Where Are They Now? Stephen Walt

Since its founding in 1973, the Center has hosted many pre- and post-doctoral fellows who have gone on to become leaders in academia, government, the private sector, and the non-profit world. In each issue of BCSIA News, we catch up with a former fellow to learn about life after the Belfer Center.
 

The Belfer Center is particularly pleased to welcome Stephen M. Walt as the new Kirkpatrick Professor of International Affairs.
 

Walt was an International Security Fellow at the Center from 1981 to 1984 and served for the past decade as a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago. Walt is recognized as a leader in international security studies and his award-winning first book, The Origins of Alliances, has been one of the standard monographs in the field since its publication.
 

Walt recently had an electronic exchange with BCSIA News editor Anya Schmemann where he reflected on his experience as a fellow at the Center and addressed the controversy that he has stirred in the pages of International Security.
 

Q Welcome back to Harvard! How do you feel about your return to the Kennedy School?
 

SMW I''m delighted to be back at the Kennedy School. My time as a Research Fellow in the early 1980s played a key role in my subsequent scholarly career, and it''s wonderful to have the opportunity to return.
 

Q In the spring 1999 issue of International Security, you wrote a piece that stated that rational choice methods had not produced significant theoretical insights in the field of security studies. In the upcoming fall 1999 issue, several detractors take issue with your assertion. Could you explain the controversy?
 

SMW My article was controversial primarily because advocates of formal methods have made excessive claims for the superiority of this particular research technique. Methodological controversies are usually quite intense, because methodological criteria are often used to define what constitutes "legitimate" research in a field. I wrote the article largely to make the related points that 1) formal methods were valuable, but not superior to other well-established research methods, and 2) the field of security studies should strive to retain a healthy degree of methodological pluralism.
 

Q In their forthcoming article, two of your critics, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and James Morrow, say that you can''t have a good theory that isn''t logically consistent. Do you agree that logical consistency is important? Do you worry that formal theory could become overly dominant in security studies?
 

SMW I certainly think that logical consistency is an important feature of scientific theories. I do not think formal methods are necessary to create logically consistent theories, and I also believe that a theory can contain unstated assumptions and ambiguities and still be extremely useful. So logical consistency is a desirable quality, but it is hardly the only -- or even the most important -- criterion we use when evaluating a theory.
 

Q Why is this debate important? What implications could it have for the field of security studies?
 

SMW The debate is important because it helps define what constitutes "legitimate" academic research in this area. If formal theory -- or any other single research method -- were to become hegemonic, it would have a dramatic effect on the research agenda in the field. Security studies would only examine subjects that were amenable to analysis through this method, and other issues would effectively be excluded, even if they were of greater real-world importance.
 

Q What do you consider to be most valuable about your experience in the BCSIA Fellows Program?
 

SMW Two things primarily. First, I made a number of professional friendships that have proven to be invaluable. Having supportive yet critical colleagues is essential to success in most scholarly endeavors, and my "support network" was largely formed during my years here. Second, it was extremely valuable for me to "rub elbows" with important policymakers from the real world, both to understand how they saw the policy agenda and to learn how to take issue with them in a fruitful way. Arguing with someone like Robert McNamara or McGeorge Bundy is a salutory experience, even if it isn''t always easy on one''s ego!