Reflections on systemism, Canadian foreign policy and international relations

ABSTRACT

This special issue of CFPJ has introduced systemism, a graphic approach to the study of Canadian foreign policy and International Relations (IR). It is beyond the scope of this final essay to cover even a fraction of the insights and critiques that have been offered along the way, so a few items are identified as particularly salient with regard to recognizing what has been accomplished so far and identifying new directions for research in tandem with systemism. The brief essay that follows will focus on the following topics: gains in substantive knowledge; insights about theorizing; pedagogical applications; reflections on progress; and decision-making support. The essay concludes with a few general reflections about the future of systemism, Canadian foreign policy and IR.

RÉSUMÉ

Ce numéro spécial de CFPJ a introduit le systémisme, une approche graphique de l'étude de la politique étrangère canadienne et des relations internationales (RI). Il n'appartient pas à cet essai final de couvrir ne serait-ce qu'une fraction des perspectives et des critiques qui ont été formulées en cours de route, de sorte que quelques éléments sont identifiés comme particulièrement importants en ce qui concerne la reconnaissance de ce qui a été accompli jusqu'à présent et l'identification de nouvelles directions pour la recherche en tandem avec le systémisme. Le bref essai qui suit se concentrera sur les sujets suivants : gains en matière de connaissances substantielles perspectives sur la théorisation applications pédagogiques réflexions sur les progrès et aide à la prise de décision. En guise de conclusion, l'essai propose quelques réflexions générales sur l'avenir du systémisme, de la politique étrangère canadienne et des RI.

KEYWORDS:

• Canadian foreign policy
• systemism
• visual international relations project
• systematic synthesis
• bricolagic bridging

Overview

This special issue of CFPJ has introduced systemism, a graphic approach to the study of Canadian foreign policy and International Relations (IR). An introductory essay, five substantive applications and four commentaries have appeared. It is beyond the scope of this final essay to cover even a fraction of the insights and critiques that have been offered, so a few items are identified as particularly salient with regard to recognizing what has been accomplished so far and identifying new directions for research in tandem with systemism. The brief essay that follows will focus on the following topics: gains in substantive knowledge; insights about theorizing; pedagogical applications; reflections on progress; and decision-making support. The essay concludes with a few general reflections about the future of systemism, Canadian foreign policy and IR.

Substantive knowledge gains

Taken together, the contents of this special issue confirm the ability of the systemist approach to engage with the expansive nature of IR in general and Canadian foreign policy in particular. Within Canadian foreign policy, the subject matter includes people acting across borders (Henders)¹; government investment policies in connection with changing global trends (Hale); and disaster risk reduction and policy decisions on assistance (Warner). For IR, the areas covered are the foreign policies of new regimes (Mahant), along with leadership and decision-making in the US and the Middle East and North Africa (Canbolat, Gansen and James). A closer look at each article reveals considerable intellectual range in terms of theoretical outlook and method, along already obvious diversity with regard to geographic domain and areas of policy. The now-demonstrated ability of systemism to take on any subject matter in Canadian foreign policy and IR is a product of its inclusive nature as an approach – notably immune to longstanding and tiresome debates over qualitative versus quantitative methods. Instead, systemism stands out as an approach that works with, rather than seeking to transform, the academic studies it encounters. The goal is to improve communication in fields that are expanding rapidly and increasingly prone to silo-related problems with regard to achievement of overall progress.

Insights about theorizing

Levels of analysis are fundamental to the fields of Canadian foreign policy and IR (Nossal, Roussel, & Paquin, 2015). Applications of systemism in the special issue prove valuable in drawing attention to the need for a comprehensive approach with regard to levels of analysis. Systemist visualizations are able to point out explicitly, in comparison to words alone, whether an exposition is complete across categories of variables (Warner). More specifically, Mahant draws attention to the importance of individual leaders – sometimes neglected in more macro-oriented treatments of international relations. As Canbolat, Gansen and James note, studies of foreign policy analysis tend to neglect the international system in favor of a focus on individual leaders. Roberts brings all of these points together under one umbrella, noting that the systemist graphic provides a safeguard against bias with regard to levels of analysis.

Concerns about silo-related effects in IR already are well-established. Sil and Katzenstein (2010), most notably in connection with pernicious effects from paradigmatic boundaries, draw attention to mounting problems of largely self-imposed isolation among research communities. Such observations to some degree also apply to the field of Canadian foreign policy – a point made by Lane, along with Nossal, Roussel and Paquin, through the use of examples about the need for more engagement between mainstream security studies and critical analysis based on gender and other forms of identity. Lane, for instance, focuses on aspects of a conventional account of the awful events associated with deployment of the Canadian Airborne Regiment (CAR) to Somalia in the 1990s. Based on a systemist graphic, the mainstream treatment of how things went awry with the CAR and analysis based on feminist theory are brought constructively into engagement with each other (Lane).

