Explain which International Relations theory is best suited to conducting strategic insight? Introduction

In this paper, I will give a brief overview about Strategic Intelligence and in the process define the key terms so that there is no ambiguity about the topic being examined. I will define the concepts of strategy, insight and strategic intelligence before moving on to analyze the need for an international relations theory for conducting strategic insight.
The paper will then explain constructivism and why it is the most appropriate theory for carrying out strategic insight.

Strategy

The concept of strategy has been around for as long as there have been organizations and wars. Strategy is a method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem. 1Strategy is also about achieving and sustaining a position of lead over rivals through the successive capitalization of known or developing possibilities rather than restricting to any specific fixed plan designed at the onset. It can be said that strategy becomes a central plan through which an organization can affirm its essential continuity while at the same time purposefully handling its adjustment to the changing environment to gain competitive superiority. Strategy can also be viewed as a response to external opportunities and threats and to internal strengths and weaknesses; a means of achieving a long range competitive advantage, and a favorable competitive position and adapting to meet the demands of a changing environment.

Insight

A thought, fact, combination of facts, data and/or analysis of data that induces meaning and furthers understanding of a situation or issue that has the potential of benefiting the organization/state or re-directing the thinking about that situation or issue which then in turn has the potential of benefiting the organization/state.2 An insight can also be defined as a person’s understanding of “the actual nature of a thing” and/or its connection to some contextual factor.

1

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/strategy.html

2

http://blog.walkerinfo.com/blog/customer-feedback-analysis/extracting-business-insights-what-is-an-insight

The discovery and use of insights is fundamental to strategy. The process of thinking strategically is intentional in that the strategist aims to create advantage in the future.

What is Strategic Intelligence(SI) ?

Strategic Insight deals with empirical realities of threats and opportunities for an organization. Though the subject matter of Strategic Insight are shared with some sub-fields and directions within the academic study of IR, the former doesn't share a strong emphasis on theory, which is a characteristic of the latter. The concept of SI is more appropriately explained as related to data, methods, experience and experiments than by the social sciences. Access to data and historical accounts seem to be more important the theory. A theory that provides a framework for analysis of complex and seemingly unrelated data, which helps clarifying patterns of change and continuity, and of similarity and difference across cases can be extremely useful. It should be noted that not all IR theories are equally valuable for
Strategic Insight.

The political situation and business environment isn't similar everywhere but that certain types of events are more likely to unfold under particular conditions, which can be discovered through structured and theoretically focused comparative analysis. While intelligence studies in general is in need of theory, the need is particularly great in strategic intelligence. Those few works on intelligence studies which deal explicitly with theory are focused on the
“tactical” level(e.g. Johnson, 20033). Arguably, strategic and tactical intelligence cannot conform to the same modus cogitandi or to the same analytical guidelines.

A theory can be a tool to answer many of the larger questions related to certain objects that a part of the business environment for an organization. What is it? Why does it exist? Why do organizations retain it? Also, to generalize and find causation, we need theory. It can be said that an international relations theory can be highly beneficial and result oriented when conducting SI. If current challenges faced by multinational organizations have more to do with complex interdependencies, globalization, culture and identity, then an interntional relations theory like realism is not the most useful analytical perspective. The IR theory chosen should offer reduction and prediction, but above that explanations – insight into why things behave the way they do. The few works on intelligence studies which deal explicitly with theory are focused on the “tactical” level (e.g. Johnson, 2003). Arguably, strategic and tactical intelligence cannot conform to the same modus cogitandi or to the same analytical guidelines. Moreover, I believe constructivism, as one of the contemporary leading IR schools of thought, is particularly suited for elaborating strategic intelligence. IR constructivism is helpful because, inter alia, it focuses on the immaterial factors which arguably constitute the core of the widened strategic approach. Contrary to what some critics hold, I consider constructivism to be helpful also for strategy formulation and policy recommendations.

A theory with a skeptical view of the world wouldn't be appropriate for conducting strategic insight as a self centered approach with a pessimistic view in a globalized world cannot help an organization in achieving what it intends to through strategic insight. Such a theory would present a one sided view of the threat, situation and opportunities for an organization. The above mentioned approach cannot further an organizations objective as it generally rules out cooperation with entities and people around it which is crucial for sustaining a business as well as for it's prosperity.

3

Bricks and Mortar for a Theory of Intelligence

The theory adopted will decide the approach used for carrying out SI and approach will decide the factors taken into consideration, the importance given to each factor in the process, how threats and opportunities are perceived by the people carrying out the process of SI and ultimately the theory chosen will decide the result of conducting SI. No two theories will show similar results and a theory that is able to adapt to the environment in which an organization operates will prove to be way more beneficial than the theory that fails to do so. In the next section, I will discuss the concept of Constructivism before moving on to analyze it's suitability for Strategic Insight.overarching trends that can be construed by taking into consideration a wide range of target activities.
It is best considered as applied research into a particular phenomenon so that, in due course, the knowledge gained will help focus ongoing operations and provide the basis for policy and legislative review.

