print

Applying cognitive approach for political science methodology:
problem statement

Sergeev V.M.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, victor04076831@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 1447 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAE-9160-2020

Koktysh K.E.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, kirill.koktysh@gmail.com

elibrary_id: 250721 | ORCID: 0000-0002-6555-0391 | RESEARCHER_ID: ABF-5548-2021

Safranchuk I.A.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, i.safranchuk@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 697972 | ORCID: 0000-0003-2214-6628 | RESEARCHER_ID: O-3257-2017

Article received: 2026.06.02 21:50. Accepted: 2026.08.03 21:50


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2026.05.03
EDN: PTMZUG

Rubric: Theme of the issue: 50th Anniversary of the MGIMO Institute of international studies

For citation:

Sergeev V.M., Koktysh K.E., Safranchuk I.A. Applying cognitive approach for political science methodology: problem statement. – Polis. Political Studies. 2026. No. 5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2026.05.03. EDN: PTMZUG

This study was supported by grant No. 26-18-00995 from the Russian Science Foundation, https://rscf. ru/project/26-18-00995/.

Abstract

The methodological apparatus of modern political science does not allow scholars to obtain answers to a number of significant questions, thus failing to provide an adequate understanding of the essence of ongoing political processes. The reason is that the Weberian sociological method, which lies at its core, focuses on analyzing the formal characteristics of political institutions, leaving their substantive dimensions outside its scope, particularly their ontological and value dimensions. Nevertheless, it is these dimensions that shape the meanings and goals of any political system. The article proposes a rethinking of the Weberian paradigm, which is based on the Western assumption that its value-based and ontological premises are universal. It advocates a metaphor-cognitive turn, which involves a shift from the analysis of institutions' declarative characteristics to the analysis of the ontological construction of the political system. Thus, the research focus shifts to real cognitive models that determine the adoption of political decisions. This provides a point of reference for the study of both Western and non-Western political systems: Western experience becomes one possible path of development rather than the only one, while the politicization, implicitly present in the Weberian method, becomes a reflexive entity. Significantly, this does not entail rendering political science archaic or provincial, on the contrary, it represents its qualitative development, with all its key achievements fully preserved while integrating them within a new paradigm. The proposed metaphor-cognitive turn is deeply innovative for both domestic and world political science, but it is based on several decades of successful developments in cognitive science in the social sciences and related fields — psychology, biology, economics, and, of course, IT and AI, where cognitive tools play a central role. The emergence of a cognitive dimension adds a crucial component to political theory, opening up the possibility of rethinking existing concepts and creating new ones. The proposed paradigm is more specific, making it possible to bring the precision of the social sciences closer to that of the natural sciences, providing new, quite modern opportunities for understanding and predicting political processes. It also highlights the potential of the productive use of AI tools and the possibility of integrating political science into the practical political process.

Keywords

cognitive turn, political science, metaphorical-cognitive approach, ontologies, ontological and value-based attitudes, hierarchy and network theory, metaphor theory.

Axelrod, R. (1970). Conflict of interest: a theory of divergent goals with applications to politics. Chicago: Markham Pub. Co.

Axelrod, R. (Ed.). (1976). Structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Perseus Books Group.

Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Penguin Books.

Bonham, G.M. (1993). Cognitive mapping as a technique for supporting international negotiation. Theory and Decision, 34(3), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01075192

Bonham, G.M., Sergeev, V.M., & Parshin, P.B. (1997). The limited test-ban agreement: emergence of new knowledge structures in international negotiation. International Studies Quarterly, 41(2), 215-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00040

Bonham, G.M., & Shapiro, M.J. (1976). Explanation of the unexpected: computer simulation of a foreign policy advisor. In R. Axelrod (Ed.), The Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites (pp. 113-141). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bonham, G.M., & Shapiro, M.J. (Eds.). (1977). Thought and action in foreign policy. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.

Bonham, G.M., Shapiro, M.J., & Heradstveit, D. (1986). A simulation of collective decision-making. Oslo: Norsk utenrikspolitisk Institutt. https://www.nypl.org/research/research-catalog/bib/hb990012990800203941

Buchanan, M. (2002). Nexus: small worlds and the groundbreaking science of networks. New York: W.W. Norton.

Dutta, B., & Jackson M.O. (Eds.). (2003). Networks and groups: models of strategic formation. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Easton, D. (1953). The political system: an inquiry into the state of political science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.

