A Jack of All Trades and A King of One
Poojitha Tanjore
“The ethical obligation of researchers is to get the facts right.” Sue Peterson concluded her argument that international relations research does not have to be inherently policy-relevant with this statement. However, what are the ethical obligations of international relations scholars when analyzing policy rather than crafting it? Policy analysis entails the identification of solutions to a problem and the comparing of options to choose the most pragmatic and effective one. Therefore, to recognize which solutions exist, international relations professionals must have a breadth of understanding. However, to develop their unique professional ability to review a policy, international relations scholars must also possess the unique knowledge that accompanies specialization. In other words, to conduct good policy analysis, the ideal international relations scholar is a jack of all trades and a king of one.
The four disciplines of international relations- sociology, history, economics, and political science- are each the sum of their parts (Buroway, 2015, p. 6). For example, the inclination of historians to focus on specific events leads them to take an idiographic and non-positivist retrospective method of study (Gaddis, 2005, p. 310). Consequently, the analysis of historians is more qualitative and observational (Gaddis, 2005, p. 309). On the other hand, social scientists desire to establish trends via an experimental or observational nomothetic approach (Gaddis, 2005, p. 311). The method used determines the essence of results. Neither the nomothetic nor the idiographic procedure has value without the other. Facts are vital to establishing trends. Understanding a specific event requires knowledge of the contextual trends of the period. Familiarity with the research methods of each discipline provides an international relations scholar with the ability to recognize which field can best move a policy solution forward.
Understanding the types of process-tracing that produce precise policy solutions is crucial to policy analysis (Goertz & Mahoney, 2012, p. 41). However, to understand the process-tracing methods of each field, the international relations scholar needs to be interdisciplinary. Process-tracing can also be harnessed to better policy analysis. The five types of process tracing- atheoretical case study, interpretive case study, hypothesis-generating case study, deviant case study, and theory confirming/infirming case study- each have their merits (Bennet & George, 2005, p. 145). Historians use process tracing to illuminate details from a specific narrative, while their political science counterparts use process-tracing to develop and test theories. Although drastically different in approach, historians may need political scientists to see why political trends have caused a historical event, while political scientists need historians to see when their theories are too specific to be parsimonious. Process-tracing, as policy generating and policy analysis tool when the fields connect their conclusions. If scholars within the four domains of international relations do not communicate with one another or recognize when they need one another, information asymmetry will arise. We need each field to conduct specialized research, and to communicate findings with other disciplines.
It is unrealistic to expect international relations scholars to be experts in all four fields. However, Professor Sohoni’s discussion about the false appropriation of facts to support messages in politics, sociology, history, and economics exemplifies the need for international relations scholars that are at least proficient in drawing upon knowledge from each field. When analyzing policy, the ideal international relations scholar is capable of looking at data and determining when a method from one of the other areas may have been misused. This skill requires engagement with materials from the other four fields and active cross-disciplinary discourse. Additionally, the ideal international relations scholar is capable of recognizing when a fact from the four areas may be blatantly incorrect. For example, political scientists should know when poorly conducted idiographic study results in points that are wrong in a historical context.
The problem of the identification police further highlights why international relations scholars must know about each field, but specialize in one. The identification police cause three problems: irrelevant answers to irrelevant questions, the internal vs. external validity problem, and weak confidence (Ruhm, 2018, p. 10-11). Angrist and Kreuger state that the desire to establish causal relationships in policy research can cause scholars to answer irrelevant questions (Angrist & Kreuger, 1999, p. 1354). The interdisciplinary academic will be able to utilize their knowledge of many fields to recognize when the questions asked are objectively inapplicable. The internal vs. external validity problem indicates that a conclusion may draw from small scale research, so much so that the outcome cannot be parsimonious (Angrist & Kreuger, 1999, p. 1309). An academic with broad knowledge will have enough familiarity with the methodology of other fields to know when generalizability in policy is not possible. Additionally, the identification police cause bias sources to fund research, leading to equally bias results (Ruhm, 2018, p. 10). The interdisciplinary, international relations scholar can determine when a policy solution draws from research that has fallen victim to the identification police. In this case, the international relations scholar will be able to conduct good policy analysis by revealing the faults of the research behind the policy and use their specialization to find a solution.
Lastly, Buroway’s four knowledges of sociology exemplify the work that the four fields of international relations can accomplish together (Buroway, 2015, p. 5). Professional, policy, critical, and public sociological research are all conducted with either instrumental or reflexive intent. Despite varying purpose and methodology, Michael Buroway states that the four knowledges of sociology are mutually dependent (Buroway, 2015, p. 7). He says that critical sociologists question the work of professional sociologists, that public sociologists base their work on that of professional sociologists, and so on (Burowoy, 2015, p. 8). In sociology, to be a sociologist in one of the knowledges requires deep specialization. However, to be a good sociologist involves insight into each sociological knowledge. None of the sociologists exist in a vacuum. Like the four types of sociology in Buroway’s diagram, the four fields of international relations are mutually dependent on one another. Cross-discipline work requires an understanding of all four, but to move policy forward necessitates the mastery of one.
The ethical obligation of the international relations scholar in conducting policy analysis is to be comprehensive. Quality policy analysis arises from the ability of a scholar to recognize faults in methodology and misuse of facts from every field. Excellent policy analysis is also dependent on the well-rounded scholar applying specific mastery of one discipline when called upon, and knowing when to call upon other academics. It is not enough for international relations scholars to be good at everything. They must be good at everything and great at one thing to conduct effective policy analysis.
Bibliography
Angrist, Joshua & Krueger, Alan B., 1999. “Empirical strategies in labor economics,” Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, volume 3, issue 1, 1277-1366.
Buroway, Michael. “Sociology: Going Public, Going Global.” California: University of California Press, 1-19. http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/PS/Introduction.Going%20Public,%20Going%20Global.pdf
Bennet and George. “Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations.” (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2001), 139-161.
Christopher J. Ruhm, 2019. “Shackling the Identification Police?,” Southern Economic Journal, vol 85(4), 1016-1026. (DOI): 10.3386/w2532
Gaddis, John Lewis, ‘In Defense of Particular Generalization,’ in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (eds), Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2001), 301.
Mahoney, James, and Gary Goertz. “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research.” Political Analysis 14(3) (2006): 227-49. Doi: 10. 1093/pan/mpj017
POOJA TANJORE 