Often called for but rarely chosen: alliance research that directly studies process

Abstract

Abstract Every so often, alliance scholars make cogent arguments for why the alliance field needs more process research. Rather than plea this case yet again, this paper explores why the field of alliance research continues to be overwhelmingly cross‐sectional and structural in nature. Looking at research published since the mid‐1990s, it appears that reflexive ‘calls for future process research’ crop up frequently. Even in cross‐sectional, structural research, authors evoke stories about processes, even if these processes depend on assumptions about actors and behaviors that lie outside of what is observable with their data and methods. What impedes the development of process research are norms and taken‐for‐granted routines within the mainstream scholarly community. I discuss implications of this reflexivity and how it might be challenged to rejuvenate and advance alliance research.