the-evolution-of-international-security-studies

internal versus external factors 45Schmidt (1998: 37) makes the case for a critical internal discursive historyapproach whose aim is ‘to reconstruct as accurately as possible the historyof the conversation that has been constitutive of academic internationalrelations’.On the whole, while we acknowledge the need to draw attention tothe importance of internal dynamics in the evolution of IR and ISS, wealso find the sharp dichotomy between internal and external explanationsproblematic for four reasons (Breitenbauch and Wivel, 2004: 416–417).First, it overdraws the extent to which external explanations are actuallyaccepted wholeheartedly within ISS. It is hard to believe that not eventhe strongest empirical policy analyst or the hardest rationalist (whopresumably are those advocating external explanations) would agree thattheories are analytical lenses that prevent events from having a seamlessor direct causal impact on disciplinary developments. Each theory mightverywellclaimthatitexplainsorunderstandstheparticulareventbetterthan competing theories, but that is a different claim from arguing thatevents causally impact the evolution of ISS as a whole.Second, presuming that we were to adjudicate between internal andexternal explanations, it would be difficult if not impossible to imaginea research design that would allow for a testing of the explanatory statusof the two. How does one, for instance, compare the impact of the endof the Cold War with the influence asserted by disciplinary trends? Thelatter are obviously crucial for how the end of the Cold War is interpretedand explained, but without this event itself there would not be this majornew question on the research agenda for theories to dissect and competeover. Events may also be slightly less spectacular, but provide the groundon which more detailed internally driven debates play themselves out, aswas the case of nuclear technology and Cold War deterrence theory. Howwould we, for instance, separate the impact of nuclear bipolarity fromthe import of game theory into ISS? Rather than embark on an arduousattempt to design a test, we are better suited by acknowledging that it isthe interplay between internal and external factors that drives ISS.Third, the inclusion of external explanations in our framework is supportedby the general analytical claim that it is through external inputsof different kinds that academic disciplines debate and change. To relyexclusively on internal explanations would create an image of ISS – andscience – as socially and politically isolated (and self-absorbed). Not onlydoes this fit poorly, as chapters 4 to 8 will lay out, with how ISS evolved,it would produce a model which would have severe difficulties explainingchange. If no inputs are made into the research process, how is it that both