ABSTRACT
The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate the research design used in this study. The main task in this respect is the operationalisation of the concepts discussed in chapter 2 and the establishment of measurement validity. Discussion of this issue, based on the work of Adcock and Collier (2001), will set the broader context. The next step is to engage with the ways in which methodology has been addressed by successive generations of English School scholars. The underlying paradox here is that the English School has been critiqued for neglecting methodology (Finnemore 2001: 509; Spegele 2005: 91), while some of its central early and later figures explicitly wrote on this topic (Bull 1966; Jackson 2000; Little 2000 and 2007; Navari 2009). It will be argued that varying conceptions of positivism in large part explain this paradox, and that the discussion about methodology is actually a discussion about the purpose of theory. The discussion will then turn to the location of structural theory on the English School’s theoretical canvas. Taking Buzan’s thoughts on the topic as my point of departure, I will argue that English School structural theory is essentially typological theory, as defined by George and Bennett (2005). This move accomplishes three things. First, it allows us to gauge the broader scope of the English School structural theory research programme and define the paths which will lead to theory development. Second, it provides a bridge between what Buzan sees as contending American and European views on the meaning of theory in IR, and more generally, political science. Third, it paves the way for a new form of English School methodological pluralism, where theory development, or questions, determines methods, not the other way around.
