Image Credit: Google

Positivist and Post-Positivist Views in International Relations: Convergence and Divergence

Adil Javed

In the field of International Relations, the positivist and post-positivist approaches are two contrasting perspectives that provide different understandings and methodologies for studying and analyzing International Relations.

Describing Positivist Approach

The positivist approach in international relations emphasizes the application of scientific methods and principles to the study of international politics.

It draws inspiration from the natural sciences and seeks to establish objective knowledge through empirical observation, data collection, and hypothesis testing.

Positivists believe that;

 “It is possible to identify and predict patterns of behavior in international relations by examining measurable factors such as power, material capabilities, and economic interests.”

They aim to develop general laws and theories to explain and predict state behavior, conflicts, cooperation, and other phenomena in international relations.

About Post-Positivist Approach

The post-positivist approach challenges the positivist assumptions of objectivity (lack of bias, judgemental or prejudice) and the possibility of establishing universal laws in the study of international relations.

It recognizes that;

“Social reality is complex, subjective, and shaped by multiple factors, including norms, values, culture, and individual agency.”

Post-positivists argue that researchers bring their own biases, perspectives, and interpretations to the study of international relations, and therefore, objective knowledge is difficult to attain.

Instead, they emphasize the importance of following elements in understanding international relations.

• Critical Analysis,
• Interpretation, and
• Reflexivity (Reasons for acting).

Post-positivists often employ qualitative methods, such as discourse analysis and interpretive approaches, to examine how ideas, beliefs, and identities shape the behavior of states and other actors in the international system.

They also emphasize the role of norms, ethics, and social constructivism in shaping international relations.

Overall, the positivist approach seeks to establish general laws and predictions based on observable data.

While the post-positivist approach focuses on understanding the subjective and interpretive aspects of international relations, taking into account factors beyond material capabilities.

Points of Divergence

The positivist and post-positivist approaches in international relations differ in several key aspects:

a. Epistemology:

Positivism assumes that objective knowledge can be obtained through empirical observation and the application of scientific methods.

It aims to uncover universal laws and causal relationships in international relations.

In contrast, post-positivism challenges the idea of objective knowledge, emphasizing the subjective and interpretive nature of social reality.

It recognizes that researchers bring their own biases and perspectives, and that multiple interpretations are possible.

b. Focus on Quantitative vs. Qualitative Methods:

Positivists favor quantitative methods, such as statistical analysis, data collection, and hypothesis testing.

They seek to measure and quantify observable phenomena to identify patterns and correlations.

Post-positivists, on the other hand, often employ qualitative methods, such as discourse analysis, interviews, and case studies, to delve into the meanings, interpretations, and discourses that shape international relations.

c. Conception of Power:

Positivists tend to view power as a tangible and measurable concept, often equating it with material capabilities, such as military strength or economic resources.

They emphasize the role of power in shaping state behavior and the international system.

Post-positivists, while acknowledging the importance of material power, also emphasize the role of ideational factors, norms, and discourses in shaping power relations.

d. Assumptions about Rationality:

Positivists often assume rationality as a guiding principle in state behavior.

They analyze states as unitary actors pursuing their interests in a rational manner.

Post-positivists question the assumption of perfect rationality and highlight the influence of emotions, perceptions, and cognitive biases on decision-making processes.

They also consider non-state actors and social forces that can shape international outcomes.

d. Normative Concerns:

Positivism tends to focus on descriptive analysis and explanation like it seeks to understand how states and actors behave in certain international condition.

Post-positivism, while not rejecting descriptive analysis, also engages with normative concerns.

Like, it explores the ethical dimensions of international relations and examines how values, norms, and ideas shape state behavior and the construction of international norms.

It is worthwhile here to consider that these approaches are not mutually exclusive, and many scholars draw on elements from both positivist and post-positivist perspectives in their research.

Points of Convergence

While the positivist and post-positivist approaches in international relations have significant divergences, there are also points of convergence.

a. Empirical Analysis:

Both positivist and post-positivist approaches value empirical analysis (confirmation by sensory evidence) in understanding international relations.

While they may differ in the methods employed, both approaches recognize the importance of gathering evidence, whether quantitative or qualitative, to support their arguments and claims.

b. Critique of Traditional Realism:

Both approaches offer critiques of traditional realist perspectives in international relations.

Positivists and post-positivists challenge the realist assumption of states as unitary, rational actors solely driven by self-interest and power.

They both argue for a more distinct understanding of state behavior and the inclusion of ideal based and normative factors in explaining international relations.

c. Non-State Actors and Transnational Forces:

Both approaches acknowledge the significance of non-state actors and transnational forces in shaping international relations.

While positivists may focus more on state-centric analysis as they recognize the impact of non-state actors such as international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations.

Post-positivists, with their emphasis on social constructivism, delve deeper into the role of norms, ideas, and discourses propagated by non-state actors.

d. Dynamic and Versatile Nature of International Relations:

Both approaches recognize that international relations are complex and ever-evolving.

They understand that the international system is subject to change, influenced by factors such as globalization, technological advancements, and shifting power dynamics.

Positivists and post-positivists emphasize the need to adapt analytical frameworks to capture the evolving nature of international relations.

e. Interdisciplinary Perspectives:

Both approaches encourage interdisciplinary approaches in the study of international relations.

They recognize that understanding global phenomena requires insights from various fields, such as political science, sociology, economics, history, psychology, and more.

Scholars from both perspectives draw on multiple disciplines to enrich their analysis and gain a comprehensive understanding of international relations.

While positivism and post-positivism have their differences, these points of convergence highlight the shared interest in understanding and explaining the complexities of international relations.

By engaging in dialogue and drawing from the strengths of both approaches, scholars can contribute to a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of the field.