Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [56]
In assessing the significance of “evidence” that a leader has engaged in “consultation” with advisers, one needs to keep in mind that he or she may do so for several different reasons.204 We tend to assume that he or she consults in order to obtain information and advice before making a final decision—i.e., to satisfy his or her “cognitive needs.” But he or she may consult for any one or several other reasons. The leader may want to obtain emotional support for a difficult, stressful decision; or the leader may wish to give important advisers the feeling they have had an opportunity to contribute to the decision-making process so that they will be more likely to support whatever decision the president makes—i.e., to build consensus; or the leader may need to satisfy the expectation (generated by the nature of the political system and its political culture and norms) that important decisions will not be made without the participation of all key actors who have some relevant knowledge, expertise, or responsibility with regard to the matter being decided; that is, the president hopes to achieve “legitimacy” for a decision by giving evidence that assures Congress and the public that it was well-considered and properly made. (Of course, a leader’s consultation in any particular instance may combine several of these purposes.)
This last purpose—consultation—is of particular interest in the United States. The public wants to be assured that an orderly, rational process was followed in making important decisions. Consider the development in recent decades of “instant histories” of many important decisions by leading journalists on the basis of their interviews with policymakers shortly after the event. Knowing that the interested public demands to know how an important decision was made, top-level policymakers are motivated to conduct the decision process in ways that will enable them to assure the public later that the decision was made after careful multisided deliberation. Information to this effect is given to journalists soon after the decision is made. Since “instant histories” may be slanted to portray a careful, multidimensioned process of policymaking, the case analyst must consider to what extent such an impression is justified and how it bears on the evidentiary worth of the information conveyed in the instant history and in subsequent “insider” accounts of how and why a particular decision was made.
To weigh archival type material effectively, scholars need to be aware of these complexities. An excellent example of a study that captures the dynamics of decision-making is Larry Berman’s interpretation of President Johnson’s decision in July 1965 to put large-scale ground combat troops into Vietnam. Some archival sources suggest that Johnson employed a careful, conscientious version of “multiple advocacy” in which he thoughtfully solicited all views. But according to Berman’s analysis, Johnson had already decided what he had to do and went through the motions of consultation for purposes of consensus-building and legitimization of his decision.205
In another example, many scholars assumed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s policymaking system was highly formalistic and bureaucratic, a perception shared by important congressional and other critics at the time. Working with this image of Eisenhower’s decisionmaking style, scholars could easily misinterpret the significance of archival sources generated by the formal track of his policymaking. Easily overlooked was the informal track, which preceded and accompanied the formal procedures, awareness of which led Fred Greenstein to write about the “hidden hand style” by which Eisenhower operated.206 Now, a more sophisticated way of studying Eisenhower’s policymaking has developed that pays attention to both the formal and informal policy tracks and to the interaction between them.