In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Brothersunder the Skin Diplomatic History and International Relations Stephen H. Haber, David M. Kennedy, and Stephen D. Krasner T h e disciplines of history and political science have drifted apart. The epistemological differences that have always separated these two fields of study have become greater, but the contrasts are more marked in some areas than in others. Historians who study diplomatic history and political scientists who study international politics , despite some genuine differences, have always been engaged in a similar enterprise. Both have always been committed to a positivistic methodology in which claims have had to be supported by empirical data. In many other areas of study in history-areas that have grown in prominence-the relationship between argument and data has become increasingly attenuated. What is most notable about diplomatic history and international relations theory are not their differences, but their similarities with regard to subject matter and, in the end, commitment to objective evidence. The extent to which diplomatic history has been marginalized within the larger study of history is perhaps most remarkable. As the discipline of history has expanded its range of inquiry, an almost precisely complementary diminution of a sense of shared enterprise, or, in the customary jargon, a fragmentation of paradigms, has occurred. Traditional subjects-diplomatic history not the least-have been crowded out by the sheer volume of work in the broad new fields collectively known as ”social history.” In political science departments, international politics is still a major area of concern; in many history departments, the study of diplomatic history has virtually disappeared. International Relations THE REWARDS OF THEORY For political scientistsstudying international relations, the highest professional rewards are accorded to scholarswho formulate a new theoreticalperspective. Widely cited works such as Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics, or Stephen H. Haber is Professor of History and Associate Dean for the Social Sciences at Stanford University. He is working on a book about the regulation of capital markets and industrial development in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States during the early stages of economic growth. David M. Kennedy is Donald I. McLachlan Professor of History at Stanford University. He is completing a study of the United States during the Great Depression and World War 11. Stephen D. Krasner is Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford University. He isfinishing a study on the enduring nature of sovereignty in the international system. Znternational Security, Vol. 22, No. 1(Summer 1997),pp. 3443 0 1997by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 34 Brothers under the Skin I 35 Robert Keohane's After Hegemony, or Robert Jervis's Perception and Misperception ' are admired more for their ability to develop new theoretical arguments, or clarify old ones, than for testing their arguments against empiricalevidence. International relations theorists have often applied deductive reasoning and game theory to their discipline, using highly restrictive assumptions without any empirical data, with the goal of revealing hitherto unrecognized relationships or clarifyingthe logic of existing claims by investigating the implications of different payoff matrices. This is true from Thomas Schelling's arguments about the stability of nuclear deterrence based on the threat that leaves something to chance2to James Fearon's discussion of imperfect information and commitment problems in conflict and war.3 Nevertheless, for political scientists , these approaches must eventually be subject to empirical validation. Theories had to provide a way to illuminate some empirical reality that was independent of the observer, even if the theoretical argument itself suggested the kind of evidence that would be most appropriate. THE IMPORTANCE OF EVIDENCE International relations as a discipline also rewarded work that engaged in careful empirical analysis. Data, either quantitative or qualitative, have been used to test causal claims. Usually an independent variable-for example, the distribution of power, national political culture, elite values, individual personality , democracy, organizational limitations-has been evaluated as the cause of some outcome or set of outcomes such as World War I, the Uruguay Round trade agreements, the peaceful outcome of the Cuban missile crisis, or the absence of war among democratic states. Scholars are expected to weigh alternative arguments to avoid selecting the data set or case studies on...

pdf

Share