The State of Experimental Research in IR: An Analytical Survey

Abstract

The purpose of this review essay is to examine the use of experimental methods and its contributions to international studies research. Following a general discussion of the experimental approach, including the advantages and disadvantages of experimentation in International Relations (IR), this review moves to a categorized discussion of the ways in which experimental methods have contributed to the field of international studies. By invoking economist Alvin Roth’s three purposes of experiments—searching for facts, speaking to theorists, and influencing policy debates—this classification scheme helps to identify the overarching purposes of a wide variety of experiments in the field. However, this review seeks to move beyond merely presenting a basic review of the copious experimental literature by also providing an analytical assessment of the function that experimentation serves in IR; that is, to identify and elaborate on experimental research that serves an integrative function, as a bridge across the multiple divides in the landscape of IR. To this end, we introduce a second and original classification framework that allows us to profile in detail a number of singularly significant experimental studies. We then conclude the analysis by highlighting a set of “growth areas” for experimental research that can maintain and expand the already significant contributions of experimental methods to our field.

Names from Nowhere? Fictitious Country Names in Survey Vignettes Affect Experimental Results

“…They are used widely to gauge attitudes, simulate decisional dynamics, and elucidate psychological and behavioral concepts in political science and international relations (IR). They underpin work on peace and conflict, regime theory, foreign policy decision-making, public opinion, and media, as well as political psychology (e.g., Beer, Healy, and Bourne 2004 ;Hudson and Butler 2010 ;Mintz, Yang, and McDermott 2011 ;McDermott 2011a ;Jensen, Mukherjee, and Bernhard 2014 ). Frequently, such research employs experimental surveys with vignettes describing hypothetical scenarios that involve fictitious countries (e.g., Kerejistan) or abstracted countries (e.g., "a country").…”

Emotions and the communication of intentions in face-to-face diplomacy

“…As McDermott (2011a: 504) writes, the key concern in IR often “revolves around the ability of the investigator to isolate and control the variables of interest in order to determine their influence on outcome, and often the laboratory offers a much better environment in which to assert such control.” Skeptics might counter that experiments lack both external validity (with the use of such convenience samples as university students) and mundane realism (because of the relative low stakes involved in a laboratory). However, these issues are remediable through — among other research strategies — conducting further experiments with samples of theoretically relevant populations and different manipulations in experimental designs (Hudson and Butler, 2010: 169–170; McDermott, 2011b). For instance, in the past, scholars have sought to enhance the external validity of experiments on foreign policy decision-making and international negotiations by including as subjects those tasked with such responsibilities in real life, including diplomats, high-ranking military officers, and business and political leaders (Hafner-Burton et al, 2014; Mintz, 2004; Renshon, forthcoming).…”