Dyadic Approach and Quantitative Analysis: Easing the Dialogue Between IR and Area Studies

There are two “tribes” that do not communicate very well with each other: these are the quantitative and qualitative scholars in International Relations (IR) (and Political Science in general). The difficult dialogue between these two groups can be extended to the troubled relationship between quantitative IR researchers and Area Studies scholars that, as a rule, prefers qualitative approaches and to draw insights from several disciplines, such as history, cultural studies, economics, geography, literary, and language studies, to elaborate a comprehensive explanation of a single case. The divide is broad and, in many cases, difficult to close. The two groups look at one another with circumspection, attributing the worst negative trait to the opposite party: to produce irrelevant knowledge based on statistical manipulation of trivial (but easily operationalizable) variables without policy relevance (the main accusation to quantitative analysis); to look only at their own backyard, producing not generalizable/cumulative knowledge (the main accusation to Area Studies). Putting aside reciprocal acrimonies, some patterns of cooperation are possible and can be mutually fruitful.