Neoclassical realism: a metatheoretical critique

• Název práce v češtině: Metateoretická kritika neoklasického realismu
• Název v anglickém jazyce: Neoclassical realism: a metatheoretical critique
• Klíčová slova: Neoklasický realismus; strukturální realismus; klasický realismus; teorie mezinárodních vztahů; mateteoretická kritika
• Klíčová slova anglicky: Neoclassical realism; structural realism; classical realism; IR theory; metatheoretical critique
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2020/2021
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra bezpečnostních studií (23-KBS)
• Vedoucí / školitel: prof. PhDr. RNDr. Nikola Hynek, Ph.D., M.A.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 02.06.2021
• Datum zadání: 02.06.2021
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 21.09.2022 10:00
• Místo konání obhajoby: Pekařská 16, JPEK312, 312, Malá učebna, 3.patro
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 30.07.2022
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 21.09.2022
• Oponenti: Mgr. Angelika Suchanová, Ph.D.

Zásady pro vypracování

Planned thesis outline
▪ Introduction
▪ Literature review
▪ Concepts used
▪ Data and methods used
▪ Empirical sections, corresponding to the specifying questions
i. empirical sub-section 1
ii. empirical sub-section 2
iii. empirical sub-section 3
iv. empirical sub-section 4
▪ Conclusions

Seznam odborné literatury

References
Ashley, R. K. (1984). The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization, 38(2), pp. 225-286. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706440.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Dessler, D. (1989). What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate? International Organization, 43(3), pp. 441-473. 10.1017/S0020818300032999.
Donnely, J. (2018). ‘What Do We Mean by Realism? And How – And What – Does Realism Explain?’, in Belloni, R., Salla V. D. and Viotti P. (eds.) Fear and Uncertainty in Europe: The Return to Realism? Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13-33.
Dueck, C. (2006). Reluctant Crusaders: power, culture, and change in American grand strategy. Princeton University Press.
Elman, C. (1996). Horses for courses: Why not neorealist theories of foreign policy? Security Studies, 6(1), pp. 7-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636419608429297.
Elman, C. and Elman, M. F. (eds.) Progress in International Relations Theory. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
Fordham, B. O. (2009). ‘The limits of neoclassical realism: additive and interactive approaches to explaining foreign policy preferences,’ in Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M. and Taliaferro J. W. (eds.) Neoclassical Realism, he State, and Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 251-279.
Freyberg-Inan, A., Harrison, E. and James, P. (eds.) (2009) Rethinking Realism in International Relations: Between Tradition and Innovation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Friedberg, A. L. (1988). The Weary Titan: Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline 1895-1905. Princeton University Press.
Gilpin, R. G. (1984). The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism. International Organization, 38(2), pp. 287-304. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706441.
Gilpin, R. G. (2008). ‘No One Loves a Political Realist,’ in Baldwin D. A. (ed.) Theories of International Relations. Routledge, pp. 3-26.
Glaser, C. L. (1997). The Security Dilemma Revisited. World Politics, 50(1), pp. 171-201. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25054031.
Glaser, C. L. (2003). ‘The necessary and natural evolution of structural realism,’ in Vasquez, J.A. and Elman, C. (eds.) Realism and the Balancing of Power: A New Debate. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall), pp. 266-279.
Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), pp. 485-507. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706787.
Gourevitch, P. (1978). The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics. International Organization, 32(4), pp. 881-912. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706180.
Guzzini, S. (2004). The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), pp. 533-568. doi: 10.1177/1354066104047848.
Jackson, P. T. (2010). The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. London: Routledge.
James, P. (2002). International Relations & Scientific Progress: Structural Realism Reconsidered. Ohio State University.
Juneau, T. (2015). Squandered Opportunity: Neoclassical Realism and Iranian Foreign Policy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Keohane, R. K. (ed.) (1986) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kitchen, N. (2010). Systemic pressures and domestic ideas: a neoclassical realist model of grand strategy formation. Review of International Studies, 36(1), pp. 117-143. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40588107.
Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.) (1970) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lamont, C. (2015). Research Methods in International Relations. London: SAGE.
Layne, C. (2007). The Peace Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Legro, J. W. and Moravcsik, A. (1999). Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security, 24(2), pp. 5-55. doi: 10.1162/016228899560130.
Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M. and Taliaferro J. W. (eds.) Neoclassical Realism, he State, and Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meibauer, G. et al. (2020). Forum: Rethinking Neoclassical Realism At Theory’s End. International Studies Review. doi: 10.1093/isr/viaa018.
Narizny, K. (2017). On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism. International Security, 42(2), pp. 155-190. doi: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00296.
Quinn, A. (2013). Kenneth Waltz, Adam Smith and the Limits of Science: Hard choices for neoclassical realism. International Politics 50, 159-182. doi:10.1057/ip.2013.5.
Rathbun, B. (2008). A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism. Security Studies, 17(2), pp. 294-321. doi: 10.1080/09636410802098917.
Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W. and Lobell, S. E. (2016). Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rose, G. (1998). Review: Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1), pp. 144-172. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25054068.
Rynning, S. (2009). Review of Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W. (eds.) Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24339.
Schweller, R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In. International Security, 19(1), pp. 72-107. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539149.
Schweller, R. L. (2003). ‘The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism,’ in Elman, C. and Elman, M. F. (eds.) Progress in International Relations Theory. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 311-348.
Schweller, R. L. (2004). Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing. International Security, 29(2), pp. 159-201.
Sears, N. A. (2017). The neoclassical realist research program: Between progressive promise and degenerative dangers. International Politics Reviews. doi: 10.1057/s41312-017-0020-x.
Smith, K. (2018). Recollecting a lost dialogue: Structural Realism meets neoclassical realism. International Relations, 00(0), pp. 1-20. doi: 10.1177/0047117819834636.
Snyder, J. (1991). Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Sterling-Folker J. (2009). ‘Forward Is as Forward Does: Assessing Neoclassical Realism from a Traditions Perspective,’ in Freyberg-Inan, A., Harrison, E. and James, P. (eds.) Rethinking Realism in International Relations: Between Tradition and Innovation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 191-218.
Taliaferro, J. W. (2006). State Building for Future Wars: Neoclassical Realism and the Resource-Extractive State. Security Studies, 15(3), pp. 464-495. doi: 10.1080/09636410601028370.
Vasquez, J. A. (1997). The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition. The American Political Science Review, 91(4), 899-912. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952172.
Walker, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations As Political Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walt, S. E. (2002). ‘The Enduring Relevance of Realist Tradition,’ in Katznelson, I. and Milner, H. V. (eds.) Political Science: State of the Discipline. New York: W. W. Norton, 197-234.
Waltz, K. A. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Waltz, K. A. (1996). International Politics Is Not Foreign Policy. Security Studies, 6(1), pp. 54-57.
Zakaria, F. (1998). From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Zakaria, F. (1992). Realism and Domestic Politics: A Review Essay. International Security, 17(1), pp. 177-198. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539162.

