Systemism and foreign policy: an exercise in systematic synthesis

ABSTRACT

Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is a highly active area within the social sciences, intersecting with the study of International Relations in any number of ways. The purpose of this article is to put studies from FPA in contact with each other via a graphic method, systemism, to obtain insights that otherwise might prove elusive. Completion of this task is anticipated to yield both academic and policy-related value. This study will unfold in six sections. Section one provides an overview of the project. Systemist graphics are used in sections two through four to convey arguments for three studies from FPA that focus on leadership and decision-making in multiple locations. Section five engages in systematic synthesis based on those works. The sixth and final section sums up the contributions of this article and passes along a few thoughts about future research.

RÉSUMÉ

L'analyse de la politique étrangère (APE) est un domaine très actif des sciences sociales qui recoupe l'étude des Relations Internationales de nombreuses façons. L'objectif de cet article est de rapprocher des études de l'APE les unes des autres par le biais d'une méthode graphique, le systémisme, afin d'obtenir des perspectives qui pourraient autrement s'avérer insaisissables. L'accomplissement de cette tâche devrait avoir une valeur à la fois académique et politique. Cette étude se déroulera en six sections. La première section offre un aperçu du projet. Des graphiques systémistes sont utilisés dans les sections deux à quatre pour transmettre des arguments en faveur de trois études d'APE qui se concentrent sur le leadership et la prise de décision dans plusieurs endroits. La cinquième section se livre à une synthèse systématique sur la base de ces travaux. La sixième et dernière section résume les contributions de cet article et émet quelques réflexions sur les recherches futures.

KEYWORDS:

• Foreign Policy
• systemism
• leadership trait analysis
• Foreign Policy Analysis
• operational code analysis

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See, for instance, the review essay from Hudson (2005).

2 These systemist diagrams, even if conveying relatively intricate arguments, remain in compliance with the admonition from Tufte (2006) about “hyperactive optical clutter”. In other words, a basic principle for such diagrams is that each one should facilitate rather than hinder comprehension of the story presented about cause and effect in the source material.

3 It is beyond the scope of the present exposition to offer a more extensive treatment of SIR, within which various graphic-oriented methods reside. See James (2019b) for a comprehensive introduction to SIR.

4 Nature of the Political Universe (P-1 belief) is a measure of the hostility or friendliness the actor sees in the political environment. Lower scores indicate more hostile worldviews. Approach to Goals (I-1 belief) is the counterpart to Nature of the Political Universe – how conflictual or cooperative does the actor present themselves as being. The Perception of Control (P-4 belief) variable evaluates the perceived degree of control of the actor over their political environment. For more information on the P-1, I-1, and P-4 beliefs and the specific formula for each variable, see Walker, Schafer, and Young (1988).

5 Figure 1 is based upon Özdamar and Canbolat (2018, pp. 20–21) and consultations with the authors.

6 Whenever two or more variables are on the same side of an arrow, these are separated by semicolons. For example, “X1”; “X2”→“Y” means that both X1 and X2 lead into Y.

7 Figure 2 is based upon Dyson (2014, p. 41 [Table 3.1], p. 81 [Table 6.1], p. 134 [Table 10.1]) and consultations with the author.

8 For a collection of studies that initiate a wide range of directions in the study of foreign policy errors, see Hermann (2011).

9 Figure 3 is based upon Walker and Malici (2011, p. 5, p. 11 [Figure 1.1], p. 12 [Figure 1.2], p. 54 [Figure 3.1]) and consultations with the authors.

10 See Gansen and James (introduction to this volume) for supporting citations from educational psychology.

11 The extent to which visualization already appears in these three works varies considerably (from one figure in “Understanding New Middle Eastern Leadership” to roughly 100 in U.S. Presidents and Foreign Policy Mistakes). Nevertheless, the pre-existing graphic resources impact favorably upon the systemist visualization process as a foundation beyond the text in and of itself in each case.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sercan Canbolat

Sercan Canbolat is a Fulbright Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at the University of Connecticut (UConn) and an incoming Visiting Assistant Professor at UConn—Stamford's Department of Political Science. Sercan is also a non—resident Fellow at the Centre in Modern Turkish Studies at Norman Paterson School of International Affairs (NPSIA) at Carleton University.

Sarah Gansen

Sarah Gansen is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Southern California and a graduate of USC Gould School of Law.

Patrick James

Patrick James is the Dana and David Dornsife Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California.