One should not blog in anger. In an effort to make my points, I think I overstated my case and offended some people, which I did not intend to do. Wait. Isn’t that what blogging is all about? Maybe I did intend to do that.
Seriously, if I were to amend this, I would make a number of changes.
First, it is not that second-hand sources are bad and inherently inferior to primary sources. They are absolutely necessary. There is a bit of a division of labor between historians and us, as we are more often looking at the forest for the trees, or to mix ecological metaphors, trying not to get lost in the weeds. We can’t do as thorough a job as they do, especially if we take on broad subjects like Dan does. But to some degree, we need to chew our own food, especially when we are investigating micro-processes. That’s what this book was supposed to be doing, but didn’t. My point about hearsay is not about whether we do better interpretations of primary documents. It was more like a Xerox argument. The photocopy of a photocopy is worse than the original. As information becomes recycled, it loses its original meaning. And I use ‘primary documents’ liberally, not necessarily to convey the image of dusty archives. For instance, I expect Dan to have read the Edict of Nantes. And I have read the UN Charter.
Second, the book in question isn’t really the problem. I see this kind of sloppy qualitative work everywhere I look. I am very, very rarely impressed by the depth of empirical research in this business. It is always an afterthought to the theory. Books win prizes based on their first chapter, not 3-7. But that’s a problem, isn’t it?
Third, 2×2 tables, when wielded by sure hands, are fine. I have come to this conclusion after remembering that I have one in a recent piece I did…..
Fourth, you have nothing to fear from me, Stephanie. I take bribes. I am self-righteous but also corrupt. Please forward your bank info to this address in Nairobi……
Brian,
Just want to share my perspective as a comparativist. While
I personally prefer primary over secondary sources myself, often it’s not
feasible, especially when language barrier is an issue. Especially these days
when cross-regional works are prioritized within our field. If your cases
involved countries in two or three different regions, with totally different
languages you need to deal with (think of reading Chinese, Arabic, and Spanish sources
for a single study), then it won’t be feasible to get primary sources for all
the cases, given the years of extra language training that will be required for
it. For many young ABDs/asst profs on a tenure clock, it’s just not feasible to
do, although some of us could certainly give it a try.
That’s why many CHA scholars rely on secondary sources
instead of primary ones. But just because it’s secondary doesn’t always mean
that it’s a bad work.  As someone have
mentioned before, think of Skocpol. I don’t think she ever learned how to speak
Chinese and Russian, but everyone agrees that her work is both path-breaking
and theoretically informing that everyone considers it as a masterpiece these
days. In more recent times, think of work by CHA folks like Atul Kohli, David
Waldner, etc. I don’t think they know the native languages of the other
countries beyond their primary cases (Hindi for Kohli and Arabic for Waldner),
but that doesn’t stop them from putting together arguments that impressed their
peers that their books became hits within the CP subfield.
IMHO as long as you scrutinize the sources carefully, aware
of selection biases and the original authors’ biases, etc., you should have no
problem producing good CHA work both in CP as well as in IR.
On the other hand though, Brian does raise an important point here, something I think comparativists and anthropologists have often noted with ire regarding their IR colleagues: the importance of solid fieldwork, and cultural, linguistic, and regional specialization when applicable. How many generalists in IR really know Arabic for example, or have spent extensive time in the Middle East? Come to think of it, how many purported “experts” and policy wonks have done so, besides visiting the Marriott in Cairo, embassy compounds, and expat neighborhoods? My point is there seems to be (at least in the US context) a problematic bifurcation between comparativists/regional specialists on the one hand and IR generalists on the other. Either way, I would agree Alex in order to do cross-regional research, secondary sources are often needed, but I think IR theorists should be encouraged (if they’re not already) to acquire linguistic and cultural proficiency in at least one region. It can make a whole world of difference, and I’ve seen this between scholars who take fieldwork and learning languages seriously, versus generalists who could care less. But again, this also comes down to training in both methodology and methods, and if the research project itself is essentially (neo)positivist to the degree of not valuing in-depth case studies and fieldwork, a whole separate disciplinary issue…
I agree w/your points too, Nawal. There needs to be more “grounded” work in IR, and by “grounded” I mean, learning the language of at least one (if not more) languages of the case countries being studied.
I think CP folks take grounded fieldwork and the primary data (written the local language) gathered from it very seriously as a gold standard/benchmark for a well-executed research program. For IR, some people are better in practicing this than others (good examples include works on IR of ME by Michael Barnett and Marc Lynch, Ian Johnston’s work on Chinese strategic culture,etc.). Here’s an illustration for a not-so-good work: In my dept we’ve recently had one person who wrote his/her diss. on domestic determinants of foreign policy of three countries) relying on diplomatic cables written in English as his/her primary data source. No local newspaper clippings, official documents in their native languages, no nothing. The one historian in the committee sharply criticized this student for the “laziness” in gathering data in the local languages of these countries, but the committee still passed his/her diss. defense in the end. We’ve had 3-4 IR majors in my dept in recent years who did their diss. without using any local non-English data obtained through fieldwork, so the case of this one individual is not unique. On the other hand, the 2 recent CP graduates used extensive local sources and are well-trained in the language of their case countries.
The bottom line is that learning the local languages in order to get data in the local language should be the best practice of anyone who does research in any non-English speaking country to emulate. CP folks have done it well for decades, for IR folks, the record has been more mixed.
Hi Alex,
I would probably add another caveat that would say that I am speaking mostly of IR, and I get a bit lazy when I talk about “the field.” Maybe comparative has this problem, but when I followed it more closely in grad school, it was much better. So thanks for correcting me.
BCR
I think you’re right to say that comparative does not have the same sort of resistance to primary work as IR. Parsimony strikes again?Â
And to all the methodological rigor-related comments, may I just add that doing archival work and learning languages can be fascinating and fun? I always saw my eventual fieldwork phase (including traveling to explore archives and interview people in exciting places to pursue research) as a way of making graduate school pay-off not in some delayed gratification sort of way.
And here I am, and my experience thus far has been all of the above.Back to the archives, now. kthanksbye.Â
Here. Here. Best year of my life.