Why an international relations theory can be a useful tool in carrying out SI ?

Strategic Insight deals with empirical realities of threats and opportunities for an organization. Though the subject matter of Strategic Insight are shared with some sub-fields and directions within the academic study of IR, the former doesn't share a strong emphasis on theory, which is a characteristic of the latter. The concept of SI is more appropriately explained as related to data, methods, experience and experiments than by the social sciences. Access to data and historical accounts seem to be more important the theory. A theory that provides a framework for analysis of complex and seemingly unrelated data, which helps clarifying patterns of change and continuity, and of similarity and difference across cases can be extremely useful. It should be noted that not all IR theories are equally valuable for
Strategic Insight.

The political situation and business environment isn't similar everywhere but that certain types of events are more likely to unfold under particular conditions, which can be discovered through structured and theoretically focused comparative analysis. While intelligence studies in general is in need of theory, the need is particularly great in strategic intelligence. Those few works on intelligence studies which deal explicitly with theory are focused on the
“tactical” level(e.g. Johnson, 2003). Arguably, strategic and tactical intelligence cannot conform to the same modus cogitandi or to the same analytical guidelines.

A theory can be a tool to answer many of the larger questions related to certain objects that a part of the business environment for an organization. What is it? Why does it exist? Why do organizations retain it? Also, to generalize and find causation, we need theory. It can be said that an international relations theory can be highly beneficial and result oriented when conducting SI. If current challenges faced by multinational organizations have more to do with complex inter-dependencies, globalization, culture and identity, then an international relations theory like realism is not the most useful analytical perspective. The IR theory chosen should offer reduction and prediction, but above that explanations – insight into why things behave the way they do. The few works on intelligence studies which deal explicitly with theory are focused on the “tactical” level (e.g. Johnson, 2003). Arguably, strategic and tactical intelligence cannot conform to the same modus cogitandi or to the same analytical guidelines. Moreover, I believe constructivism, as one of the contemporary leading IR schools of thought, is particularly suited for elaborating strategic intelligence. IR constructivism is helpful because, inter alia, it focuses on the immaterial factors which arguably constitute the core of the widened strategic approach. Contrary to what some critics hold, I consider constructivism to be helpful also for strategy formulation and policy recommendations.

A theory with a skeptical view of the world wouldn't be appropriate for conducting strategic insight as a self centered approach with a pessimistic view in a globalized world cannot help an organization in achieving what it intends to through strategic insight. Such a theory would present a one sided view of the threat, situation and opportunities for an organization. The above mentioned approach cannot further an organizations objective as it generally rules out cooperation with entities and people around it which is crucial for sustaining a business as well as for it's prosperity.
The theory adopted will decide the approach used for carrying out SI and approach will decide the factors taken into consideration, the importance given to each factor in the process, how threats and opportunities are perceived by the people carrying out the process of SI and ultimately the theory chosen will decide the result of conducting SI. No two theories will show similar results and a theory that is able to adapt to the environment in which an organization operates will prove to be way more beneficial than the theory that fails to do so. In the next section, I will discuss the concept of Constructivism before moving on to analyze it's suitability for Strategic Insight.

Constructivism: The Concept

In the field of international relations, constructivism is the claim that important aspects of international relations are historically and socially constructed, rather than unavoidable results of human nature or other critical characteristics of world politics.

Constructivism basically looks to show how core aspects of international relations are, in opposition to the assumptions of Neorealism and Neoliberalism, socially built, that is, they are given their structure by progressing procedures of social practice and communication.

According to Alexander Wendt, two increasingly acknowledged fundamental precepts of Constructivism"that the structures of human affiliation are resolved fundamentally by shared thoughts as opposed tomaterial strengths, and that the characters and hobbies of purposive performers are developed by these common thoughts instead of given by nature".4 The angle from which an entity is seen, the values of the researcher that shape the questions he or she asks about it, and what the researcher considers important are all factors in the construction of knowledge about the phenomenon in question(Kincheloe, 2000, 342). To claim that knowledge is constructed, rather than discovered, indicates that it is neither separate from human knowing nor value free. Indeed, constructivists believe that what isconsidered knowledge is always informed by a specific perspective and shaped by several implicit value judgments.5

4

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805214/65571/excerpt/9780521465571_excerpt.pdf

5

http://www.uwec.edu/COEHS/upload/Hollon-Article.pdf

Why Constructivism is apt for conducting Strategic Intelligence?

