International studies in an unpredictable world: still avoiding the difficult problems?

• Published in: European journal of international relations Vol. 27; no. 1; pp. 3 - 28
• Main Authors: Fomin, Ivan, Kokarev, Konstantin, Ananyev, Boris, Neklyudov, Nikita, Bondik, Anzhelika, Glushkov, Pavel, Safina, Aliya, Stolyarova, Svetlana, Tkach, Dmitry, Vedernikova, Oksana, Yakovenko, Irina, Korobkova, Daria, Kovaleva, Daria, Kuzina, Ekaterina, Voronina, Darya, Chekov, Alexander, Sushentsov, Andrey, Wohlforth, William
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.03.2021; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Academic disciplines; Ambition; Determinate; Forecasting; Generalizations; God; International relations; International studies; Physics; Predictions; Future; scenarios; International Relations discipline; forecasting; methodology; predictions
• ISSN: 1354-0661; 1460-3713
• DOI: 10.1177/1354066120948124

We revisit and empirically evaluate crucial yet under-examined arguments articulated in “God Gave Physics the Easy Problems” (2000), the authors of which emphasized that, in International Relations (IR) predictions, predominant nomothetic approaches should be supplemented with concrete scenario thinking. We test whether the IR predictive toolkit is in fact dominated by nomothetic generalizations and, more broadly, map the methodological profile of this subfield. We build on the TRIP database, supplementing it with extensive original coding to operationalize the nuances of predictive research. In particular, we differentiate between nomoscopic predictions (predictive generalizations) and idioscopic predictions (predictions for concrete situations), showing that this distinction is not reducible to other methodological cleavages. We find that even though in contemporary IR an increasing number of articles seek to provide predictions, they consistently avoid predictions about concrete situations. The proportion of idioscopic predictions is stably small, with an even smaller proportion of predictions that develop concrete narratives or specify any determinate time period. Furthermore, those idioscopic studies are mostly limited to a niche with specialized themes and aims. Thus, our research shows that the critical claims from 20 years ago are still relevant for contemporary IR, as the “difficult problem” of developing predictive scenarios is still consistently overlooked in favor of other objectives. Ultimately, the types of predictions that IR scholars develop depend on their specific aims and constraints, but the discipline-wide result is a situation in which international studies’ ambition to provide predictions grows, but they tend to reproduce the same limitations as they did in 2000.