Cumulation, Evaluation and the Research Process: A Response to Starr & Siverson

Abstract

The overarching objective of the original article was to apply a well-defined set of measures in a systematic and objective way to evaluate the extent of scientific progress within a given research program. The measures chosen were identified and defined by major philosophers of science. These measures were then applied to the empirical studies on the diffusion of war. Starr and Siverson claim to find problems in my analysis that undermined the conclusions I reach. This reply argues that each of their claims is unfounded. Moreover, they fail to refute the conclusion that the marginal progressiveness of their program is a significant reason for reduced interest in this topic.

ISA Presidential Address

“…The fifth shortcoming, accentuated by the retreat from science, is the low value placed by most IR scholars on cumulation of knowledge. There are, of course, exceptions, some manifest, others latent, cumulation: research in the 1960s on the postulated link between internal and external conflict behavior (Rummel, 1963a(Rummel, , 1963bTanter, 1966;Wilkenfeld, 1968Wilkenfeld, , 1969; a state of the art monograph on foreign policy analysis edited by Hopmann, Zinnes, and Singer (1981); the Maoz-Russett (1993) use of Correlates of War (COW) and International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data to test hypotheses on the democratic peace thesis and, generally, the ongoing debate on this topic (e.g., Dixon, 1994;Hermann and Kegley, 1995;Rousseau et al, 1996;Chan, 1997;Gleditsch and Hegre, 1997;James, Solberg, and Wolfson, 1999); Krasner (1982), Ruggie (1993), Hasenclever, Mayer, and Rittberger (1997) on international regimes; Haas (1992) and Goldstein and Keohane (1993) on the role of ideas; Leites (1951), George (1969), Holsti (1977), Walker (1983), Larson (1985), and Vertzberger (1990) on operational code beliefs; 't Hart, Stern, and Sundelius (1997) on group behavior; Harvey's (1998b) comparison of three data sets on deterrence cases since 1945; the exchange between Starr and Siverson (1998) and Simowitz and Sheffer (1998) on the diffusion of conflict; and Brecher, James, and comparison of ICB, COW, and other findings on violence/war. However, these are relatively few in the vast flow of IR publications since World War II.…”