Please respond to the discussion post. Agree or disagree with what the students post.  “Over the past few weeks of the term we have attempted to identify the niche of research that the qualitative and quantitative method fit into in order to amplify international relations to the max extent possible. In Russet, Oneal, and Cox’s article, “Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Déjà Vu? Some Evidence,” the quantitative method is used to evaluate Huntington’s theory that future conflicts would be shaped by cultural and civilizational differences rather than ideology (Huntington 1993). Initially, the theory proposed by Huntington deems necessary to apply some type of methodological evaluation in order to do what we all aim to accomplish as researchers, which is to test a theory (Russet, Oneal, & Cox 2000). Unfortunately the model created by the authors, in my opinion, were not able to accurately assess the theory. Measuring multiple variables in order to find correlations of war is one thing, but applying these mechanisms to culture groups does not compute. Arguably, it is impossible to test this theory due to the genuine uniqueness of each culture and their relations with other groups around the world. This isn’t to say the date collected by Russet, Oneal, and Cox is useless, far from it, but it does not necessarily disprove Huntington’s theories.
Now, was Huntington valid when he dismissed Russet, Oneal, and Cox’s article in his rebuttal entitled, “Try Again: A Reply to Russett, Oneal & Cox” (Huntington 2000). To answer this we need to evaluate Huntington’s initial assertions and confirm he proposed a “good theory” and secondly we need to assess the usefulness of the three authors work and determine if it did hold a level of merit again Huntington’s work. We discovered last week that a good theory must be have these traits: logical soundness, covariation, and process tracing (Mearsheimer & Walt 2013). The idea proposed by Huntington, in my opinion, passes the test of logical soundness, due to the well accepted fact that individuals that are different from one another have a high likelihood to not get along. Processing tracing can also be seen in the presence of supporting the main theory as well as the previous statement, drawing in centauries of historical cases of this behavior. Assuming Huntington’s theory is good, we can say that he had a place to dismiss the findings of Russet, Oneal, and Cox. However, we must consider the opposing articles findings as well, in order to fully side with Huntington. The data compiled by “ROC” can be used in abundance and although it may not measure “civilizations” perfectly it still aimed to further research within international relations. The act of dismissing a group, just due to the fact that they empirically analyzed your work is a perfect example of what is holding the field back from progressing forward. In sum, Huntington is in the right to defend his own work, but without additional analysis to back his theories up and the immediate dismissal of fellow researchers work I am reluctant to be on his side for this one.
References:
Huntington, S. (1993). “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs,72(3), 22-49.
Huntington, S. (2000). “Try Again: A Reply to Russett, Oneal & Cox.” Journal of Peace Research, 37(5), 609-610.
Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 427–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494320Links to an external site.
Russett, B., Oneal, J., & Cox, M. (2000). “Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Déjà Vu? Some Evidence.” Journluval of Peace Research, 37(5), 583-608.”