16 CHAPTER OnE ■ ApproAches to InternAtIonAl relAtIons
Does choosing one method over another make a difference in the research findings?
Although there are few systematic comparisons, evidence suggests that in human rights
research, the findings do tend to vary by method.^16 Qualitative researchers in the histori-
cal and philosophical tradition, often employing case studies of a specific human rights
issue over a long period, generally find pro gress in human rights rec ords. And they find
that new human rights norms have emerged. In contrast, behavioral researchers, in
general, find less evidence of changes in state be hav ior. Usually drawing on large
“N” studies, including many states over de cades when data are available, researchers
find only marginal improvements in a state’s human rights rec ord. What explains
these divergent findings? Differences in operationalization, issues, periods, and avail-
ability of data are all responsible for the difference in findings. This divergence has led
researchers to plead for more mixed- method research. Multi- method proj ects can
help us overcome the disturbing finding that diff er ent methods lead to diff er ent sub-
stantive conclusions.
alternative approaches
Some international relations scholars are dissatisfied with using history, philosophy,
or behavioral tools. Constructivists have turned to discourse analy sis to answer the
foundational questions of international relations. To trace how ideas shape identities,
constructivists analyze culture, norms, procedures, and social practices. They probe
how identities are shaped and change over time. They use texts, interviews, and archi-
val material, and they research local practices by riding public transportation and
standing in lines. By using multiple sets of data, they create thick description. The
case studies found in Peter Katzenstein’s edited volume The Culture of National Secu-
rity use this approach. Drawing on analyses of Soviet foreign policy at the end of the
Cold War, German and Japa nese security policy from militarism to antimilitarism,
and Arab national identity, the authors search for security interests defined by actors
who are responding to changing cultural factors. These studies show how social and
cultural factors shape national security policy in ways that contradict realist or liberal
expectations.^17
The postmodernists seek to deconstruct the basic concepts of the field, such as the
state, the nation, rationality, and realism, by searching texts (or sources) for hidden
meanings under neath the surface, in the subtext. Once those hidden meanings are
revealed, the postmodernists seek to replace the once- orderly picture with disorder, to
replace the dichotomies with multiple portraits. Cynthia Weber, for example, argues
that sovereignty (the in de pen dence of a state) is neither well defined nor consistently
grounded. Digging below the surface of sovereignty, going beyond evaluations of the
traditional phi los o phers, she has discovered that conceptualizations of sovereignty are