Doing international relations

Abstract

In this chapter we offer some reflections, as well as references for further study, for scholars engaged in research and knowledge production in the field of international relations (IR), that is those 'doing IR'. We may think of research methods as the strategies and tools that allow us to acquire knowledge about international relations. To make the most of the research techniques available to us, it is first useful to consider the objects of our study, as well as the nature of the disciplinary context in which knowledge production takes place. Understanding these elements gives rise to a set of important preliminary questions: What is the nature of IR, both as an area of inquiry and disciplinary practice? What are the purposes and aims of 'doing' IR? How do we formulate a research question of value and develop a theory to answer it? What are some common pitfalls and fallacies when doing IR? Although it would be naïve to convey definitive answers -it is always tempting to prescribe instructions which align with one's own preferences or habits -it is only with a firm understanding of the debates surrounding these questions that we as researchers can employ research methods productively. To align methods with our needs, we must understand what those needs are. We also believe that it is necessary, prior to discussing methods fruitfully, to make explicit and examine certain assumptions -and relative fallacies -that may underlie our work in the field.It is not a straightforward task to circumscribe the boundaries of IR. At the heart of this challenge are competing views over its disciplinary status. Without reprising these disputes, it is our view that there are solid grounds to consider IR -emergent as it may be from proximate fields -as a distinct sphere of inquiry, constituted by its scientific and practical elements. IR forms part of political science, but its breadth, elements, and experiences go beyond a single discipline. We have already seen in the introduction to this book that IR is interdisciplinary. And yet, this should not be viewed as an obstacle to its own disciplinary standing, as 'all disciplines beg, borrow and steal from each other'. 1 Nor is the cartographic problem of borders unique to IR. Every discipline encounters questions of nature and scope which evolve and reshape over time. The history of science is one where 'scholars have contemplated how to view an issue or problem from multiple angles and in myriad ways -in effect, pushing boundaries'. 2 Like any scholarly enterprise, IR is bound together by a shared perception among its participants that they form part of a common endeavour. This perception -coloured by its debates and dissenters -is actualized through an array of institutional and professional features. Prominent among them is 'an extensive body of networks, conferences, working groups, associations, journals and career hierarchies'. 3 The relationship between IR and political science is apparent -many of their practical features intersect -but the former 'has a story of its own'. ...