Diplomatic History and International Relations Theory: Respecting Difference and Crossing Boundaries

Diplomatic Historyand International Relations Theory1 Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman Respecting Difference and Crossing Boundaries I n the following collection of essays, a group of distinguished scholarspresent a variety of viewpoints on the feasibility of cross-fertilizationbetween 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.’ This conversation is particularly timely because it may demonstrate our common interest in producing objective, rigorous, and theoreticallyoriented qualitative research. As Stephen H. Haber, David M. Kennedy, and Stephen D. Krasner 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.He was a John M . Olin Fellow in National Security at the John M . Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University, in 1995-96. 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. She is editor of Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997). The authors thank the John M. Olin Institute and the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University for their generous financial support. 1. These essays are a subset of a larger, ongoing conversation between political scientists and historians. For a comprehensive overview, see Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), especially pp. 383-387. See also Ian S. Lustick, ”History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 3 (September 1996), p. 612. The essays also mark the continuation of a preexisting dialogue between diplomatic historians and international relations theorists, some of whom are participating in the current exchange. See, for example, Paul W. Schroeder, ”Quantitative Studies in the Balance of Power: An Historian’s Reaction,” Journal of Conf7ict Resolution, Vol. 21, No. 1 (March 1977),pp. 3-22; John Lewis Gaddis, ”Expanding the Data Base: Historians, Political Scientists , and the Enrichment of Security Studies,” International Security, Vol. 12,No. 1 (Summer 1987), pp. 3-21; Gordon Craig, ”The Historian and the Study of International Relations,” American Historical Review, Vol. 88, No. 1 (February 1983), pp. 1-11; Paul W. Schroeder, ”Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory,” International Security, Vol. 19,No. 1(Summer 1994),pp. 108-148; and Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, “Correspondence: History vs. Neo-realism: A Second Look,” International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer 1995),pp. 182-193. 2. Both history and political science have expanded to the point where they cannot be considered coherent disciplines. Accordingly, this symposium focuses on diplomatic history and international relations theory-that is, two subfields where the likelihood for fruitful dialogue is at its highest. International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 19971,pp. 5 2 1 0 1997by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 5 International Security 229 I 6 note in their essay, diplomatic historians find themselves marginalized within the discipline of history as one of the few remaining outposts of “pre-postmodern ” approaches. They share with most international relations theorists a commitment to uncovering an objectivelyknowable past. On the other hand, in the international relations subfield of political science, formal theory and quantitative methods appear to be commanding an ever larger share of attention and resources. Proponents of case-study and process-tracing methodologies make do with fewer funding and publishing opportunities, and are increasingly pressed to defend their status as social scientists.Accordingly, members of the two subfields may be natural allies in the face of different pressures, which seek to reduce the respective disciplines to communities in which good qualitative research cannot find a home. Consequently, addressing what the two subfields can learn from each other may be even more important now than it was in the past. The essays address three central questions that...