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

Introduction to the topic
After a period of soul searching, which the field of international relations (IR) and security studies underwent after the abrupt end of the Cold War caught the dominant theoretical approaches off guard, neoclassical realism emerged in the late 1990s as a promising new school, offering to rekindle political realism as a viable theoretical tool by making it more responsive to the complexities of the post-Cold War order. This was to be done by the seemingly simple, but theoretically ambiguous, formula of combining structural realism with insights form classical realism, especially with regards to moving beyond purely third-image explanations that were no longer seen as sufficient. Oddly enough, there was no singular founding moment of neoclassical realism, save for Gideon Rose’s 1998 review article, in which the specifics of the school were laid out in the broadest contours possible. Despite that, since then, the world of IR has seen an outgrowth of self-proclaimed neoclassical realist literature, contributing to a considerable and growing body of neoclassical realist research. As such, neoclassical realist authors have effectively addressed numerous puzzles in the field – from Schweller’s (2004) work on underbalancing to Zakaria’s (1998) work on imperial understretch – thus enriching the general understanding international affairs. And still today, neoclassical realist research still produces highly informative studies, as evident in, for example, Juneau’s 2015 work on Iranian foreign policy.
In other words, it is undeniable that research under the banner of neoclassical realism has left its mark on the field of IR. This is, however, rather surprising given that there is, at the same time, a glaring lack of consensus when it comes to what neoclassical realism actually is. In fact, there is no agreement on whether it is a broad research programme (Ripsman, Taliaferro and Lobell 2016), an analytical model (Donelly 2018) or a theoretically-informed toolbox (Smith 2018). Similar unresolved remain questions about neoclassical realism’s boundaries (Narizny 2017; Sterling-Folker 2009), explanatory scope (Ripsman 2009), internal logic (Fordham 2009) or its very key assumptions (Narizny 2017). That these are all pertinent issues is evident from the academic attention they continue to draw: the latest organized effort at tackling them was the 2020 Forum: Rethinking Neoclassical Realism At Theory’s End which merely acknowledged the “diverse” and “fluid” nature of the school (Meibauer 2020, 10, p. 23). Thus, as of 2021, while from the theoretical perspective neoclassical realism remains as elusive as ever, its explanatory department, unburdened by questions about the theory’s viability, happily grinds on.
This schizophrenic state of affairs sits at the heart of the motivation behind this thesis proposal: how can it be that a theory so arcane has yielded such an impressive amount of high-quality academic research? Arguably, such situation is not new to realism: neither classical nor structural realism are unified, homogeneous research programs (see Guzzini 1998). Yet while much has been written on the two from the metatheoretical perspective, a solid and overarching metatheoretical account of neoclassical realism is still wanting; the thesis here proposed aims at achieving exactly that.

