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

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 27 - 59, 11.06.2020

Öner Akgül

https://doi.org/10.37093/ijsi.746406

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Leaders, International Conflict, Methodology, Personality, Data

LİDERLER VE ULUSLARARASI ÇATIŞMA ARAŞTIRMALARINDA METODOLOJİK ÇEŞİTLİLİK: BİR GÖZDEN GEÇİRME

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Liderler, Uluslararası Çatışma, Metodoloji, Kişilik, Veri

Kaynakça

• 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.
• 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.
• Bremer, Stuart A. (1992). “Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816-1965”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309-341.
• 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.
• 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.
• Chiozza, Giacomo; Goemans, Hein E. (2003). “Peace Through Insecurity: Tenure and International Conflict”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(4), 443-467.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Debs, Alexandre; Goemans, Hein E. (2010). “Regime Type, the Fate of Leaders, and War”. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 430-445.
• Falk, Avner (1985). “Aspects of Political Psychobiography”. Political Psychology, 6(4), 605-619.
• Fordham, Benjamin O., (2005). “Strategic Conflict Avoidance and the Diversionary Use of Force”. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 132-153.
• Goemans, Hein E.; Gleditsch, Kristian S.; Chiozza, Giacomo (2009). “Introducing Archigos: A Dataset of Political Leaders”. Journal of Peace Research, 46(2), 269-283.
• Greenstein, Fred I. (1992). “Can Personality and Politics Be Studied Systematically?”. Political Psychology, 105-128.
• Guttieri, Karen; Wallace, Michael D; Suedfeld, Peter. (1995). “The Integrative Complexity of American Decision-Makers in the Cuban Missile Crisis”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39(4), 595-621.
• Hermann, Margaret G. (1980). “Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders”. International Studies Quarterly, 24(1), 7-46.
• Hermann, Margaret G. (2003). “Assessing Leadership Style Trait Analysis”, Post, Jerrold M. (Ed.), The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders, Ann-Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 178-212.
• Hermann, Margaret G.; Milburn, Thomas W. (1977). A Psychological Examination Of Political Leaders. New York: Free Press.
• Horowitz, Michael C.; McDermott, Rose; Stam, Allan C. (2005). “Leader Age, Regime Type, and Violent International Relations”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(5), 661-685.
• Horowitz, Michael C.; Ellis, Cali M.; Stam, Allan C. (2015). leaders_datapaper_replication_final_9_10_15.tab. In Replication Data for: Introducing the LEAD Data Set (V1 ed.): Harvard Dataverse.
• Horowitz, Michael C.; Fuhrmann, M. (2018). “Studying Leaders and Military Conflict: Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(10), 2072-2086.
• Horowitz, Michael C.; Stam, A. C. (2014). “How Prior Military Experience Influences the Future Militarized Behavior of Leaders”. International Organization, 68(3), 527-559.
• Horowitz, Michael C.; Ellis, Cali M.; Stam, Allan C. (2015). Why Leaders Fight: New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Houghton, David P. (2009). Political Psychology: Situations, Individuals, and Cases. NY- London: Routledge.
• Jervis, Robert. (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Jervis, Robert. (1988). “War and Misperception”. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 675-700.
• Jervis, Robert. (1993). “Arms-Control, Stability, and Causes Of War”. Political Science Quarterly, 108(2), 239-253.
• Jervis, Robert. (2017). How Statesmen Think: The Psychology of International Politics. Princeton-Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Kaarbo, Juliet; Beasley, Ryan K. (1999). “A Practical Guide To The Comparative Case Study Method In Political Psychology”. Political Psychology, 20(2), 369-391.
• Levy, Jack S. (1987). “Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War”. World Politics, 40(1), 82-107.
• Levy, Jack S. (1992a). “An Introduction to Prospect Theory”. Political Psychology, 171-186.
• Levy, Jack S. (1992b). “Prospect Theory and International Relations: Theoretical Applications and Analytical Problems”. Political Psychology, 283-310.
• Levy, Jack S. (1996). “Loss Aversion, Framing, and Bargaining: The Implications of Prospect Theory for International Conflict”. International Political Science Review, 17(2), 179-195.
• Levy, Jack S. (1997). “Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations”. International Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 87-112.
• Levy, Jack S. (1983). “Misperception and The Causes Of War: Theoretical Linkages and Analytical Problems”. World Politics, 36(1), 76-99.
• Ligon, Gina S.; Harris, Daniel J.; Hunter, Samuel T. (2012). “Quantifying Leader Lives: What Historiometric Approaches Can Tell Us”. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1104-1133.
• Ligon, Gina S.; Hunter, Samuel T; Mumford, Michael D. (2008). “Development Of Outstanding Leadership: A Life Narrative Approach”. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 312-334.
• Lijphart, Arend. (1971). “Comparative Politics and The Comparative Method”. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682-693.
• Lobell, Steven E.; Ripsman, Norrin M.; Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. (2009). Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• McDermott, Rose (2001). Risk-Taking In International Politics: Prospect Theory In American Foreign Policy. Ann-Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• McDermott, Rose (2004). “Prospect Theory In Political Science: Gains and Losses From The First Decade”. Political Psychology, 25(2), 289-312.
