Forecasting Practices in Academic IR: Methodological Mainstream and Unsolved Problems

Ivan V. Fomin – Ph.D. (Political Science), Research Associate of the Laboratory for International Trends Analysis at MGIMO University (Prospekt Vernadskogo, d. 76, 119454, Moscow, Russia), Associate Professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Political Science (Ulitsa Myasnitskaya, d. 20, 101000, Moscow, Russia), Research Associate at INION RAN, Center for Advanced Methods of Social Studies and Humanities (Nakhimovskiy Prospekt, d. 51/21, 117997, Moscow, Russia). E-mail: fomin.i@gmail.com.
 
 
Konstantin P. Kokarev – Senior Lecturer at Liberal Arts College ISS, RANEPA, lead specialist at RANEPA Academic Library (Prospekt Vernadskogo, d. 82, str. 1, 119571 Moscow, Russia). E-mail: kokarev-kp@ranepa.ru.
 
 
Boris I. Ananyev – Lecturer at MGIMO University, Department of Political Theory (Prospekt Vernadskogo, d. 76, 119454, Moscow, Russia). E-mail: ananyevboris92@gmail.com.
 
 
Nikolay Yu. Silaev – Ph.D. (History), Senior Researcher at MGIMO University, the Institute of International Studies (Prospekt Vernadskogo, d. 76, 119454, Moscow, Russia). E-mail: nikolai.silaev@gmail.com.
 
 
Andrey A. Sushentsov – Ph.D. (Political Science), Director of the Laboratory for International Trends Analysis at MGIMO University (Prospekt Vernadskogo, d. 76, 119454, Moscow, Russia). E-mail: asushentsov@foreignpolicy.ru.
 
 
Alexandr D. Chekov – Analyst of the Laboratory for International Trends Analysis at MGIMO University (Prospekt Vernadskogo, d. 76, 119454, Moscow, Russia). E-mail: a.d.chekov@gmail.com.
 
Archive: 
Вся статья: 

DOI 10.24833/2071-8160-2018-6-63-159-193 (Read the article in PDF)

The article is devoted to the analysis of research tools that are dominant in international relations forecasting. The study is based on quantitative description of 160 prognostic articles from leading journals on international relations for the period from 2006 to 2015. An innovative typology of prognostic studies is proposed and tested. The typology introduces a distinction between «weak prognoses» (probabilistic predictive statements that appear as extrapolations of deductive nomothetical theories) and «strong prognoses» («ideographic» predictions that are formulated as scenarios of possible future developments in specific situations and with specific sets of actors). The study shows that it is the weak prognoses that are the dominant type of forecasts in contemporary international studies. The dominance of the weak approach to forecasting remains total, despite the fact that it is almost two decades ago that its fundamental limitations were demonstrated and a “forward reasoning” approach suggested as an alternative. The methodology of Teaching, Research, and International Policy project was applied for a more detailed epistemological profiling of the field. It showed that academic forecasting in international relations is dominated by quantitative methods and positivist non-paradigmatic approaches. As to the traditional paradigms, it is liberalism that is the most common with Marxism being completely neglected. The described profile of the field follows the trends that are inherent in the discipline of international relations in general. The findings of the study can be interpreted from the perspective of possible tracks for the development of forecasting methods in the Russian school of international relations.

Key words: forecasting, methodology, methods, approaches, paradigms, theory of international relations, TRIP, strong and weak prognosis

