Agent-structure relations: methodology of constructivism

Agent-structure relations:
methodology of constructivism

Alekseyeva T.A.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia,

elibrary_id: 1361 |

Article received: 2022.04.16 18:49. Accepted: 2022.05.17 18:50
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.04.07

For citation:

Alekseyeva T.A. Agent-structure relations: methodology of constructivism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 4. P. 77-93. (In Russ.).


The notion of agent-structure relations is a central concept within the constructivist paradigm. A huge portion of the scientific literature abroad and in Russia is devoted to constructivism as a methodological approach. However, the methods themselves frequently are not disclosed, the authors just limit themselves to stating that they meet the requirements of the general scientific methods of the social sciences. At the same time, the choice of methods, even aspects of them, is quite significant for constructivism. The structures are studied mostly through meta-history and genealogy. The worldviews of the observer, which distort the scientific analysis and its results rather significantly, should also be taken into account. The Agent’s activity is regarded through the study of narratives, discourses and framing. This allows researchers the possibility to decrypt, but also analyse and study key constructivist themes, including the problems of identity which are a priority for the scholars of this school. Constructivist pluralism does not simply allow, but also implies that it can fruitfully interact with the other theories of international relations. This has resulted in the emergence of many mixed eclectic forms like cultural constructivism, cultural realism, liberal constructivism, constructivism as a critical theory, cultural constructivism etc. However, it seems quite important for academics to present some general scheme for constructivist study, that will allow a significant deviation from the original tenets and allow scholars to further explore their interests and fulfil their tasks. 

agent-structure relations, system theory, ontology, epistemology, structure, macro-history, genealogy, observer’s factor, agents’ activity, narratives, discourses, framing, identity.


Buzan, B., Weaver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security. A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Cox, R.W. (1986). Social forces, states, and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. In R.O. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (pp. 204-254). New York: Columbia University Press.

Der Derian, J. (1987). On diplomacy: a genealogy of Western estrangement. Oxford: Blackwell.

Finnmore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2011). The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 391-416. polisci.4.1.391

Geyer, M. (1988). Emilio Willems. A way of life and death: three centuries of Prussian-German militarism: an anthropological approach. The American Historical Review, 93(1), 168-169.

Jackson, P. (2011). The conduct of inquiry in international relations. Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. Abingdon: Routledge.

Klotz, A., & Lynch, C.M. (2007). Strategies for research in constructivist international relations. London, New York: Routledge.

Kratochwil, F.V. (1989). Rules, norms, and decisions. On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McAdams, D.P. (2018). Narrative identity: what is it? What does it do? How do you measure it? Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 37(3), 359-372.

Neubert, S., & Reich, K. (2002). Toward a constructivist theory of discourse: Rethinking the boundaries of discourse philosophy. (accessed 26.06.2022).

Reus-Smit, Ch. (1999). The moral purpose of the state. Culture, social identity and institutional rationality in international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Scholl, A. (2016). The micro-macro problem in Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations, 12(1), 47-48.

Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60-78.

Wendt, A. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization, 5(3), 335-370.

Wight, C. (2006). Agents, structure and international relations: politics as ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willems, E. (1986). A way of life and death: three centuries of Prussian-German militarism: An anthropological approach. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.


Collins, R. (2021). Macrohistory. Essays in sociology of the long run (Russ. ed.: Collins, R. Makroistoriya: Ocherki sotsiologii bol’shoi deyatel’nosti). Moscow: URSS.

Nicolson, H.G. (1941). Diplomacy. (Russ. ed.: Nicolson, H.G. Diplomatiya. Moscow: Geografgiz).

Tsygankov, P.A. (2007). Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Theory of international relations]. 2nd ed. Moscow: Gardariki. (In Russ.)

Zvyagel’skaya, I.D. (Ed.) (2020). Blizhnii Vostok. Politika i identichnost’ [Middle East. Politics and identity]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. (In Russ.) 

Content No. 4, 2022

See also:

Inoguchi T.,
Political theory. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No3

Smorgunov L.V.,
Political identity and the concept of the political. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No6

Alekseyeva T.A., Lebedeva M.M.,
What Is Happening to the Theory of International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No1

Tkhagapsoyev Kh.G.,
In search of a new methodological paradigm in political science: the identity approach. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No4

Makarychev A.S.,
Genealogy of Personality and Historical Dynamics of Socium. – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No5



   2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991