2 Positivist and interpretivist approaches
Having watched the masterclass and taken notes on the use of ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions, this activity is an opportunity to apply your understanding of the differences between positivist and interpretivist research questions.
Activity 2 Positivist and interpretivist approaches in practice
Take a look at the following two abstracts for journal articles by scholars researching different aspects of international relations. Can you identify which research project takes a positivist approach, and which research adopts an interpretivist approach?
Make notes in the text box below. To distinguish between the positivist and the interpretivist approaches, you might wish to consider what question is being asked by each abstract, what sort of claims are being made about the phenomena they are interested in and what data they are drawing on to make these claims.
Abstract 1
This article addresses the puzzle of why, and under what conditions, international organisations cease to exist. International Relations literature offers rich explanations for the creation, design and effectiveness of international institutions and their organisational embodiments, international organizations (IOs), but surprisingly little effort has gone into studying the dynamics of IO termination. Yet if we want to understand the conditions under which international organisations endure, we must also explain why they frequently fail to do so. The article formulates and tests a theory of ‘IO death’ using a combination of population-wide statistical analysis and detailed historical case studies. My analysis is based on an original dataset covering the period 1815–2016. I find that exogenous shocks are a leading proximate cause of IO terminations since 1815 and that organisations that are newly created, have small memberships, and/or lack centralised structures are most likely to succumb. My analysis leads me to suggest a number of extensions and refinements to existing institutionalist theories.
Abstract 2
Post World War I, Marcus Garvey’s Pan-African movement managed to coalesce, however briefly and imperfectly, an extra-territorial sovereign authority in the form of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). Through the recollection of this project the article seeks to disturb the predominant uni-linear narrative in IR debates of the transformation of sovereignty that posit a recent shift from territorial exclusivity to multi-level governance encapsulated in the emergence of the European Union. By narrating a string of transformations of sovereignty that led to Garvey’s UNIA the case is made that such transformations have not directly followed one universal logic but have been multi-linear in character, and further, extra-territoriality has been a defining principle of sovereignty in the modern epoch and by no means peculiar to the contemporary European milieu. Through exploring the generative relationship between capitalist, nationalist and racialist forms of sovereignty the article contributes theoretically and empirically to a historical sociology adequate to capture the multiple, yet related, transformations of sovereignty in the modern epoch.
Discussion
In Abstract 1, Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni undertakes positivist research. She presents a clear hypothesis and a ‘why’ question, using quantitative data to answer her research question: ‘Why, and under what conditions, [do] international organisations cease to exist?’ Her conclusions are based on findings drawn from her analysis of a dataset she created, which lists all instances between 1815 and 2016 of international organisation termination.
In Abstract 2, Robbie Shilliam uses an interpretivist approach to present an alternative to existing narratives about sovereignty in mainstream International Relations (IR) theory. This is a ‘how’ question, asking how particular narratives of sovereignty have come to be seen as authoritative in IR, and showing how they might be understood differently. To do so, Shilliam examines different extraterritorial sovereign actors (such as Jamaican political activist Marcus Garvey’s pan-African movement and the European Union) as well as different, intersecting power logics (capitalism, nationalism and racism). Shilliam backs up his interpretive scholarly claims by using qualitative data (a discourse analysis of policies and historical texts).