Introduction

What methodological commitments does the New Constructivism entail? What methods can Constructivists deploy, and which ones must they eschew? The aim of this chapter is to debunk two popular myths about constructivist methods and Constructivism's methodological implications– a useful distinction introduced by Patrick Jackson: first, that Constructivism is an interpretive approach only focused on the reconstruction of intersubjective meanings; and second, that analysis of texts – speeches, strategy documents, newspaper articles, memoirs, and so on – is therefore the singular way of ‘doing’ Constructivism. Counter to this common wisdom, I make the case that, instead, as a form of classic social analysis, constructivists are much freer in terms of the methods they can and, indeed, should use to substantiate their claims than is captured by the focus on interpreting texts. I illustrate using a computational approach – MCA – which would typically be seen as ‘quantitative’ and therefore beyond the constructivist pale.

I first reflect on my own adoption of a constructivist approach, which, while unique, might read as familiar to others or prompt a useful reflexive thought process for the reader. I then further explore the concept of classic social analysis, particularly its implications for method. In short, I urge constructivists to adopt whatever methods allows them to best answer their research question, rather than assume certain methods are off-limits. I subsequently illustrate with the case of MCA – a computational method the logic of which is fully in accordance with the practice-relational sensitivity of the New Constructivism. After briefly exploring practical questions raised by adopting the approach, a short conclusion considers the potential pay-off for constructivists willing to take the risk.

Becoming a Constructivism user

Unlike sociologist Howard Becker, who famously became a marijuana user for the purposes of research, I was a constructivist from my IR ‘birth’. My doctoral supervisor was an early constructivist, Friedrich Kratochwil, so I was unlikely to become a realist or rationalist. Other constructivists likely feel similarly – either because they are on the constructivist ‘family tree’ – or because Constructivism had become by the early 2000s an attractive theoretical approach to adopt.

Being born a constructivist came with rather opaque instructions when it came to methods, however, – about how to do Constructivism. Methods training varies widely and generalizing is difficult.