In what situations is the speech of foreign policy officials a reflection of speech expounding grand theories of International Relations? Using a linear support vector classification algorithm, we analyze all the published volumes of Foreign Relations of the United States as a single corpus, examining the use of five frames taken from a mix of academic theory and day-to-day practice: realism, geopolitics, liberalism, Cold War politics, and a pragmatic frame. We also investigate how the use of these frames varies across subject matter and in ways that are consistent with some simple hypotheses that connect frame use to situational factors.
AggarwalCCZhaiC (2012) A survey of text classification algorithms. In: AggarwalZhai(eds) Mining Text Data. New York: Springer, 77–129.
2.
AndersonPA (1981) Justifications and precedents as constraints in foreign policy decision-making. American Journal of Political Science25(4): 738–761.
3.
AveyPCDeschMC (2014) What do policy-makers want from us? Results of a survey of former senior national security decision makers. International Studies Quarterly58(2): 227–246.
4.
BennettAIkenberryGJ (2006) The relevance of the Review for US foreign policy 1906–2006. American Political Science Review100(4): 651–658.
5.
BuegerC (2014) From expert communities to epistemic arrangements: situating expertise in International Relations. In: MayerMCarpesMKnoblichR (eds) The Global Politics of Science and Technology, Vol. 1, Concepts from International Relations and Other Disciplines. Heidelberg: Springer, 39–54.
6.
DeschM (2015) Technique trumps relevance: the professionalization of political science and the marginalization of security studies. Perspectives on Politics13(2): 377–393.
7.
DesmidtSPrinzieADecramerA (2011) Looking for the value of mission statements: a meta-analysis of 20 years of research. Management Decision49(3–4): 468–483.
8.
De Sola PoolIKesslerA (1965) The Kaiser, the Tsar, and the computer: information processing in a crisis. The American Behavioral Scientist8(9): 31–38.
9.
De VattelEChittyJ (2011[1758]) The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
D’OrazioVLandisSTPalmerG, et al. (2014) Separating the wheat from the chaff: applications of automated document classification using support vector machines. Political Analysis22(V5): 224–242.
11.
ElmanC (1996) Horses for courses: why not neorealist theories of foreign policy?Security Studies6(1): 7–53.
12.
ErikssonJ (2014) On the policy relevance of grand theory. International Studies Perspectives15(1): 94–108.
13.
GreenDWMcClellandAMuckliL, et al. (1999) Arguments and deontic decisions. Acta Psychologica101(1): 27–47.
14.
GreenDWMcClellandAMcCloyR (2003) Reaching a verdict. Thinking & Reasoning9(4): 307–333.
15.
HollwayJMellonJ (2014) Leading the conversation: comparing state department communication networks under Rogers and Kissinger. Presented at International Studies Association. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2443042
16.
HopfT (2010) The logic of habit in international relations. European Journal of International Relations16(4): 539–561.
17.
HoughtonDP (1996) The role of analogical reasoning in novel foreign-policy situations. British Journal of Political Science26(4): 523–552.
18.
HoughtonDP (2015) Spies and boats and planes: an examination of U.S. decision-making during the Pueblo hostage crisis of 1968. Journal of Cold War Studies17(4): 4–40.
19.
JahnB (2017) Theorizing the political relevance of international relations theory. International Studies Quarterly61(1): 64–77.
20.
JervisR (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
21.
JervisR (2004) Security studies: ideas, policy, and politics. In: SissonMR (ed) The Evolution of Political Knowledge: Democracy, Autonomy and Conflict in Comparative and International Politics. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
KeohaneROMartinLL (1994/95) The promise of international institutions. International Security20(1): 39–51.
24.
KeohaneRONyeJ (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
25.
KhongYF (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
26.
KrebsRR (2015a) How dominant narratives rise and fall: military conflict, politics, and the cold war consensus. International Organization69(4): 809–845.
27.
KrebsRR (2015b) Narrative and the Making of U.S. National Security. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
MajeskiSSylvanD (1999) How foreign policy recommendations are put together: a computational model with empirical applications. International Interactions25(4): 301–332.
29.
MearsheimerJJ (1994/95) The false promise of international institutions. International Security19(3): 5–49.
30.
MearsheimerJJWaltSM (2013) Leaving theory behind: why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 427–457.
31.
MitranyD (1943) A Working Peace System: An Argument for the Functional Development of International Organisation. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
32.
MowleTS (2003) Worldviews in foreign policy: realism, liberalism, and external conflict. Political Psychology24(3): 561–592.
33.
NewellASimonHA (1972) Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
34.
PenningtonNHastieR (1993) Reasoning in explanation-based decision-making. Cognition49(1–2): 123–163.
35.
RichardsD (2001a) Reciprocity and shared knowledge structures in the prisoners dilemma game. Journal of Conflict Resolution45(5): 621–635.
36.
RichardsD (2001b) Coordination and shared mental models. American Journal of Political Science45(2): 259–276.
37.
SchellingT (1994) Academics, decision makers, and security policy during the cold war: a comment on Jervis. In: MansfieldEDSissonR (eds) The Evolution of Political Knowledge. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
38.
SchlesingerMLauRR (2000) The meaning and measure of policy metaphors. American Political Science Review94(3): 611–626.
39.
SeaburyP (1965) Balance of Power. San Francisco: Chandler.
ShimkoKL (1994) Metaphors and foreign policy decision making. Political Psychology15(4): 655–671.
42.
SnyderRCBruckHWSapinB (1954) Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics. Princeton: Organizational Behavior Section, Princeton University.
43.
SteinbrunerJD (2002) The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
44.
SuzukiT (2011) Investigating macroscopic transitions in Japanese foreign policy using quantitative text analysis. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific11(3): 461–490.
45.
SylvanDMajeskiS (2009) U.S. Foreign Policy in Perspective: Clients, Enemies and Empire. New York: Routledge.
46.
SylvanDMajeskiS (2010) The organizational structure of US foreign policy change. Paper presented to 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September2–5.
47.
SylvanDMajeskiS (2011) What choices do U.S. foreign policy makers actually face?Paper presented to 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1–4.
48.
TaberCS (1992) POLI: an expert system model of U.S. foreign policy belief systems. The American Political Science Review86(4): 888–904.
49.
TetlockPE (1991) An alternative metaphor in the study of judgment and choice: people as politicians. Theory and Psychology1(4): 451–475.
50.
U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian (1996) Preface. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume III, Vietnam, June–December 1965. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
51.
VertzbergerY (1990) The World in Their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
52.
WaltSM (2005) The relationship between theory and policy in international relations. Annual Review of Political Science 8: 23–48.
53.
WaltzKN (1975) Theory of international relations. In: PolsbyNGreensteinFI (eds) Handbook of Political Science, 8: 1–85.
54.
WaltzKN (1996) International politics is not foreign policy. Security Studies6(1): 54–57.
55.
WeldesJ (1996) Constructing national interests. European Journal of International Relations2(3): 275–318.
56.
ZambernardiL (2016) Politics is too important to be left to political scientists: a critique of the theory-policy nexus in international relations. European Journal of International Relations22(1): 3–23.
57.
Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 223–228). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
