Adam Humphreys is Associate Professor and Head of Department in the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Reading. He joined the University of Reading in 2013, having previously been a British Academy Post-Doctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford (2007–10) and Fellow in Politics at Brasenose College, Oxford (2010–13). His principal research interests are in International Relations theory and metatheory, especially causation and causal explanation, realism and neorealism, the English School, and the relationship between theory and history. He also has research interests in British foreign and defence policy, strategy, and the ethics of war.

Where do you see the most exciting research/debates happening in your field?

I think there is a lot of very exciting research going on in many different areas. In relation to causal inquiry, I am generally impressed by the ingenuity of what Hidemi Suganami and I, following Thad Dunning (2012), term ‘design-based’ approaches to causal inference – approaches which attempt to secure the internal validity of a causal inference through the research design, i.e. through an experiment or natural experiment. In Causal Inquiry in International Relations, we examine a couple of examples of this approach in some detail.

However, it is a key contention of our book that causal inquiry should be construed broadly – that many people are doing work that contributes (or could contribute) to the development of causal knowledge, even if they would not necessarily describe themselves as conducting causal inquiries. So, while looking at design-based approaches, we also show, for example, how historical work can plausibly contribute to the development of causal knowledge, whether this work is presented as ‘process-tracing’ or as ‘history’. Speaking personally, I have been delighted to observe the recent resurgence of ‘Historical International Relations’ and also the continued efforts to excavate the history of ‘International Relations’ as a discipline, including its racist and imperialist undercurrents.

That said, one of the frustrations expressed in our book is that causal inquiry is often conceived rather narrowly, contributing to the impression of a ‘divided discipline’. For example, it is a striking feature of historical work in IR at present that it largely avoids causal language. Meanwhile, the ‘causal inference’ literature frequently dismisses the value of historical work, failing to recognize how a ‘single case study’ could generate causal knowledge. It is important to note, of course, that historical work can have many aims and that showing how and why a particular outcome occurred is only one of them. It is also important to recognize that generating causal knowledge is only one aim of research in IR, though an important one. I am convinced, however, that we would be collectively better off if we could recognize the breadth of ways in which causal knowledge can be generated and the potential of so much different work to contribute to this endeavour.

How has the way you understand the world changed over time, and what (or who) prompted the most significant shifts in your thinking?

My early work was very much focused on ‘theory’ and on ‘theories’ of IR. The puzzle which motivated me was the question of what ‘theory’ in IR is and what it is supposed to do for us. In short, what kind of knowledge are we seeking to generate in IR and how is this most persuasively done?

A key way in which my work has evolved over time is that I have moved away from approaching this question via engagement with ‘grand theories’ in IR. In this respect, my own work has probably moved in lock step with the discipline at large where, as I see it, the focus is more on mid-range theories and the application of particular methods and approaches than on the grand theories which were still in vogue when I first studied international relations.

A key discovery, for me, was that work on causation and causal inquiry in IR offered, as it seemed to me, a much more fruitful avenue through which to pursue the epistemological questions I had always been interested in than work on ‘theory’. I was particularly influenced by Hidemi Suganami’s On the Causes of War (1996), not just for its content but also for the careful and thoughtful way in which he sought to navigate the tricky conceptual issues this topic raises. I was also strongly influenced by Milja Kurki’s Causation in International Relations (2008) and Patrick Jackson’s The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations (2011) where of course, the title of our book nods to both of these, but for me, the key thing was discovering, in Hidemi, someone who was already thinking about things in the way I wanted to.

How would you describe “causal claims” or “causation” in International Relations?

Crudely, my key thought here is that it is probably more helpful to focus on ‘causal claims’ than on ‘causation’. Debates about ‘causation’ tend to be........

© E-International