Description
This paper contributes to the conference’s general theme of the future of international studies by responding to a particular question: “to what extent is process tracing a useful approach in the Copenhagen School’s framework of analysing security?” The paper claims the following three points. First, the deliberate choice and articulation of the method employed is crucial in conducting international relations research, as illustrated in the study of (de)securitization. Second, in keeping up with the persistent pursuit of engaging in cutting-edge international studies, process tracing offers an alternative method in securitization and its potential is yet to be fully explored. (Interpretivist) Process tracing reinforces the empirical significance of the new framework of analysis as this method aims to explain securitization through causal mechanisms in a manner that is consistent with the Copenhagen School’s commitment to a post-positivist meta-theory. Consequently, and third, as new techniques are further developed in applying IR theories, particular methods’ pitfalls, in this case, process tracing’s, have to be brought to the fore. Researchers then have to decide on the trade-off or on utilizing a combination of methods. These arguments are assessed using recent empirical literature involving interpretivist process tracing in understanding (de)securitization and this researcher’s on-going project on the Philippine foreign policy response toward the South China Sea disputes.
