International History: Why Historians do it Differently Than Political Scientists

Abstract

An introductory note: this essay, originally published in a collection of essays on the relationship in international relations research between diplomatic and military historians and political scientists using qualitative methods, accompanied one by Robert Jervis¹ explaining the similarities and differences from a political scientist’s point of view. Everyone interested in the theme should read it. My essay was supposed to develop the historian’s standpoint on approach and methods independently, but there was so much agreement between us and Jervis’s analyses of the similarities and differences was generally so sensible and perceptive that the best hope of adding something germane and useful appeared to be through comments on Jervis’s arguments— comments that even where they demur generally say “Yes, but,” and whose purpose is to develop some points he makes further, and to respond to certain questions he raises and possible answers he suggests with my own from a historian’s point of view.