Describing also means representing and interpreting, and each of these terms can be confused with the other two. It is appropriate therefore to distinguish between these three phases of research as meticulously as possible, while ascribing no more than a didactic value to their sequencing. Words (description , representation , interpretation ) indeed mask different research methods which, while complementary, each raise specific questions and issues.
Description as a Phase of Research
In evaluatio ns of research work by professors, description often has a pejorative connotation. In a Masterâs or doctoral thesis, description for its own sake, qualified as âautotelicâ in scholarly terms (from the Greek autos, oneself, and telos, goal), teaches us nothing. A poem is referred to as autotelic to show that it (or any other artistic object) is only beautiful in itself, without any exterior references. But when applied to the social world (which international relations are part of), description must strive to instruct and give an account of reality. This is known as âanalyticalâ description.
A Rich Tradition
There is a rich literary tradition around analytical description, well-illustrated by numerous nineteenth-century novelists, in particular Balzac (1799â1850), Flaubert (1821â1880) and Zola (1840â1902).1 A wordy description (Balzac) gives a sense of reality, a restrained description (Flaubert) captures the main features of a situation or character, and a socially conscious description (Zola) makes a stirring plea for humanity.2 In any case, description strives to apprehend reality as living matter.
This descriptive imperative can be found in a great deal of work in the social sciences from sociology to ethnologyâdesignated as âsociographyâ and âethnography â (from the Greek âgraphy,â writing) in the descriptive and analytical aspects of their field studiesâas well as in geography and the Ăcole des Annales en histoire (Annales School).3 Christian Delacroix, François Dosse and Patrick Garcia mention Michel Vovelle recalling Fernand Braudelâs comments about certain applicants for the agrĂ©gation degree, criticizing them âwith a touch of disdain for their reports not smelling enough like manure, just as Lucien Febvre had found fault with Marc Blochâs La SociĂ©tĂ© fĂ©odale, saying that it didnât smell enough like dirt.â4
From the early twentieth century, the Chicago School of sociology (George Herbert Mead, William Isaac Thomas, Robert Park and their successors, Herbert Blumer, Everett C. Hughes, Anselm Strauss, Erving Goffman and Howard S. Becker5) laid claim to this descriptive work as a specificity of its empirical approach. Observations, data gathering and collecting âhuman documentsâ (firsthand accounts) would allow them to study human behavior and the resulting social order in an objective manner.6 It is a perspective similar to that of a naturalist, âin other words one who collects information about the behavior of the subjects heâs studying as systematically as possible, and by whatever means possible as long as the information is not altered through subjectivity.â7
Description as Analysis
This is where the problems start. As Howard S. Becker has written: âThe appropriate ratio of description to interpretation is a real problem every describer of the social world has to solve or come to terms with.â8 Indeed, you often see what you already know and are looking for. It is precisely this tropism that one must do everything to break with, in order to move closer to the most descriptive and least interpretive description possible. To be sure, there can be no description without prior knowledgeâno âpurely descriptive descriptionâ9âbut conversely there can be no knowledge attained or unforeseen discoveries made without a thorough description to reveal details that appear to be unimportant or have not been fully appreciated.
As an exercise, description is therefore fruitful but difficult to carry out. First, it implies an appropriate level of analysis (empirical position). The research should not lend itself to a hypothetical subject that is too general. âInternational Relations in the Middle East,â âEurope in the World,â âChina in Africa,â âInternational Terrorismâ and so on, are false leads that could result in impressionistic descriptions. Describing involves first of all deconstructing a research theme into a series of empirically identifiable objects. Description thus leads quite naturally to case studies (definition/selection, number/comparison10). Here, we shall keep in mind only that a âcaseâ is a social fact (activity, conduct) that raises questions, contains an enigma or indicates a paradox, and belongs to a more general category of phenomena (such that a case study must always teach us more that the case itself).11 Secondly, description requires as far as possible a suspension of judgment (axiological neutrality). In other words , it involves delaying interpretation for as long as one can. There are two pitfalls to avoid: observing preliminary experiences too admiringly (which perpetuates prejudices)12 and prematurely imposing already established scholarly knowledge (fixing description).13
As we have said, this is not an easy task. But a wealth of details and thorough description may lead to new ideas, to developing new categories for analysis, and to new or expanded concepts. âMassive descriptionâ14 can be truly subversive in identifying what is not spoken of, what the actors disregard, deliberately or not, what conventional thinking deems secondary or of no importance; in short, results that one was not expecting by producing unexpected data.15 Karl Weick gives some advice for not becoming judgmental and for sustaining the work of description the best one can: avoid using the verb âto beâ in descriptions,16 which generally consists in âturning people into activities,â in other words thinking in practical terms.17
It is time we recognized that description cannot describe everything (methodological limits). Not everything can be seen (onstage vs. in the wings), what one observes is often unclear (confusion of roles; ambiguity in a personâs behavior, statements or decisions), and at times it is simply impossible to explain everything in detail. In this respect, an excess of details is not always advisable. It might drown a description in a compilation or catalogue that takes one farther from the reality one is trying to grasp (an artistic method in paintingâpointillismâor in literatureâthe nouveau romanâthat strives to find a different way of representing or talking about things but becomes a stylistic exercise in itself, which isnât the purpose of social science research). Between excessive reduction and wordy description, one must be mindful of the âaccordion effectâ in descriptive work: âdescription can be stretched out or shrunk, inflated or deflated [âŠ] and that inflation and deflation may have an impact on meanings.â18
Description as Practice
Analyzing through description involves a case study and corresponding research. Selecting the case or cases raises specific problems related to the question of the enigma being solved, or at the very least to the question of how an intriguing phenomenon is interpreted or explained.
As for the research, it requires a number of tools that will be discussed further in this book (in particular interviews , collecting data, analyzing texts and images , and using quantitative methods ). The book will be limited to some indications regarding âparticipant observation â and forms of tracking directly associated with descriptive work in real-life situations. There are many applications in international relations, from analyzing a negotiation or decision-making process to following up on a conference of the parties (COP), for instance.
First, as regards participant observation , there is its originality: one may observe without participating and participate without observing. Participant observation therefore introduces a combined practice in researching: observing while participating directly in the social reality one is studying. The term is thought to have been used for the first time by Joseph D. Lohman in 1937.19 The technique implies the researcherâs immersion in a social milieu which he is involved in just as the other members of the group or institution. This innovation is associated with the Chicago School, even though one of the fir...