Granovetter, M. (1988). The sociological and economic approaches to labor market analysis: a social structural view. In: G. Farkas, & P. England (Eds.), Industries, Firms and Jobs: Sociological and Economic Approaches (pp. 187-216). New York: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3536-6_9

Granovetter, M. (1990). The old and the new economic sociology: a history and an agenda. In R. Friedland, & A.F. Robertson (Eds.), Beyond the Marketplace: Rethinking Economy and Society (pp. 286-318). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429333873

Granovetter, M. (2003). Social science. Ignorance, knowledge, and outcomes in a small world. Science, 301(5634), 773-774. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1081058

Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330053147958

Leites, N. (1951). Operational code of the politburo. New York; Toronto; London: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Lovelock, J. (2014). A rough ride to the future. London: Allen Lane.

Lovelock, J. (2019). Novacene: the coming age of hyperintelligence. London: Penguin Books/Allen Line.

Newman, M. (2010). Networks: an introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206650.001.0001

Olson, D.R. (2007). Jerome Bruner: the cognitive revolution in educational theory. New York: Continuum.

Olson, D.R. (2016). The mind on paper: reading, consciousness and rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316678466

Olson, D.R. (2022). Making sense: what it means to understand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R.J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613(7942), 138-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x

Wagner, C., Strohmaier, M., Olteanu, A., Kiciman, E., Contractor, N., & Eliassi-Rad, T. (2021). Measuring algorithmically infused societies. Nature, 595(7866), 197-204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03666-1

Abelson, R. (1987). Structures of beliefs. (Russ. ed.: Abelson, R. Struktury ubezhdeniy. In Abelson R. Yazyk i modelirovanie social'nogo vzaimodejstviya (pp. 317-380). Moscow: Progress).

Adorno, T.W. (2000). Probleme der Moralphilosophie. (Russ. ed.: Adorno, T.W. Problemy filosofii morali. Moscow: Respublika).

Boldyrev, N.N. (2013). The interpretative potential of the conceptual metaphor. Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka, 15, 12-22. (In Russ.)

Cassirer, E.A. (1990). Die Kraft der Metapher. (Russ. ed.: Cassirer, E.A. Sila metafory. In Cassirer, E.A. Teoriya metafory (pp. 33-43). Moscow: Progress).

Deleuze, G. (2020). Logique du sens. (Russ. ed.: Deleuze, G. Logika smysla. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt).

Derrida, J. (2007). I.’ecriiure et la difference. (Russ. ed.: Derrida, J. Pis’mo i razlichie. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt).

Feyerabend, P.K. (1986). Izbrannye trudy po metodologii nauki [Selected works on the methodology of science]. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.)

Feyerabend, P. (2007). Against method. Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. (Russ. ed.: Feyerabend, P.K. Protiv metoda. Ocherk anarkhistskoy teorii poznaniya. Moscow: AST Moscow).

Feyerabend P.K. (2010). Science in a free society. (Russ. ed.: Feyerabend, P.K. Nauka v svobodnom obshchestve. Moscow: AST).

Vollmer, G. (1998). Evolutionare Erkenntnistheorie. (Russ. ed.: Vollmer, G. Ehvolyutsionnaya teoriya poznaniya. Vrozhdennye struktury poznaniya v kontekste biologii, psikhologii, lingvistiki, filosofii i teorii nauki. Moscow: Russkiy Dvor).

Foucault, M. (1999). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. (Russ. ed.: Foucault, M. Nadzirat’ i nakazyvat’. Rozhdenie tyur’my. Moscow: Ad Marginem).

Foucault, M. (1977). Ies mots et les choses. Une archeologie des sciences humaines. (Russ. ed.: Foucault, M. Slova i veshchi. Arheologiya gumanitarnyh nauk. Moscow: Progress).

Foucault, M. (2025). Histoire de la folie d l’age Classique. (Russ. ed.: Foucault, M. Istoriya bezumiya v klassicheskuyu ehpokhu. M.: Ad Marginem Press).

Glasersfeld, E. von. (2001a). Einfuhrung in den radikalen Konstruktivismus. (Russ. ed.: Glasersfeld, E. von. Vvedenie v radikal’nyi konstruktivizm. Moscow University bulletin. Series 7. Philosophy, 4, 59-81).

Glasersfeld, E. von. (2001b). Constructivism in education. (Russ. ed.: Glasersfeld, E. von. Radikal’nyi konstruktivizm i obuchenie. Prospects, 31(3), 81-93).

Horkheimer, M. (2011). Zur Kritik der instrumentellen Vernunft. (Russ. ed.: Horkheimer, M. Zatmenie razuma. K kritike instrumental’nogo razuma. Moscow: Kanon+).

Karpov, V.A. (2003). Yazyk kak sistema [Language as a system]. Moscow: Editorial URSS. (In Russ.)

Kelly, G.A. (2000). A theory of personality. The psychology of personal constructs. (Russ. ed.: Kelly, G.A. Psikhologiya lichnosti: teoriya lichnykh konstruktov. St. Petersburg: Rech’).

