4, 6, 8, 11) and they should not exceed 1,000 words. Reviews should be typed and double-spaced, and be free of technical errors. You should feel free to find a recent issue of the APSR to examine a typical book review.

For their final paper, students are required to prepare a review essay of from 3,000 to 4,000 words dealing with material that they have read concerning a major topic within the scope of the proseminar. The point of departure for the review essay should be two or more books of your choice, which you will then use to make some argument about a broader question/issue/topic. In general the review essay should review the two books chosen and use them as a stepping stone to make a broader commentary on a type of work, a sub-topic of international relations, or a particular theory. The essay should show that you understand different perspectives and theoretical issues raised in class. The topics of the review essays and the books or other materials to be considered should be chosen in consultation with the instructor. The books will probably be selected from among those listed in the suggested reading sections of the course outline. In exceptional cases, I may agree to substitute a set of 3 articles for one of the books. The final draft of this paper is due by Wednesday of finals week, December 15, at noon (12:00 PM).

Students will be required to make a brief (15 minute) presentation of their review essay. Each presentation will be followed by a short discussion period. We will probably schedule a session outside of class during the final week of class for presentations.

For the final session of class, students will each select 1 undergraduate IR textbook and present a brief evaluation of it in class. We will discuss the nature of this task a few weeks before that class.

The allocation of grades will be based on the following distribution:

50%4 individual book reviews

35%Major review paper

5%Review paper presentation

10%Class participation and discussion

Course Outline:

Week 1: Introduction; (Artificial?) Distinctions: History vs. Political Science vs. Policy Analysis (8/31)

Elements: Syllabus; Defining some basic terms –theory, alternative explanations, evidence, case

Skim and compare the following readings to each other:

Wallace, Michael D. 1992. “Armaments and Escalation: Two Competing Hypotheses.” in John A. Vasquez and Marie T. Henehan, eds. The Scientific Study of Peace and War. New York: Lexington Books. (originally 1982)

Smith, Tony. 1994. “In Defense of Intervention.” Foreign Affairs 73:34-46.

Donagan, Barbara. 1994. “Atrocity, War Crime, and Treason in the English Civil War.” American Historical Review October.

Glaser, Charles L. 2004. “When Are Arms Races Dangerous?” International Security 28 (Spring 2004):44-84.

Week 2: Introduction to Science and Theory. (9/3) (APSA; class to be rescheduled, perhaps to Tuesday 9/7 or M 9/13)

Elements: The Goals of Social Science and Generalization; Levels of Analysis; types of analysis

Hoover, Kenneth, and Todd Donovan. 1995. The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 6th ed. Chapters 1-4.

Singer, J. David. 1961. "The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations." in Klaus Knorr and Sidney Verba, eds. The International System: Theoretical Essays . Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Aydelotte, William O. 1971. Quantification in History. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Chapter 3.