Context and Motive: Evidence and Intentional Explanation in International Relations
25 Pages Posted: 28 Jul 2011 Last revised: 30 Jun 2012
Date Written: July 27, 2011
Abstract
A common type of question asked in International Relations (IR) research is “why did they do that?”. A common evidentiary strategy to answer this type of question is to correlate actions of the same type with properties of the strategic context in which the action was taken. This process is common practice in the most prominent IR journals. However, the process is unjustified and does not provide the kind of evidence that would allow us to differentiate between alternative explanations. This paper shows why correlating contextual factors with action cannot give us the reasons for action. First, motives cannot be inferred directly from contextual conditions; Second, different actors can do the same action for different reasons; Third, imperfect correlation leaves cases or variation unaccounted for. The findings from three recent papers are considered in light of these arguments. The paper calls for no longer using this type of correlation for motive attribution and instead triangulating a variety of types of evidence.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation