Lesson Report:
## Title: From Theory to Case Studies: Building Realist vs. Constructivist Hypotheses & Setting Up Process Tracing
**Synopsis (2–3 sentences):**
This session transitioned from the shared class case (Ukraine 2022) to students’ own semester case studies. Students regrouped by “regional desk,� selected one case per group (excluding Russia–Ukraine), and operationalized **realism** and **constructivism** into **two competing hypotheses** (dependent variable + theory-based independent variables). The class ended by framing next steps as **process tracing**, where students will test which hypothesis better explains their case using evidence.
—
## Attendance
**Students noted absent:** 3
– **Mehron/Macrona** — absent
– **Ninon** — left/“goneâ€� (implied no longer attending)
– **Beknazar** — absent
(Other names were explicitly checked as present: Alvina/Albina, Azamat, Zoe, Sophie, Hermine, Elena, Mukadas, Altanay, Zamira, Imazik/Azik.)
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, Detailed)
### 1) Session Goals & Shift Away from the Ukraine 2022 Common Case
– Instructor framed the day as a deliberate pivot:
– Moving away from repeatedly applying theory to **Russia–Ukraine 2022**.
– Applying the same theory tools to **students’ own case studies** used in prior SITREPs.
– Objective emphasized: gradually building students into “expertsâ€� on their selected case by progressing from:
1) **What happened?** (descriptive SITREP work) to
2) **Why did it happen?** (explanatory/causal theorizing and evidence testing)
### 2) Regrouping Into Regional “Desks� + Reassignment Away from Russia–Ukraine
– Class reorganized into the same groups formed ~two weeks earlier, but with an adjustment:
– Students who had done Russia–Ukraine were moved off that case to avoid repetition since the class already spent significant time on it.
– Group/desk setup and seating:
– **Group 1: Eurasia & Northern Security desk**
– Previously included Russia–Ukraine and U.S.–Greenland.
– **Instruction:** focus on **U.S.–Greenland** today (Russia–Ukraine participants reoriented to Greenland).
– Seated in back corner “where Azamat is sitting.â€�
– **Group 2: Indo-Pacific / Global Influence desk**
– Cases mentioned: China–Japan, China–Taiwan, BRI.
– Seated in back corner “where Altanay are sitting.â€�
– **Group 3: Global South desk**
– Cases mentioned: Ethiopia–Sudan, Egypt war, Iran-related cases, Venezuela–U.S. regime change.
– Albina instructed to sit with her prior group.
– New/returning student check-in:
– A student (Azik/Imazik) had been absent previously; confirmed upcoming paper topic as **U.S. vs. Mexico** and was allowed to stay in the relevant group.
### 3) Group Task Step 0: Choose One Case Study (Excluding Russia–Ukraine)
– **Instruction:** Each group must select **one** case to work on today.
– **Constraint:** Russia–Ukraine is not allowed.
– **Method:** groups encouraged to decide democratically; given 1–2 minutes to settle on a case.
### 4) Framing the Analytical Skill: Moving from “What Happened� to “Why�
– Instructor summarized what students already demonstrated in SITREPs:
– Triangulating sources
– Establishing “ground truthâ€�
– Explaining events neutrally and apolitically
– Next professional step modeled: an analyst is expected to answer **why**, not just what.
– Key analytic principle:
– Complex conflicts rarely have one unimpeachable explanation.
– Analysts should compare competing explanations rather than prematurely arguing only one.
### 5) Introducing the Day’s Core Deliverable: Two Competing Hypotheses
– Students were told they would create:
1) A **realist hypothesis**
2) A **constructivist hypothesis**
– Then later they will “make them fightâ€� by assessing which is better supported by evidence (foreshadowing process tracing).
—
### 6) Operationalizing Realism: Recall and Apply the “Four Pillars�
**Instructor review prompt:** How do you distill a big theory into usable, testable components for a specific case?
#### Realism recap (simplified class operationalization)
– Overarching condition: **anarchy** (states must fend for themselves; no higher authority).
– Four operational “pillarsâ€� used as theory-derived causes/questions:
1) **Shift (or threat of shift) in the balance of power**
2) **Security dilemma**
– Defensive moves interpreted as offensive; worst-case assumptions drive escalation.
3) **Window of opportunity**
– A temporary moment where acting now is advantageous or necessary before conditions change.
4) **Geographical vulnerability**
– Feasibility/paths of attack; whether geography creates exposure or opportunity.
#### Application instructions to groups
– For the chosen case, groups should:
– Attempt to answer each pillar as a question applied to their case (as done with Russia–Ukraine).
– Identify what evidence would be relevant to support answers later.
– Time given: ~5–10 minutes to work.
—
### 7) Hypothesis Construction Mini-Lecture: Dependent vs. Independent Variables
– Instructor broke “hypothesisâ€� into two essential components:
– **Dependent variable (DV):** the outcome/event to explain (what happened).
– **Independent variables (IVs):** the causes/explanations (why it happened).
– Class example anchor:
– DV in Ukraine case: “Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.â€�
– Students then practiced stating **only** their DV for their own case (to ensure clarity before theorizing).
#### DVs stated by groups (as refined in discussion)
– **U.S.–Iran group:** DV = **heightened/precarious tensions** (relationship “so badâ€� that the U.S. is primed for potential military engagement).
– **China–Taiwan group:** DV = **increased Chinese military presence / drills / buildup around Taiwan** (observable escalation).
– **U.S.–Greenland group:** DV = **U.S. threats/desire to capture/take Greenland** (framed as “threats to take Greenlandâ€�).
—
### 8) Realist Hypothesis Drafting: DV “Because of� the Four Realist IVs
– Instructor provided a sentence template:
– “**[DV] is happening because** of [realist IVs], notably balance-of-power shift, security dilemma, window of opportunity, geographic vulnerability.â€�
– Emphasis: at this stage, they do **not** need to fully prove each element—just produce a coherent realist-form hypothesis that is testable later.
– Instructor modeling example used Greenland:
– Balance of power is not just Denmark/Greenland; it can include **Russia and China**.
– Example of relevant evidence type: Trump’s public statements about Russia/China activity near Greenland.
#### Group share-out: Realist hypotheses (with instructor feedback)
– **U.S.–Iran realist draft (initial):** referenced regional instability, Iranian protests, window of opportunity for U.S. interference.
– Instructor feedback:
– The hypothesis was drifting into case detail without clearly mapping onto the **realist pillars**.
– Reminder: keep IVs explicitly tied to the realist framework (balance of power, security dilemma, window, geography).
– Similar caution against “natural resourcesâ€� as a standalone realist explanation (resources alone don’t explain why conflict occurs without connecting to realist mechanisms).
– **China–Taiwan realist hypothesis (later share-out):**
– “China is increasing military presence around Taiwan because of a shift in balance of power, the emergence of a security dilemma, a window of opportunity for China, and Taiwan’s geographic location.â€�
– This was accepted as correctly structured (explicit realist IVs).
– **U.S.–Greenland realist hypothesis (later share-out):**
– Group largely emphasized **threat of a shift in balance of power**; other pillars were not clearly included (instructor noted it sounded like only one IV).
—
### 9) Evidence Planning: What Would Prove the Realist Hypothesis True/False?
– Instructor introduced the next analytical step: not finding sources now, but specifying **what kinds of evidence** would be required.
– Guidance:
– For each realist IV, identify the sort of information that would confirm it (e.g., speeches, strategy documents, military deployments, intelligence assessments, official statements, patterns of action).
– Example provided: repeated public claims by Trump about Russia/China shifting power in the Arctic/near Greenland could serve as evidence that U.S. leaders perceive a balance-of-power shift.
—
### 10) Constructivism: Build a Competing Explanation (Less Scaffolded)
– Instructor set up constructivism as the “competitor in the ring.â€�
– Students were instructed to:
1) Identify constructivist principles about why states conflict (from Tuesday’s material).