The most significant downside with strategic intelligence is that it can be “bent” by leaders to put forward an fallacious image of the truth to influence support. If then developments show those leaders to be wrong, the consequent loss of trust is due to the “Tet effect”. The only assurance to such happenings is to let the kind of peerreview that is normal in scholarly research which is then made available to institutional watchdogs. When it comes to the rational aspect of strategic intelligence, constructivist IR theories should included in the criteria on which intelligence analysis should be gauged and its quality assessed. These theories would complete rationalist theories
(such as realism), exactly in the same way that is suggested to carry out robust, empirical research in IR (Fearon and
Wendt, 2002)6. The psychological dimension of main players in decision-making is the subject of cognitive theories of IR, which are a small, but important section of the discipline. Who are the people we are trying to influence and/or attract? What do they believe in? What are their values and beliefs? As Kenneth Boulding (1950) and other authors
(e.g. Irving, 1982; and George, 1969) have amply showed, misperceptions, images of the other and reputation are key factors that shape how decision-makers (and the organizations they are in) see the world and act accordingly.7 If damages occur in the realm of “images” (of self as well as of others), they take decades to be repaired. What other sphere of organizational activity may need strategic assessment than this one? A detailed discussion of cognitive theories of IR is beyond the scope of this paper. It is nevertheless important to highlight here the essential part that the psychology of different players in different settings plays in strategic intelligence.

A basic issue in strategic intelligence is theidentification of threats, weaknesses and opportunities– their nature, the circumstancesunder which they occur and likely consequences. Itis evident that this demands more than the mere collection of data. The challenge is evaluating data, and more often than not evaluation even when data is missing or confusing. Indeed, an inevitable part of strategic Insight is the understanding of something or somebody as a threat.
This step, going from the examination of certain situations and then determining these as threatening to some core values, is often undervalued, and assumed rather than problematized.

Communication should be deemed as a integral part of Strategic Insight, and not as a passive gathering and analysis of data. Communication does not just happen between analysts and their prompt "customers" or co-workers, additionally associates, enemies, the media, and the general public. Thus the basic point is that, whether successful or not, Strategic Insight includes of communication, potentially influencing not only the knowledge base of decision making, but also the worldviews and ultimately the actions of friends, foes, and any other audience. Communication with actors beyond the immediate clients is particularly vital for strategic insight, since this tends be closer to policymaking than tactical and operational intelligence, both in style and substance.

There is still an inclination in Strategic Insight, to minimize the role of the interpreter, the influx of values, interests and outlooks which direct analysis in one direction rather than another.
6

http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Fearon%2Band%2BWendt%252C%2BChapter%2B3.pdf

7

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/prsreveco/reco_5f0035-2764_5f1951_5fnum_5f2_5f4_5f406852_5ft1_5f0501_5f0000_5f000.htm

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM5427.html http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm Accentuating this elucidative aspect and appreciating that different analysts recognize and value conditions and happenings in different ways even working on the same data is a truly constructivist conclusion, but downplayed or simply ignored inrationalistic accounts. This constructivist view is specifically appropriate for understanding the broadened strategic insight.

Why is constructivist approach helpful in carrying out strategic insight?

Constructivism accentuates and helps in understanding the ideas andidentities which shape interests and conduct
(Wendt, 1999)8. The basic argument is that it is not so much material conditions, say poverty, whichmake people act in one way rather than another. Behavior is shaped more by howpeople perceive the world and what should be done about it (ideas),and particularly by how they perceive their own role in this world(identity). Thus it will not be enough to collect hard facts on material conditions.Such data is still pertinent, but more importantly how different actors comprehend it, and how and under what circumstances one idea is effective in stimulating support. Importantly, constructivism argues that as contradictory to a conventional rationalistic approach, ideas andidentities cannot be undervalued, but should instead become theCenter of evaluation: how do they come about, how do they change, andhow do they shape interests and action? This accentuation on ideas and identities is not simply of academic interest, but also has clear implications for the application. Specifically, a constructivist methodology concentrates not just on the identification of threats and opportunities, but also highlights outcomes of a new strategic insight. If anything, this increases the awareness of the political,cultural and business environment in which the organization operates, its identity, as well as the consequences of accentuating and downplaying specific images of threats.

Conclusion

In my research paper I have put forward an argument for Constructivism a being a suitable theory for carrying out strategic insight. The paper also argued the need for a theory to carry out this task and in the process I defined and described the key terms i.e Strategy, Insight, Strategic Intelligence and Constructivism. The discussion of the key terms was crucial as these concepts are an integral part of the research paper and these terms took forward the argument. From the above analysis, it can be said that Constructivism is the most suitable theory for conducting
Strategic Insight.

8

http://www.guillaumenicaise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Wendt-Social-Theory-of-International-Politics.pdf

s