This preceding observation leads naturally into a more general point about the value added from systemist visualizations. As pointed out by multiple participants in the special issue (Lane; Nossal, Roussel and Paquin; Roberts), systemist visualizations create the opportunity for both a greater quantity and quality of contact between mainstream and marginalized research communities.² The graphic approach from systemism creates the potential to overcome this “flawed dichotomy” and others within the study of IR in general and Canadian foreign policy in particular.³ In a more general sense, systemist graphics might provide the best opportunity for communication between those who emphasize explanation versus understanding in IR (Hollis & Smith, 1990), notably within the context of Canadian foreign policy, because the approach privileges neither preceding set of concerns over each other. Instead, the goal is to present arguments, about whatever subject, in a transparent way that facilitates constructive debate among a full range of perspectives.

One critique incidentally draws attention to a strength of systemism as related to the logic of discovery. Lane asserts that at least one systemist diagram among those in the substantive contributions raises more questions than it answers. This represents a form of progress rather than a problem, if addressed in a constructive way. If a graphic exposition of a study produces curiosity about its full meaning, even after a good faith effort to represent it, the new questions that arise create an agenda for debate and research. What did the text really mean to say and why? What is the significance of any points of difference that are identified through the visualization process? In stimulating such questions, systemism perhaps serves as an analogue to the Straussian method within political theory, which involves the meticulous reading of a text in order to discover its potentially deeper meaning (Zuckert, 2011). At this time of writing, nothing like that technique exists within the fields of Canadian foreign policy and IR. Indeed, Blagden (2016) makes the observation that development of theory remains a mysterious process, even as research methods for testing steadily improve. Systemism offers a way forward even there because it encourages a theorist to monitor, self-consciously, their processes of creating a diagrammatic representation of arguments (Lane).

Pedagogical applications

Several interesting ideas are highlighted by contributors about the potential value of systemism in pedagogy. The Visual International Relations Project (VIRP) archive will be available for online access from April 2022 onward. Items from the archive can make scholarship more accessible for students in general by summarizing the argument of a study in a graphic format (Roberts; Nossal, Roussel and Paquin). Nossal, Roussel and Paquin note that systemist graphics can help students in the same way as Coles Notes/SparkNotes/Cliffs Notes.⁴ At the same time, with its graphic format for portraying arguments, systemism is in line with insights from educational psychology about the utility of a combined approach toward learning based on text and visualizations (Pfonner & James, 2020). In addition, as Roberts observes, systemist visualizations could be especially valuable for students operating across different languages.

Positive effects are seen already in the systemist visualization of The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy (Nossal, Roussel and Paquin), carried out by Gansen and James, and well-received by its authors. Well-recognized as the leading textbook in the field, systemism proved able to represent its contents accurately and highlight new and valuable directions for expansion.

Doctoral students face the challenge of keeping up with a huge and rapidly expanding academic literature. This is particularly difficult at the stage of comprehensive examinations. Graphics from systemism, as Roberts observes, could be helpful to doctoral students when thinking about ways to bring together vast and increasingly diverse material in their field. Faculty obviously could benefit from systemism in the preceding ways as well – for example, reviewing items from the archive when preparing or updating a lecture. Nossal, Roussel and Paquin note that faculty also could use the VIRP archive during the processing of deciding upon items to assign as course readings.

Reflections on progress

Gansen and James raised the question of overall progress for Canadian foreign policy in the introductory essay of this special issue. Their article drew attention to opposing views, with surveys of scholars and articles, respectively, producing positive and negative conclusions about the field. The underlying reason for opposing assessments lies within the choice of criteria. If sociological and inductive criteria are applied, things look good. By contrast, application of rationalist and deductive standards produces a more critical set of conclusions. Put differently, scholars of Canadian foreign policy generally have a positive view of their collective enterprise, while a survey of articles reveals a tendency to “tell stories” rather than adhere to scientific principles of research.

Systemism, as the preceding contents of this volume combine to demonstrate, is able to promote constructive dialogue about specific issues in the field and its overall condition. Graphics produced under the rules of systemism permitted an exchange of views between and among scholars who reside upon very different intellectual foundations. Every attempt to create a systemist visualization in this special issue – either an individual work of scholarship or several in contact with each other – resulted in consensus on meaning between authors and those carrying out the graphic translation. In other words, systemism already has revealed the ability to advance a multi-sided dialogue about Canadian foreign policy per se and in contact with the discipline of IR in an overarching sense. This is in contrast to debates that take place in words alone, which tend to produce stalemate due to participants simply “talking past each other”.