2) Turn those principles into **answerable questions** (i.e., operationalize).
3) Produce a **constructivist hypothesis** with the same DV but different IVs.
– Time trial: ~5 minutes, aiming to share at around :52.
#### Constructivist hypothesis share-out (plus realist restatement)
– **U.S.–Greenland constructivist hypothesis (brief):**
– Focused on U.S. desire to remain a superpower and perceptions/interpretations by others (identity/status elements).
– Instructor accepted as a working draft; realist side seemed underdeveloped beyond balance-of-power shift.
– **U.S.–Iran constructivist hypothesis:**
– Emphasized **antagonistic identities and values** shaping interests and alliances (identity-based conflict framing).
– Instructor clarified phrasing: “antagonistic identitiesâ€� was the key concept.
– **China–Taiwan constructivist hypothesis:**
– “Because of historical context, cultural similarities, and CCP ideologies.â€�
– Treated as a valid constructivist frame emphasizing identity/history/ideational drivers.
—
### 11) Methodology Preview: Process Tracing as Next Class’s Activity
– Instructor named the method students are entering: **process tracing**.
– Simplified definition given:
– Compare two hypotheses by examining evidence and causal pathways to see which explanation “holds water.â€�
– Next class plan (Thursday):
– Students will return in the same groups with their hypotheses and begin the “fightâ€� (evidence-based comparison).
—
### 12) Course Logistics: Reading and Midterm Alignment
– Instructor announced:
– A reading by **Walt** will be posted that night to support Thursday’s activity.
– Midterm guidance:
– The midterm task is essentially the same workflow:
– Develop **two competing hypotheses** for the chosen case.
– Do deeper research to specify and locate evidence.
– The two hypotheses do **not** have to be strictly realism vs. constructivism; other competing explanations are allowed, though students should try to connect them to theory where possible.
– Case change request:
– A student asked to switch from **BRI** to **South China Sea** because BRI didn’t feel like a “conflict.â€�
– Instructor approved: “If you need to switch, go do it.â€�
—
## Actionable Items (Short Bullets, Organized by Urgency)
### Urgent (Before Next Class / Thursday)
– **Post and assign Walt reading** (instructor stated it would be posted tonight).
– **Students must retain/write down**:
– Their group’s **realist hypothesis**
– Their group’s **constructivist hypothesis**
– Any preliminary notes on what evidence would test each claim
– **Groups stay consistent** (remember desks/groups) to continue hypothesis testing next session.
### Upcoming (Midterm / Near-Term Deliverables)
– Midterm will require:
– Two competing hypotheses for the student’s case
– Clear DV/IV structure
– Deeper evidence gathering and argumentation (beyond today’s “what evidence would you needâ€� stage)
– **Topic confirmation needed** for students who were previously absent and/or still finalizing their paper topic (e.g., student choosing **U.S. vs. Mexico**).
### Administrative / Follow-up
– Attendance follow-ups:
– Track continued absence of **Mehron/Macrona** and **Beknazar**.
– Confirm status of **Ninon** (student appears to have left the course).
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Reading — Stephen Walt (for Thursday)
[You will prepare for Thursday’s in-class work on comparing competing hypotheses (process tracing) by completing a reading by Stephen Walt that the instructor will post, so you can better understand how to evaluate which explanation “holds water.�]
Instructions:
1. Access the Stephen Walt reading that the instructor said he “will be posting tonight� (“there’s going to be a reading by Walt as well that I’ll be posting tonight that will help us with the stuff we’ll be doing on Thursday�).
2. Read the assigned text in full before Thursday’s class.
3. As you read, take notes on any guidance Walt provides that can help you:
1) compare two competing hypotheses, and
2) identify what kinds of evidence would support or undermine each hypothesis (the same kind of “what evidence would you need to find to prove this true or false� thinking practiced in class).
4. Bring your notes to Thursday’s class so you can apply the reading to your group’s hypothesis “showdown� (process tracing) activity.