Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:55:13.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why did they do that?: the methodology of reasons for action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2015

Joseph O’Mahoney
Joseph O’Mahoney*
Affiliation:
School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, USA
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Why did they do that?’ is one of the most common questions in International Relations. However, we cannot access other people’s reasons for action the same way that we perceive our own; we cannot introspect the reasons of other actors. This paper provides a unifying framework that delineates different types of knowledge claims regarding reason attribution. There are three possible methodological responses: (1) assume a possible reason and explain behavior in terms of that reason; (2) avoid the direct attribution of reason to individuals and locate explanatory leverage at an analytical level beyond the individual actor reason; and (3) use empirical evidence to adjudicate between possible reasons. Excessive skepticism of evidence of reasons lessens our understanding of the causes of action. When using empirical evidence, contrary to existing arguments, the paper shows that private settings do not systematically favor the true revelation of reasons. The paper also proposes a general principle, consilience, that allows evaluation of empirical claims of reason attribution that subsumes several existing methodological considerations, organizes them, and gives a consistent means of choosing between alternative reason attributions.

Keywords

philosophy of scienceepistemologymethodologyreasons for actionexplanation
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 231 - 262
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adcock, Robert. 2003. “What Might it Mean to be an ‘Interpretivist’?” Qualitative Methods 1(2):16–18.Google Scholar
Andersen, Morten Skumsrud, and Neumann, Iver B.. 2012. “Practices as Models: A Methodology with an Illustration Concerning Wampum Diplomacy.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40(3):457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, Dare A., and Baird, Jodie A.. 2001. “Discerning Intentions in Dynamic Human Action.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(4):171–178.Google Scholar
Baldwin, David. 1985. Economic Statecraft. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berard, Timothy. 1998. “Attributions and Avowals of Motive in the Study of Deviance.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 28(2):193–213.Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark. 1999. The Logic of the History of Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohl, Vivian, and Gangopadhyay, Nivedita. 2014. “Theory of Mind and the Unobservability of Other Minds.” Philosophical Explorations 17(2):203–222.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael. 1981. “Intention and Means-End Reasoning.” The Philosophical Review 90(2):252–265.Google Scholar
Broockman, David E. 2012. “The ‘Problem of Preferences’: Medicare and Business Support for the Welfare State.” Studies in American Political Development 26(2):83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Steve, and Wallis, Roy. 1983. “Rescuing Motives.” British Journal of Sociology 34(1):61–71.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Smith, Alastair, Siverson, Randolph M., and Morrow, James D.. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1990. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” In Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre, edited by Sue-Ellen Case, 270–82. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A., and Primo, David M.. 2012. A Model Discipline: Political Science and the Logic of Representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Andrade, Roy G., and Strauss, Claudia. eds. 1992. Human Motives and Cultural Models, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1963. “Actions, Reasons and Causes.” Journal of Philosophy 60:685–700.Google Scholar
Doenecke, Justus D. 1981. The Diplomacy of Frustration: The Manchurian Crisis of 1931–1933 as Revealed in the Papers of Stanley K. Hornbeck. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
D’Oro, Giuseppina, and Sandis, Constantine. 2013. Reasons and Causes: Causalism and Anti-Causalism in the Philosophy of Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 2007. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” American Political Science Review 88(3):577–592.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49(3):379–414.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1997. “Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands Versus Sinking Costs.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(1):68–90.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” American Political Science Review 97(1):75–90.Google Scholar
Frieden, Jeffry A. 1999. “Actors and Preferences in International Relations.” In Strategic Choice and International Relations, edited by David A. Lake and Robert Powell, 39--76. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics, 3–16, 30–43. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
George, Alexander, and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Girard, Phillipe R. 2004. Clinton in Haiti: The 1994 US Invasion of Haiti. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 2011. “Social Scientific Inquiry and Meta-Theoretical Fantasy: The Case of International Relations.” Review of International Studies 37(4):1447–1469.Google Scholar
Harvey, Frank P. 2011. Explaining the Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1980 [1952]. The Counter-Revolution of Science. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund Inc.Google Scholar
Hirstein, William. 2005. Brain Fiction: Self-Deception and the Riddle of Confabulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hollen, Christopher Van. 1980. “The Tilt Policy Revisited: Nixon-Kissinger Geopolitics and South Asia.” Asian Survey 20(2):339–361.Google Scholar
