Notes on Foreign Policy Research
| Date | 01 July 1972 |
| Published date | 01 July 1972 |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677200700202 |
| Author | Raimo Väyrynen |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Notes on Foreign Policy Research
RAIMO VKYRYNEN
Tampere Peace Research Institute,
Finland
Vayryncn, R. Notes on Foreign Policy Research. Cooperatinn
and
COIl/lict,
VII.
l!Ji2,
pp. S7-96.
The author makes a distinction between three approaches to foreign policy research:
(I) the traditional approach emphasizing diplomatic history, (2) the 'scientific' ap-
proach ala Rosenau. and (3) the radical approach (represented. e.g, by William A.
Williams and Gabriel Kulko). These approaches arc evaluated by criteria which in-
clude diachronic vs. synchronic orientation, nomothetic vs. ideographic orientation, and
the type of strategic actors postulated as well as the model of explanation applied
(whether the foreign policy orientations arc explained by relational or domestic factors).
This is followed by a discussion of some of the critical problems in the analysis of
foreign policy. These problems are the distinction between external behavior and for-
eign policy, the role of subjective vs, objective factors in the determination of foreign
policy, and the need to analyze the outcomes of foreign policies, not just the decision-
making processes and tools applied in the execution of the policy.
Raimo Uiiyryncn, Tam/Jere Peace Research Institute, Finland.
I.
INTRODUCTION
One
very
common
point
of
departure
in
the
mapping
of some field of research is
to
state
that
the field is
terribly
confused
and
that
its basic concepts
are
vague
and
ill-defined.
This
is, of course, an
exag-
gerated.
stereotyped,
and
even
anti-in-
tellectual
approach,
but
despite
that,
I am
inclined to
think
that
it
aptly
describes
foreign policy research. As a
matter
of
fact the
development
of research in
vari-
ous fields
of
political
science
and
inter-
national
studies has, in
general,
not been
evaluated
systematically.
and
consequently
only scattered notions
have
been
pub-
lished. It seems to me
that
the most
thor-
ough
evaluations
have
concerned the
study
of
international
organizations.I
This
is in
a
way
understandable,
because
the
object
of research -
international
organizations
- is
quite
narrowly
defined.
In foreign
policy research the case is to some
extent
different
for
the
simple reason
that
tradi-
tionally
this
type
of
research
has
been
by
far
the
most
dominant
type
in
interna-
tional studies,
and
consequently the scope
of
the
field is
more
extensive
and
hetero-
geneous.
The
first
trend
which
can
be observed
is the
declining
importance
of foreign
policy research in
international
studies.
Mainly
two new
orientations
have
de-
prived
from
traditional
foreign
policy re-
search its
dominant
role:
theoretical
and
methodological investigations
and
the
study
of
international
system(s).
These
two
approaches
are
by no
means
com-
pletely
independent
of
one
another,
but
studies
concentrating
on
the
international
systems
quite
often
apply
quantitative
methodology of social sciences.
Decreasing
importance
has caused a
dilemma
to
the
traditional
foreign policy research
and
research emphasizing
diplomatic
history
and
detailed
accounts of
events
have
lost
much of
their
prestige.
The
most
direct
consequence of this
dilemma
has
been
.the
idea
that
it is possible for foreign policy
research to
reobtain
its
old
prestige
if
only
it could
adopt
asocial science
ap-
proach
and
become
'scientific'
enough.
This
trend
has
manifested
itself
most
ex-
plicitly in the works
of
James
Rosenau,
who has
strongly
advocated
ascientific
approach
to the
study
of foreign policy.s
The
demands
of increasing scientism in
foreign policy research
have
been ac-
companied
by
the
argument
that
foreign
policy research
must
move to a
compara-
To continue reading
Request your trial