Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [222]
511
Important contributions have been made by David D. Newsom, “Foreign Policy and Academia,” Foreign Policy, No. 101 (Winter 1995), pp. 52-67; Philip Zelikow, “Foreign Policy Engineering: From Theory To Practice and Back Again,” International Security, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1994), pp. 143-171; Joseph Lepgold and Miroslav Nincic, Beyond the Ivory Tower: International Relations Theory and the Issues of Policy Relevance (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001); and Joseph Lepgold and Miroslav Nincic, eds., Being Useful: Policy Relevance and International Relations Theory (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000).
512
A similar point is made by Robert Keohane in his commentary on structural realism: “Even if a large-scale theory can be developed and appropriately tested, its predictions will be rather gross. To achieve a more finely tuned understanding of how resources affect behavior in particular situations, one needs to specify the policy-contingency framework more precisely. The domain of theory is narrowed to achieve greater precision.” Robert O. Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), p. 188.
513
The need for middle-range theory is emphasized also by George R. Boynton, who argues that the “right type of law” for social science is highly specific and relates a limited number of variables to each other under stated conditions. These conditions should state the values of other variables that are necessary for the theoretical relations in question to hold among the explanatory variables. George R. Boynton, “On Getting From Here to There,” in Eleanor Ostrom, ed., Strategies of Political Inquiry (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982), pp. 29-68.
514
Bruce Jentleson discusses in detail why middle-range theory serves the needs of policymaking better than general theory. See Jentleson, “In Pursuit Praxis: Applying International Relations Theory to Foreign Policy-Making,” in Lepgold and Miroslav, eds., Being Useful, pp. 133-135. Jentleson discusses his personal experience in the Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff and presents two cases studies that illustrate the utility of middle-range theory. See also Bruce Jentleson, “The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In,” International Security, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Spring 2002), pp. 169-183. The importance of conditional generalizations is emphasized also by John Lewis Gaddis, “In Defense of Particular Generalizations,” in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds., Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001), pp. 301-326.
515
See, for example, Timothy D. Sisk, Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflicts (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflicts and U.S. Institute of Peace Press, 1996); see also Paul C. Stern and Daniel Druckman, eds., International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000).
516
Peter Ordeshook, “Engineering or Science: What is the Study of Politics?” in Jeffrey Friedman, ed., The Rational Choice Controversy (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 175-188.
517
David Dessler, “Talking Across Disciplines in the Study of Peace and Security: Epistemology and Pragmatics as Sources of Division in the Social Sciences,” Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University, June 1996.
518
See, for example, the selection of essays, “Formal Models, Formal Complaints,” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall 1999). A lucid analysis of two major shortcomings of international relations systems theories—their low levels of explanatory determinism and policy relevance—is provided in Jack Snyder and Robert Jervis, eds., Coping With Complexity in the International System (Boulder,