Research target, research question
Thus, the primary research target of the proposed thesis is addressing the following research question:
▪ What is neoclassical realism?
The question, although seemingly simple, is nevertheless excessively broad in its scope and vague in framing. Therefore, to be able to come up with a satisfactory answer, one that is both comprehensive but focused, the thesis will establish a number of specifying questions that will help guide the research:
▪ To what extent can neoclassical realism be considered a research program?
▪ What are the theoretical and methodological boundaries of neoclassical realism?
▪ Is neoclassical realism about explaining empirical reality or theory building?
▪ How can neoclassical realism explain foreign policy and/or international outcomes?

Literature review
Roses’s 1998 article Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy is usually taken as the seminal neoclassical realist text. In the article, Rose reviews five texts that he takes as having in common the conviction to reinvigorate the school of (neo)realism by synthesizing the parsimony and rigor of structural realism with insights from the classical one. Based on that, he postulates that this new generation of realists, whom he dubs neoclassical, will improve upon inadequate realist explanations by making two moves (Narizny 2017). First, by assuming that international stimuli are not automatically translated into state actions – but rather processed through a number of variables at the unit level – a neoclassical realist account will be able to explain such international occurrences that seemingly fall short of neorealist expectations (Rose 1998; see also Schweller 2002, p. 347). In other words, it will trade parsimony for greater explanatory power by broadening the scope of its independent variable from purely structural ones to include ones located at lower levels of analysis (Ripsman, Taliaferro and Lobell 2016, 29). This move has since the article’s publication characterized the majority of so-called neoclassical realist works.
Second, as Narizny (2017, p. 169) points out in On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics, Rose also signals that neoclassical realism will shed more light on the possibility of changing state interests, claiming that the “central empirical prediction of neoclassical realism” is that “as their relative power rises states will seek more influence abroad, and as it falls their actions and ambitions will be scaled back accordingly” (Rose 1998, p. 152). Thus, Rose breaks with mainstream (Waltzian) structural realism by suggesting that states might seek more than mere security. However, as Narizny (2017, p. 169) continues, Rose make the suggestion only in passing, without further specification. What is more, the idea has since then been repeated in neoclassical realist research but never properly developed (Narizny 2017, p. 169). This lack of interest in exploring state motives, as Rynning (2009) makes clear, has been one of neoclassical realism’s founding flaws, forcing it to draw excessively on structural realism and hindering theoretical progress.
That being said, this flaw – although significant – is far from being the only thing wrong with neoclassical realism. In fact, even in its mainstream form, the school is beset by various problems, ranging from charges of ad hocism (Walt 2002) or not being realist (Legro and Moravcsik 1999) to questions pertaining to its assumptions, internal logic and overall coherence (Fordham 2009; Sears 2017; Smith 2019). In fact, it is not uncommon to spot theoreticians wondering what exactly is neoclassical realism (Sterling-Folker 2009). For a school that some claim to be the “most powerful and versatile approach to international relations” (Ripsman, Taliaferro and Lobell 2016, 98) this seems odd to say the least.
How is it, then, possible that after more than two decades and a record of valuable research contributions, neoclassical realism is still trying to find itself: the latest attempt at solving this ‘puzzle’ reached the conclusion that it is an “analytical umbrella” (Meibauer 2020). Arguably, this persistent conceptual haze has to do with the way Rose officially ‘launched’ the program, allowing researchers to use neoclassical realism almost as they please. That, however, does not mean that analytical umbrella is a satisfactory answer, and – as explained above – greater clarification and understanding might be desirable. To that end, the proposed thesis will go before and beyond Rose’s article, consulting at least five categories of sources.
First, these will include works, both theoretical and practically-oriented, that predate Rose’s 1998 article and, thus, do not use the term neoclassical, yet are still significant for the program’s development. One such is Aaron Friedberg’s 1988 The Weary Titan, which deals with Great Britain’s response to relative decline at the turn of the 20th century, showcasing how the adjustment was far from automatic and, rather, highly contingent on the intervening variable of official assessment, leading to a fragmented response. Similarly, in the 1991 Myths of Empire, Jack Snyder makes the case that structural primacy may not offer sufficient to explanations, arguing rather for a greater focus on domestic-level variables and their interaction with the former. Fareed Zakaria’s 1992 Realism and Domestic Politics, although a review article, is of high importance, as it anticipates Rose’s treatment by putting forward the argument that although third-level explanations are, in the long view, the most reliable ones, intervening unit-level variables are needed for strong explanations of foreign policy. Finally, works dealing with state motivation (revisionist, greedy states) that seems overlooked in post-Rosean neoclassical realism, including Grieco (1988), Schweller (1994) or Glaser (1997).