• Mead, Margaret (2000). “Warfare is Only an Invention—Not a Biological Necessity” (Originally Published in Asia, XL, 1940: 402–5), Barash, David (Ed.) Approaches to Peace: A Reader in Peace Studies, New York: Oxford University Press, 19-22.
• Mercer, Jonathan. (2005). “Prospect Theory and Political Science”. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 1-21.
• Miller, Ross A. (1999). “Regime Type, Strategic Interaction, and the Diversionary Use of Force”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(3), 388-402.
• Mumford, Michael D.; Espejo, Jazmine; Hunter, Samuel T.; Bedell-Avers, Katrina E.; Eubanks, Dawn. L.; Connelly, Shane. (2007). “The Sources of Leader Violence: A Comparison of Ideological and Non-Ideological Leaders”. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 217-235.
• O'Connor, Jennifer; Mumford, Michael D.; Clifton, Timothy C.; Gessner, Theodore L.; Connelly, M. Shane. (1995). “Charismatic Leaders and Destructiveness: An Historiometric Study”. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 529-555.
• Parry, Ken.; Mumford, Michael D.; Bower, Ian; Watts, Logan L. (2014). “Qualitative and Historiometric Methods in Leadership Research: A Review of the First 25 Years of the Leadership Quarterly”. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 132-151.
• Post, Jerrold M. (2014). “Personality Profiling Analysis”, Rhodes, R. A. W.; Hart, Paul 't (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Post, Jerrold M. (2010). The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders: With Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. Ann-Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Raphael, Theodore D. (1982). “Integrative Complexity Theory and Forecasting International Crises: Berlin 1946-1962”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 26(3), 423-450.
• Rose, Gideon. (1998). “Neoclassical Realism and Theories Of Foreign Policy”. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172.
• Senese, Paul D.; Vasquez, John A. (2005). “Assessing the Steps to War”. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 607-633.
• Shafir, Eldar (1992). “Prospect Theory and Political Analysis: A Psychological Perspective”. Political Psychology, 311-322.
• Simonton, Dan Keith (1990). Psychology, Science, and History: An Introduction To Historiometry. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Simonton, Dan Keith (2014). “The Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders: Quantitative Multiple-Case Assessment”. Goethals George R.; Allison, Scott T.; Kramer, M. Roderick; Messick, David M., (Eds.), Conceptions of Leadership: Enduring Ideas and Emerging Insights, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Singer, J. D. (1961). “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations”. World Politics, 14(1), 77-92.
• Siverson, Randolph M.; Starr, Harvey. (1990). “Opportunity, Willingness, and the Diffusion of War”. American Political Science Review, 84(1), 47-67.
• Siverson, Randolph M.; Starr, Harvey (1991). The Diffusion of War: A Study of Opportunity and Willingness. Ann-Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Starr, Harvey (1978). “ ‘Opportunity’ and ‘Willingness’ as Ordering Concepts in the Study of War”. International Interactions, 4(4), 363-387.
• Suedfeld, Peter (2010). “The Cognitive Processing of Politics and Politicians: Archival Studies of Conceptual and Integrative Complexity”. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1669-1702.
• Suedfeld, Peter; Bluck, Susan (1988). “Changes in Integrative Complexity Prior to Surprise Attacks”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(4), 626-635.
• Suedfeld, Peter; Jhangiani, Rajiv (2009). “Cognitive Management in an Enduring International Rivalry: The Case of India and Pakistan”. Political Psychology, 30(6), 937-951.
• Suedfeld, Peter; Tetlock, Philip (1977). “Integrative Complexity of Communications in International Crises”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21(1), 169-184.
• Suedfeld, Peter; Tetlock, Philip E; Ramirez, Carmenza (1977). “War, Peace, and Integrative Complexity: Un Speeches on the Middle East Problem, 1947–1976.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21(3), 427-442.
• Tir, Jaroslav. (2010). “Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict”. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 413-425.
• Vasquez, John A. (1998). The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Vasquez, John A. (2009). The War Puzzle. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Walker, Stephen G.; Watson, George L. (1994). “Integrative Complexity and British Decisions during the Munich and Polish Crises”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(1), 3-23.
• Walker, Stephen G.; Schafer, Mark; Young, Michael D. (2003). “Profiling the Operational Codes of Political Leaders”, Post, Jerrold M. (Ed.), The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders: With Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton, Ann-Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 215-245.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. (2001). Man, the State and War. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Williamson, Samuel R. (1988). “The Origins of World War I”. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 795-818.
• Winter, David G. (2007). “The Role of Motivation, Responsibility, and Integrative Complexity in Crisis Escalation: Comparative Studies of War and Peace Crises”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 920-937.
• Winter, David G. (2013). “Personality Profiles of Political Elites”. Huddy, Leonie; Sears, Devid O.; Levy, Jack S. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, New York: Oxford University Press, 423–458.
• Winter, David G.; Hermann, Margaret G.; Weintraub, Walter; Walker, Stephen G. (1991). “The Personalities of Bush and Gorbachev Measured at a Distance: Procedures, Portraits, and Policy”. Political Psychology, 215-245.