Hopf, Ted. 2007. “The Limits of Interpreting Evidence.” In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, edited by Richard Ned Lebow and Mark Irving Lichbach, 55–84. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2002. “Jeremy Bentham, Foreign Secretary; or the Opportunity Costs of Neo-Utilitarian Analyses of Foreign Policy.” Review of International Political Economy 9(4):735–753.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus 2006. Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan. 2014. “Process-Tracing the Effects of Ideas.” In Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, edited by Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel, 41--73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jansz, Jeroen. 1996. “Constructed Motives.” Theory and Psychology 6(3):471–484.Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira, and Weingast, Barry. eds. 2005. Preferences and Situations: Points of Intersection Between Historical and Rational Choice Institutionalism. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Krebs, Ronald, and Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2007. “Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric.” European Journal of International Relations 13(1):35–66.Google Scholar
Krueger, Joel. 2012. “Seeing Mind in Action.” Phenomenology and Cognitive Sciences 11:149–173.Google Scholar
Laird, James D. 2007. Feelings: The Perception of Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lebovic, James, and Voeten, Erik. 2006. “The Politics of Shame: The Condemnation of Country Human Rights Practices in the UNHRC.” International Studies Quarterly 50(4):861–888.Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2010. Why Nations Fight: Past and Future Motives for War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, Sarah, and Slovic, Paul. eds. 2006. The Construction of Preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 1991. Inference to the Best Explanation. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisieux, St Thérèse of. 2005. The Story of a Soul (L’Histoire d’une Ame): The Autobiography of St. Thérèse of Lisieux. Translated by Thomas Taylor. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16772.Google Scholar
Mackie, Gerry. 1998. “Are All Men Liars?.” In Deliberative Democracy, edited by Jon Elster, 69–96.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2008. “Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.” Comparative Political Studies 41(4/5):412–436.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1998. “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.” International Organization 52(4):943–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, John Levi. 2011. The Explanation of Social Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McGrew, Timothy. 2003. “Confirmation, Heuristics, and Explanatory Reasoning.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 54:553–567.Google Scholar
Mercer, Jonathan. 2012. “Audience Costs are Toys.” Security Studies 21(3):398–404.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright. 1940. “Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive.” American Sociological Review 5(6):904–913.Google Scholar
Moon, J. Donald. 1975. “The Logic of Political Inquiry: A Synthesis of Opposed Perspectives.” In Handbook of Political Science, vol. 1, edited by Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, 131–228. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Henry J. 1993 [1948]. Politics Among Nations: The Struggles for Power and Peace. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Nexon, Daniel H. 2009. The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Renshon, Jonathon. 2009. “When Public Statements Reveal Private Beliefs: Assessing Operational Codes at a Distance.” Political Psychology 30(4):649–661.Google Scholar
Ringmar, Erik. 2014. “The Search for Dialogue as a Hindrance to Understanding: Practices as Inter-Paradigmatic Research Program.” International Theory 6(1):1–27.Google Scholar
Rosato, Sebastian. 2014. “The Inscrutable Intentions of Great Powers.” International Security 39(3):48–88.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel. 1991. “Comments on the Interpretation of Game Theory.” Econometrica 59(4):909–924.Google Scholar
Saunders, Elizabeth. 2009. “Transformative Choices: Leaders and the Origins of Intervention Strategy.” International Security 34(2):119–161.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas 1980. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schilbach, Leonhard, Timmermans, Bert, Reddy, Vasudevi, Costall, Alan, Bente, Gary, Schlicht, Tobias, and Vogeley, Kai. 2013. “Toward a Second-Person Neuroscience.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4):393–414.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. 2012. “Why We Needed Audience Costs and What We Need Now.” Security Studies 21(3):369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Beth A., and Danner, Alison. 2010. “Credible Commitments and the International Criminal Court.” International Organization 64(2):225–256.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2002. Visions of Politics, Volume 1: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack, and Borghard, Erica D.. 2011. “The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound.” American Political Science Review 105(3):437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1971. “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man.” The Review of Metaphysics 25(1):3–51.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1993. “To Follow a Rule.” In Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, edited by Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma, and Moishe Postone, 45–60. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, Marc. 2012. “Audience Costs: An Historical Analysis.” Security Studies 21(1):3–42.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. “Basic Sociological Terms.” In Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, 2 vols, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, 3--63. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2001. “Driving with the Rearview Mirror: On the Rational Science of Institutional Design.” International Organization 55(4):1019–1049.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan, and Gallagher, Shaun. 2008. “The (In) Visibility of Others: A Reply to Herschbach.” Philosophical Explorations 11(3):237–244.Google Scholar