Second, the thesis will consider the voluminous body of neoclassical realist practical application on international puzzles in the wake of Rose’s article. These will include, but will not be limited to, Schweller’s work on the neoclassical realist theory of underbalancing in Unanswered Threats (2004), Taliaferro’s (2006) specification of the importance of state’s extractive ability, or a number of neoclassical realist theories of US grand strategy posited by Dueck (2006), Layne (2007) or Kitchen (2010). Considering these works is important, as they have not only contributed to the considerable breadth of the school but also because their diversity is at the heart of the charge that in neoclassical realism anything goes.
Third, of major significance will be the scant but valuable attempts at theoretical clarification of neoclassical realism. Some such rudimentary effort can be found in Glaser’s 2003 The necessary and natural evolution of structural realism and Schweller’s Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism from the same year, both of which argued similarly that neoclassical realism represented theoretical progress inasmuch as it functioned as an extension, or a corrective, to structural realism. This argument is further elaborated in Rathbun (2008) who clearly posited that neoclassical realism explanations must begin with the premise of ideal behavior and, as is expected, when this is not met, seek answers in domestic-level variables. As such, he makes the point that neoclassical realism should be known not “by what it incorporates but rather where it begins” (Rathbun 2008, p.312). However, it is only in 2009 that there are full-fledged efforts at systematizing neoclassical realism. The more famous is Taliaferro et al.’s Neoclassical Realism, the state and foreign policy, which, in a manner reminiscent of Rose, brings together various authors with the aims of systematizing the program, differentiating it from neorealism, and more fully developing the intervening role of the state. According to Rynning (2009), however, as the book almost completely avoids discussing state interests, it ends up putting an undue emphasis on structural realism, setting the theory on the path of theory building rather than detailed understanding. The other effort is Rethinking Realism, edited by Freyberg-Inan, Harrison and James, which does good job at distinguishing neoclassical realism from the so-called elaborated structural realism. Notably, in the volume, Sterling-Folker (2009) makes the case, repeated in Meibauer 2020, that neoclassical realism is a strong program exactly because it is so loose. Finally, in 2016, neoclassical realism receives its first treatment on par with Waltz’s 1979 effort in the form of the ambitious Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics by Ripsman et al. which postulates it as a unified and coherent theory in its own right by, mostly, clarifying the complex relations between structural and unit-level variables and precising the explanatory scope. Although it largely succeeds in this task, the book mostly ignores the most salient issues, namely the charge that the explicit systemic primacy, accepted in the book, makes the theory untenable in the long term (Narizny 2017; Sears 2017).
Fourth, and related, the thesis will also draw on various critiques of (neoclassical) realism that have helped shape the theory’s development. In terms of pre-Rosean works, these will include Gourevitch’s 1978 The Second Image Reversed, in which he argues that international and domestic politics are inseparable and must be, therefore, analyzed simultaneously; Asley’s 1984 The Poverty of Neorealism, a scathing critique of neorealism as having little to do with classical realism; or Dessler’s 1989 What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate, which puts forward the idea that parsimonious theorizing can, and should, be achieved even with multivariable theories. Of major importance will be Vasquez’s 1997 article The Realism paradigm and degenerative versus progressive research programs, in which the author, drawing on the Lakatosian dichotomy of progressive and degenerating program, argues that structural realism is increasingly turning into the latter. In relation to Rose’s article, Legro and Moravcsik’s 1999 Is Anybody Still a Realist, which expressed misgivings about the direction realism was taking, will be consulted. As for critiques of post-Rosean neoclassical realism, first major efforts can be found after the release of the 2009 Taliaferro et al. Rynning (2009), for example, constitutes one of the earliest systematic reviews, powerfully criticizing neoclassical realism for being little classical and only expanding upon structural realism (especially as regards its commitment to third-image primacy). Fordham’s The Limits of Neoclassical Realism from the same year explores the same issue, criticizing neoclassical realism for avoiding discussing state motives and, thus, unconsciously borrowing neorealist assumptions. Quinn’s 2013 Hard Choices for Neoclassical Realism is another great critique: building on previous efforts, he argues that neoclassical realism must choose between explaining neorealist anomalies or build its own explanatory paradigm, in which case it is bound for collision with Waltzian assumptions. Finally, three critiques following the publication of Ripsman et al. (2016) will be of major help: first, Sears (2017) makes the point that neoclassical realism, at least in the mainstream form, invariably continues its transformation into “neo-structural realism”; second, Narizny (2017) makes a similar point, arguing that any systemic primacy is untenable if neoclassical realism is to progress; and third, Smith (2018) asks the question whether neoclassical realism can ever become a full-fledged theory of international relations.
Finally, the thesis will make occasional incursions into the broader realist literature, including Waltz’s 1979 Theory of International Politics, the 1986 Neorealism and Its Critics edited by Keohane or Elman’s 1996 Horse for Courses: Why Not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy.

