Journals / International Journal of Social Inquiry / 2020 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

METHODOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF RESEARCH ON LEADERS AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT: A REVIEW

LİDERLER VE ULUSLARARASI ÇATIŞMA ARAŞTIRMALARINDA METODOLOJİK ÇEŞİTLİLİK: BİR GÖZDEN GEÇİRME

Pages
27–59
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

I argue that the field is open to any new methodology.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Why leaders decide to go to war or when they decide to make peace?
📊
Key Findings & Data:Do rationality, strategic calculations or only cognitive variables sufficiently explain the violent behaviors?
💡
Conclusion & Impact:I argue that the field is open to any new methodology.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Liderler · Uluslararası Çatışma · Metodoloji

Abstract

Why leaders decide to go to war or when they decide to make peace? It can be one of the most common questions of classical thinkers and current scholars of international relations. The basic idea behind this question is to find out a solution to the war phenomenon. However, the other question is how we understand and explain the behaviors of leaders and their inner circles? Do rationality, strategic calculations or only cognitive variables sufficiently explain the violent behaviors? This research discusses how different methodologies can contribute to theorizing or understand the international conflict behaviors of leaders. In this context, on a qualitative basis, psychobiography, psychohistory, leadership trait analysis, integrative complexity method are explained along with the quantitative findings and theories of leaders and international conflict. The methodological diversity provides both deep insights about specific leaders’ war decisions and general theories that can contribute to the scientific study of international conflict. I argue that the field is open to any new methodology.

Özet

Liderler neden savaşa karar verir ya da ne zaman barışta karar kılarlar? Bu soru, klasik düşünürlerden günümüzün çağdaş araştırmacılarına kadar en ortak sorunsallarından biri olarak karşımıza çıkar. Bu sorunun altında yatan en temel etken, esasen savaş olgusuna bir çözüm bulabilme istencidir. Ancak bir diğer önemli sorunsal, liderler ve onların iç çemberlerinin davranışlarını nasıl anlayacağımız ve açıklayacağımızdır. Rasyonalite, stratejik hesaplamalar ya da sadece bilişsel süreçler yeterli bir biçimde çatışma davranışını açıklayabilir mi? Bu çalışma liderlerin çatışma davranışlarını anlamak ve açıklamak için kaç farklı yöntemin uygulanabileceğini, uluslararası ilişkiler teorisine katkılarını tartışmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, nitel metodoloji bağlamında psikobiyografi, liderlik karakter tahlili, entegre karmaşıklık yöntemleri açıklanırken, bununla birlikte ampirik literatüre dayalı nicel verilere dayalı liderlik çalışmaları ile historiometrik yöntemler hakkında bilgi verilmektedir. Bu metodolojik çeşitlilik, hem belirli liderlerin savaş kararlarını nasıl aldıkları hakkında detaylı bilgiler edinilmesini sağlamakta ve aynı zamanda liderlerin savaş durumundaki genel davranış kalıplarını açıklayan bilimsel çalışmaları da içermektedir. Alan, yeni bir çok metodolojiye açıktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKGÜL, Ö. (2020). METHODOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF RESEARCH ON LEADERS AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT: A REVIEW. International Journal of Social Inquiry, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 27–59. https://ajindex.com/articles/155806

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Bedell-Avers; Katrina, E., Hunter Samuel, T.; Mumford, Michael D. (2008). “Conditions of Problem-Solving and the Performance of Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leaders: A Comparative Experimental Study”. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 89-106.
  2. Blainey, Geoffrey. (1988). The Causes of War. Australia: Simon and Schuster. Brams, Steven J. (2002). “Game Theory in Practice: Problems and Prospects in Applying it to International Relations”, Brecher, Michael; Harvey, Frank P. (Eds.), Millennial Reflections on International Studies, Ann-Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 392-404.
  3. Bremer, Stuart A. (1992). “Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816-1965”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309-341.
  4. Cashman, Greg. (2013). What Causes War?: An Introduction to Theories of International Conflict. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Chiozza, Giacomo; Goemans, Hein E. (2011). Leaders and International Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Chiozza, Giacomo; Goemans, Hein E. (2004). “International Conflict and the Tenure of Leaders: Is War Still Ex Post Inefficient?”. American Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 604-619.
  6. Chiozza, Giacomo; Goemans, Hein E. (2003). “Peace Through Insecurity: Tenure and International Conflict”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(4), 443-467.
  7. Conway III, L. Gideon; Suedfeld, Peter; Tetlock, Philip E. (2001). “Integrative Complexity and Political Decisions that Lead to War or Peace”, Christie, Daniel J., Wagner, Richard V.; Winter, Deborah Du Nann (Eds.), Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 66-75.
  8. De Mesquita, Bruce Bueno. (2002). “Accomplishments and Limitations of a Game-Theoretic Approach to International Relations”, Brecher, Michael; Harvey, Frank P. (Eds.), Millennial Reflections on International Studies, Ann-Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 374-391.
  9. De Mesquita, Bruce Bueno. (2006). “Game Theory, Political Economy, and the Evolving Study of War And Peace”. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 637-642.
  10. Debs, Alexandre; Goemans, Hein E. (2010). “Regime Type, the Fate of Leaders, and War”. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 430-445.
  11. Falk, Avner (1985). “Aspects of Political Psychobiography”. Political Psychology, 6(4), 605-619.
  12. Fordham, Benjamin O., (2005). “Strategic Conflict Avoidance and the Diversionary Use of Force”. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 132-153.
  13. Goemans, Hein E.; Gleditsch, Kristian S.; Ch