Chapter 15 Notes: International History and International Politics—Why Are They Studied Differently?

What is the primary focus of Robert Jervis's chapter "Introduction: Negotiating International History and Politics"?

The primary focus of Robert Jervis's chapter is the interplay between historical events and political negotiations in the international arena, emphasizing how understanding history can influence diplomatic strategies and outcomes.

According to the chapter, how do political science and history generally differ in their approach to IR in the U.S. context?

Political science often prioritizes theories and models, while history emphasizes narrative and context in understanding international relations.

What evidence challenges simplistic stereotypes about political scientists and historians?

Evidence includes their overlapping interests in narrative, context, and the application of theory to real-world events.

What are two key historical tensions that shaped contemporary IR disciplines?

The two key historical tensions are the tension between state-centric politics and transnational influences, and the debate over the relevance of historical context versus theoretical frameworks in analyzing international relations.

How do political science and history differ in their emphasis on generalization versus case-specific explanation?

Political science often seeks generalizable theories applicable across various contexts, while history focuses on detailed case-specific explanations that highlight the uniqueness of individual events in international relations.

Define Parsimony in the context of theory-building in political science.

Parsimony in political science refers to the principle of using the simplest explanation possible for a given phenomenon, minimizing assumptions while maintaining explanatory power in theory-building.

What is the hypothetico-deductive method and which discipline primarily uses it?

The hypothetico-deductive method is a scientific approach that involves formulating hypotheses and testing them through observation and experimentation, primarily used in political science.

How do political scientists and historians differ regarding the acceptance of multiple sufficient causes

Political scientists often emphasize the identification of general causal relationships, while historians focus on understanding the multiple, context-dependent factors that contribute to specific historical events.

How do historians and political scientists typically treat the concept of time in their studies?

Historians tend to view time as a linear progression, examining the past in a chronological context, whereas political scientists may analyze time in terms of recurring patterns, cycles, or relevant timeframes that influence contemporary political phenomena.

Which discipline is generally more comfortable making moral judgments about actors and events, and why?

Historians are generally more comfortable making moral judgments about actors and events because they often examine the ethical implications of historical actions within their specific contexts.

Explain the methodological heuristic "Dogs that did not bark."

This phrase refers to the idea that the absence of evidence or events can be as significant as their presence, highlighting patterns that may otherwise be overlooked in historical analysis.

What are the typical date ranges for the Berlin crisis or related Cold War sequence?

The Berlin crisis generally refers to events spanning from 1948 to 1961, encompassing the Berlin Blockade and the construction of the Berlin Wall, significant moments during the Cold War that highlighted tensions between the East and West.

What is the overarching conclusion about the differences between historians and political scientists in IR?

Historians tend to focus on moral judgments and ethical implications rooted in historical context, while political scientists often prioritize empirical analysis and theoretical frameworks, leading to different interpretations of international relations.