Conceptual and theoretical framework, research hypotheses
Owing to its theoretical nature, the thesis proposed will not draw on theoretical / conceptual frameworks in the traditional sense; however, it will still make use of a number of concepts corresponding to the specifying questions. These will include:
▪ Philosophy of science: for the first specifying question, the thesis will draw on the works of, inter alia, Lakatos and Musgrave (1965), Vasquez (1997), Elman and Elman (2003) or Guzzini (2004)
▪ Theory: the role of theory in international relations, including the distinction between grand and mid-range theory, theories of international politics and theories of foreign policy, structural and process-driven theories, single-variable and multivariable theory (parsimony vs explanatory power), explaining and theory-building, nomothetic and idiographic theories. Here the thesis will draw on works such as Waltz (1979, 2008), Jackson (2010), Elman (1996) or Zakaria (1992)
▪ Political realism: finally, the thesis will also delve into the realm of political realism, considering the voluminous realist literature that will include Gilpin (1984, 1996) or James (2002)


Empirical data and analytical technique
Given the theoretical nature of the thesis proposed, the main source of empirical data will be neoclassical realist theories and explanations, drawn from the various books and articles outlined above. To make sense of the voluminous material, and to subsequently analyze it, the thesis will employ a mixed method approach. Specifically, it will employ the process of triangulation, which entails the combination of various analytical techniques, both qualitive and quantitative and for both data collection and analysis, with the view to corroborate empirical findings gleaned by one technique by another (Bryman 2016, 643; Lamont 2015, 116-117). In this case, it will combine the methods of quantitative content analysis and qualitative thematic analysis, in a sequential manner.
First, qualitative content analysis (QCA) will be used to identify the neoclassical realist works conceptually pertinent to the specifying questions. As Bryman (2016, 285) notes, QCA “seeks to quantify content in terms of predetermined categories and in a systematically replicable manner.” Thus, the thesis will employ concepts, which will be identified in the pre-research process, that will serve as keywords for collecting the raw data. It is envisioned that the result of this step is the provision of a dataset for further analysis.
Second, having arrived at the dataset, the method of thematic analysis, as reviewed in Bryman (2016, 584-589) will be used to analyze it. As Bryman (2016, 584) notes, despite being widely used, thematic analysis is an “underdeveloped procedure”, lacking both definition and general principles. However, generally it can be said that thematic analysis entails the construction of “an index of central themes and subthemes…[which] are essentially recurring motifs” that are to provide “the researcher with the basis for a theoretical understanding of his or her data that can make a theoretical contribution to the literature relating to the research focus” (Bryman 2016, 584-585). This will be the objective of this part: it will seek to find motifs in the collected literature that will be subsequently linked to the specifying questions and, thus, serve as the basis for addressing them. In terms of concrete steps, the thesis will loosely follow the order outlined in Bryman (2016, 587-588):
▪ overview of the dataset
▪ coding
▪ turning codes into themes
▪ ordering the themes
▪ examining linkages / differences between themes / concepts
▪ writing up a narrative
Thus, as a result of the second part, the thesis will have ideally provided compelling accounts to the specifying questions that will form the basis for answering the thesis’ research question.