What, then, can be said about the condition of Canadian foreign policy as a field? Implementation of systemist graphics suggests that the lack of rigor identified by Boucher (2014) can be addressed through this highly inclusive means of communication. As analytical arguments are made more commensurable with each other through an easily accessible graphic method, progress should not only be easier to achieve but also be more comprehensive and relevant as systemism allows for interdisciplinary linkages that likely could not have been made otherwise. This assertion applies to studies that tilt in either a problem-solving or critical direction. Thus, the present exposition does not take the pessimistic position of Smith in this volume about an inherent tendency within systemism to favor a problem-solving over a critical orientation. Instead, systemist graphics facilitate inclusive engagement through an emphasis on the communication of ideas in a transparent way. Given the tendency for contact in words alone to exacerbate hostility between and among contending approaches, why not turn to visual communication? At this point, what do we have to lose?

Decision-making support

Long recognized, but as yet unanswered in a satisfactory way, is the challenge for academics in engaging constructively with the policy community (George, 1993). Given its compact nature and low barriers to entry, systemism greatly enhances the accessibility of insights from academic studies to a more general audience. Roberts asserts that systemism offers a promising means toward the end of bridging the gap between the academic and policy-making communities.

Systemist methods seem tailor-made for policy consulting. Systemist graphics encourage accessibility and help to reduce the tiring and off-putting effects from long texts that feature highly specialized terminology.

Imagine brainstorming sessions in which bricolagic bridging and systematic synthesis take place within the policy community. On the one hand, a set of reports from different areas of policy – authored either by academics or government employees (or both) might be assembled in order to stimulate ideas about a more integrated approach toward problems previously assessed in isolation from each other. This would be an example of bricolagic bridging in action – a policy-oriented exercise in the logic of discovery. On the other hand, consider a scenario in which a series of competing positions about a specific policy area are translated into systemist graphics in order to facilitate comparative analysis. This process would apply systematic synthesis – again, a policy-focused exercise, but this time oriented toward the logic of confirmation. Barriers to entry for use of systemism in these ways, in comparison to various other research methods, border on non-existent.

One example pertains to the need for a whole-of-government review of Canadian lack of readiness, notably in vaccine production, for the pandemic that is receding at this time of writing. It almost goes without saying that any number of academic fields, starting with virology in the natural sciences but extending outward, must be referenced in developing any effective action plan. It is easy to imagine fields from the social sciences, such as transportation and logistics, rapidly coming into play. The humanities, notably with regard to ethics, also would have a place in such consultation.

All of the preceding fields – and the point would be reinforced rather than undermined if more disciplines had been mentioned – include specialized concepts and methods. Communication through words alone might succeed, but educational psychology (cited in the introductory essay from Gansen and James) favors a hybrid approach that includes a graphic exposition to promote lucidity and interdisciplinary understanding. Thus, systemist visualizations might enhance prospects for success in both short- and long-range planning for the management of a new pandemic – to get ready for fighting the next figurative health-related war effectively as opposed to drifting into miscommunication that would lead in less forward-looking directions.

Final thoughts

Why is systemism better than any other alternative that could be put forward as a graphic solution to the communication-related problems of complex and rapidly expanding fields such as IR and Canadian foreign policy?⁵ The contributions to this special issue of CFPJ answer that question in any number of ways. Systemist graphics, as it is hoped will be apparent by now, can help in numerous areas: building substantive knowledge, development of theory, pedagogy and even policy advising.

What about the future of systemism? It is important to confirm that systemist graphics are intended as a complement to, not a replacement for, careful reading of academic texts (Lane). At the same time, it is important to be pragmatic and observe that students are living under rapidly changing conditions, reinforced by attachment to mobile phones, which challenge the attention span required to absorb the material presented at length in words alone. Systemist graphics can help significantly by summarizing and reinforcing what is understood and retained from academic expositions. In sum, systemist graphics, available through the VIRP archive, can serve collectively as a road map for the fields of Canadian foreign policy and IR, which otherwise may not find their way toward advancement in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

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

Notes

1 Citations in name only refer to articles within this special issue on systemism.

2 Lane and Roberts, it should be acknowledged, express concerns about whether systemism unintentionally could make things worse, through a hegemonic effect, for those currently marginalized. This is a point open to debate in the future, with consciousness about the issue as perhaps the best weapon in the arsenal of inclusiveness.

3 See Brecher (1999) for an authoritative identification of flawed dichotomies in IR.

4 Nossal, Roussel and Paquin also observe that the systemist approach of today is much more accessible than in comparison to its point of origin within the philosophical exposition of Bunge (1996).

5 It is well beyond the scope of the present investigation to assess graphic alternatives to systemism; for a more detailed treatment, see Pfonner and James (2020) on salient options such as game theory.