TC 102 Part 3 Reading

• Diplomatic History and International Relations Theory: Respecting Difference and Crossing Boundaries
• Some political scientists argue that comparisons are valuable, while others argue that comparisons are not valuable.
• Political scientists aim to identify recurring patterns of behavior.
• Historians aim to understand the event as 'unique' rather than as typical.
• Internal unrest generally increases the probability of war initiation among a class of states to which Anatolia belongs.
• Puchala argues that historians focus on single unique events, while international relations theorists focus on classes of events and multiple cases.
• Decision makers can be affected in important ways by the historical works they have read.
• An explanation is a statement that demonstrates that the outcome of a particular event is merely an example of an established pattern.
• The essays in this collection present a variety of viewpoints on the feasibility of cross-fertilization between history and political science.
• Specifically, diplomatic historians and international relations theorists take stock of the differences and similarities between the two disciplines, and suggest ways in which these scholars can usefully learn from one another.
• The conversation is particularly timely because it may demonstrate our common interest in producing objective, rigorous, and theoretically oriented qualitative research.
• Paul W. Schroeder's work has a decisive impact on the debate between hegemonic stability theorists and balance-of-power theorists.
• System and Systemic Thinking in International History
• Stephen Pelz characterizes the challenge to historians as 'Constructionists', who believe that historians "have no superior standpoint from which to render the objective judgment of history".
• Paul W. Schroeder defines 'system' as a set of interacting parts with a common purpose.
• Paul W. Schroeder argues that history and systemic thinking can contribute to the development of international relations theory.
• Colin Elman is a Faculty Associate in the Department of Political Science at Arizona State University, and will join the Department as an Assistant Professor in 1998.
• Disciplines differ in their attitudes towards complex or simple arguments
• International relations scholars tend to favor monocausal explanations, while historians accept complex multicasual explanations
• A conversation between diplomatic historians and international relations theorists can benefit both disciplines
• Political scientists often rely on secondary material produced by historians for their analyses
• International relations theorists are focused on formal theory and quantitative methods
• Both history and political science have expanded to the point where they cannot be considered coherent disciplines
• Members of both disciplines have identified differences between the subfields, such as narrative-based explanations in history and theory-based explanations in political science
• Diplomatic historians find themselves marginalized within the discipline of history
• This symposium focuses on diplomatic history and international relations theory
• The essays address three central questions: the characteristics of research in the two subfields, how they can learn from each other, and how they address doubts about objective knowledge
• Diplomatic historians and international relations theorists may be natural allies in the face of different pressures
• Colin Elman identifies four different uses of the term "process-tracing" in scholarship.
• Miriam Fendius Elman is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Arizona State University, and was a Research Fellow at the Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, in 1995-96.
• Structural theories in international relations may be less compatible with historical methods and interpretation.
• Classical realists are more likely to prioritize historical interpretation, while neorealists tend to view balancing as an automatic mechanism.
• Diplomatic historians and international relations theorists should be open to theoretical approaches that align with their own subfields.
• Presentism in international relations theory focuses on studying recent events and may overlook studying the past.
• Institutional, ideational, and cultural approaches in international relations emphasize the role of history in shaping present power and preferences.
• Historical approaches are seen as antithetical to the use of "as if" assumptions, making diplomatic historians less appreciated by international relations theorists.
• The lack of institutional embeddedness in the field of diplomatic history is due to epistemological and methodological differences, professional concerns, and parochial chauvinism.
• The recent resurgence of scientific realist understandings of social science may provide a more hospitable environment for interdisciplinary conversation between diplomatic historians and international relations theorists.
• Historians and social scientists have alternated between mimicry and mutual rejection, with diplomatic historians concerned about devaluing their comparative advantage.
• International relations theorists are less willing to engage with diplomatic historians due to their fascination with methods and approaches employed by economists, such as "as if" arguments.