References
1. Alekseeva T. Debaty o “Velikikh debatakh”: kak strukturirovatʹ teorii͡u mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniĭ? [The debates about “great debates”: how to structure the theory of international relations?]. Polis. Political Studies. 2016, no. 6, pp. 9–21. (In Russian)
2. Alekseeva T., Lebedeva M. Chto proiskhodit s teorieĭ mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniĭ [What Is Happening to the Theory of International Relations]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanii͡a. 2016, no. 1, pp. 29–43.
3. Bogaturov A. Desi͡atʹ let paradigmy osvoenii͡a [Ten Years of Capturing Paradigm]. Pro et contra. 2000, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 195–198. (In Russian)
4. Ilʹin M.V., Avdonin V.S., Fomin I.V. Metodologicheskiĭ vyzov. Gde granit͡sy primenimosti metodov? Kakovy kriterii ikh ėffektivnosti? [Methodological challenge. What are restraints for method application? What are the criteria of its success?] METOD: Moskovskiĭ ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh dist͡siplin. 2017, no. 7, pp. 5–24. (In Russian)
5. Konyshev V., Sergunin A. “Velikie debaty”: sposob strukturirovanii͡a ili periodizat͡sii teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniĭ? [“The Great Debates”: The Means of Structuring or Periodization of International Relations Theory?]. Polis. Political Studies. 2017, no. 4, pp. 156– 164. (In Russian)
6. Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A. Teorii͡a Mezhdunarodnykh Otnosheniĭ: Kanun Novykh “Velikikh Debatov”? [International relations theory: on the threshold of new «Great Debates»?]. Polis. Political Studies. 2013, no. 2, pp. 66–78. (In Russian)
7. Lebedeva M.M. Rossiĭskie issledovanii͡a i obrazovanie v oblasti mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniĭ: 20 let spusti͡a [Russian Research and Education in the field of International Relations: 20 Years Later]. Moscow: Spet͡skniga, 2013. 24 p. (In Russian)
8. T͡Sygankov A.P., T͡Sygankov P.A. (eds.) Rossiĭskai͡a nauka mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniĭ: novye napravlenii͡a [Russian Science of International Relations: New Currents]. Moscow: PER SĖ, 2005. 415 p. (In Russian)
9. Safronova O.V., Korshunov D.S. “Novye” ili “Starye” Velikie Debaty? [“New” or “Old” great debates?]. Polis. Political Studies. 2013, no. 4, pp. 182–187. (In Russian)
10. T͡Sygankov P.A. Sot͡siologicheskie terminy i podkhody v analize mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniĭ [Sociological Concepts and Approaches in Analysis ofInternational Relations]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Serii͡a 12: Politicheskie Nauki. 2016, no. 4, pp. 28–37. (In Russian)
11. Avdonin V., Fomin I., Ilyin M. Integrative Methodologies for Political Science: Studying Measures, Forms and Meanings. 25th World Congress of Political Science: July 21-25, 2018: Brisbane, Australia: IPSA. Available at: http://wc2018.ipsa. org/index.php/events/congress/wc2018/ paper/integrative-methodologies-political- science-studying-measures-forms (accessed: 08.11.2018).
12. Bennett B.W., Lind J. The Collapse of North Korea: Military Missions and Requirements. International Security. 2011, vol. 36, no. 2. pp. 84–119.
13. Bernstein S. God Gave Physics the Easy Problems: Adapting Social Science to an Unpredictable World. European Journal of International Relations. 2000, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 43–76.
14. Byman D., Lind J. Pyongyang’s Survival Strategy: Tools of Authoritarian Control in North Korea. International Security. 2010, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 44-74.
15. Elman C., Elman M.F. Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. MIT Press, 2003.
16. Escribà-Folch A., Wright J. Dealing with Tyranny: International Sanctions and the Survival of Authoritarian Rulers. International Studies Quarterly. 2010, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 335–359.
17. Kristensen P.M. International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy. International Studies Quarterly. 2018, 62(2), pp. 245–259. DOI: 10.1093/isq/ sqy002
18. Mahoney J., Goertz G. A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Political Analysis. 2006, vol. 14, no. 3. pp. 227–249.
19. Maliniak D. International Relations in the US Academy: International Relations in the US Academy. International Studies Quarterly. 2011, vol. 55, no. 2. pp. 437–464.
20. Maliniak D. Is International Relations a Global Discipline? Hegemony, Insularity, and Diversity in the Field. Security Studies. 2018, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 448–484.
21. Maliniak D., Peterson S., Tierney M. TRIP Journal Article Database Codebook: [Version 2.0. Revised: 5/18/16]. 2016. Available at: https://trip.wm.edu/ home/phocadownload/trip_journal%20 article%20database_codebook2%201. pdf (accessed: 08.11.2018).
22. Martin L.L. The Contributions of Rational Choice: A Defense of Pluralism. International Security. 1999, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 74–83.
23. Mearsheimer J.J., Walt S.M. Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations. 2013, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 427–457.
24. Pape R.A. Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work. International Security. 1997, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 90–136.
25. Reus-Smit C. Beyond Metatheory? European Journal of International Relations. 201, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 589–608.
26. Snyder J. One world, rival theories. Foreign policy. 2004, no. 145, pp. 52–62.
27. Teaching, Research, and International Policy Project. TRIP Journal Article Database Release (Version 3.1). 2017. Available at: Available at https://trip.wm.edu/ (accessed: 08.11.2018).
28. Vasquez J.A. The power of power politics: from classical realism to neotraditionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 448 p.
29. Walker T.C., Morton J.S. Re-Assessing the «Power of Power Politics» Thesis: Is Realism Still Dominant? International Studies Review. 2005, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 341–356.
30. Walt S.M. Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies. International Security. 1999, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 5–48.
31. Windelband W. Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft: Rede zum Antritt des Rectorats der Kaiser-Wilhelms-Universität Strassburg, geh. am 1. Mai 1894. Strassburg: Heitz, 1894. 27 S. (In German)