Koktysh, K.E., & Sergeev, V.M. (2024). The birth of the deep state. Polis. Political Studies, 1, 134-148. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.01.10

Koktysh, K.E., & Sergeev, V.M. (2025). The rise of the American deep state. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 76-95. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.03.06

Kuhn, T.S. (1977). The structure of scientific revolutions. (Russ. ed.: Kuhn, T.S. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsii. Moscow: Progress).

Kuhn, T.S. (1997). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? (Russ. ed.: Kuhn, T.S. Logika otkrytiya ili psikhologiya issledovaniya. Philosophy of Science and Technology, 3(1), 20-48).

Lacan, J. (1977). L’instance de la lettre dans l’inconscient ou la raison depuis Freud. (Russ. ed.: Lacan, J. Instantsiya bukvy, ili sud’ba razuma posle Freida. Moscow: Logos).

Lakatos, I. (1967). Proofs and Refutations. (Russ. ed.: Lakatos, I. Dokazatel’stva i oproverzheniya. Moscow: Nauka).

Lakatos, I. (1995). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. (Russ. ed.: Lakatos, I. Fal’sifikatsiya i metodologiya nauchno-issledovatel’skikh programm. Moscow: Medium).

Lakatos, I. (2001). History of science and its rational reconstructions. (Russ. ed.: Lakatos, I. Istoriya nauki i ee ratsional’nye rekonstruktsii. In Kuhn, T.S. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsii (pp. 455-524). Moscow: AST).

Lakoff, G. (2004). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. (Russ. ed.: Lakoff, G. Zhenshchiny, ogon’ i opasnye veshchi: chto kategorii yazyka govoryat nam o myshlenii. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur).

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2004). Metaphors we live by. (Russ. ed.: Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem. Moscow: Editorial URSS).

Lektorsky, V.A. (2018). The natural, the artificial and human sciences. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 14(3), 31-35. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2018140302

Lorenz, K. (2021). Die Ruckseite des Spiegels. (Russ. ed.: Lorenz, K. Oborotnaya storona zerkala. Moscow: AST).

Lotman, Yu.M. (1992). Izbrannye stat’i v trekh tomakh. T. 1: Stat’i po semiotike i topologii kul’tury [Selected articles in three volumes. Vol. 1: Articles on semiotics and topology of culture]. Tallinn: Alexandra. (In Russ.)

MacCormac, E.R. (1990). A cognitive theory of metaphor. (Russ. ed.: MacCormac, E.R Kognitivnaya teoriya metafory. In Teoriya metafory (pp. 358-386). Moscow: Progress.).

Marcuse, H. (1994.) One-dimensional man. (Russ. ed.: Marcuse, H. Odnomernyi chelovek. Moscow: “REFL-book”).

North, D.C. (1997). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. (Russ. ed.: North, D.C. Instituty, institutsional’nye izmeneniya i funktsionirovanie ehkonomiki. Moscow: Nachala).

Polanyi, M. (1985). Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. (Russ. ed.: Polanyi, M. Lichnostnoe znanie. Na puti k postkriticheskoi filosofii. Moscow: Progress).

Ricreur, P. (1990). The rule of metaphor. (Russ. ed.: Ricreur, P. Zhivaya metafora. In Teoriya metafory (pp. 435-455). Moscow: Progress).

Sergeev, V.M., Koktysh, K.E., Petrov, K.E., Chimiris, E.S., & Orlova, A.S. (2010). BRIC - politicheskaya real’nost’ postkrizisnogo mira? Novye vozmozhnosti dlya Rossii. Analiticheskii doklad [BRIC - a political reality of the post-crisis world? New opportunities for Russia. Analytical report]. Moscow: IMI MGIMO of Russia.

Sergeev, V.M., Petrov, K.E., Koktysh, K.E., Orlova, A.S., & Chimiris, E.S. (2011). Novoe prostranstvo mirovoi politiki: vzglyad iz SShA [The new space of world politics: a view from the United States]. Moscow: MGIMO University.

Sergeev, V.M., & Koktysh, K.Ye. (2024). Scientific and technological progress and ontological provincialism. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy, 22(1), 6-21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2024.22.1.76.3

Sergeev, V.M., & Sergeev, K.V. (2003). Mechanisms of evolution of political structure of society: social hierarchies and social networks. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 6-13. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2003.03.02

Solso, R.L. (1996). Cognitive psychology. (Russ. ed.: Solso, R.L. Kognitivnaya psikhologiya. Moscow: Trivola).

Verchenov, L.N., Efremenko, D.V., & Tishchenko, V.I. (2013). Sotsial’nye seti i virtual’nye setevye soobshchestva [Social networks and virtual network communities]. Moscow: INION RAN. (In Russ.)

Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J.H., & Jackson, D.D. (2000). Pragmatics of human communication: a study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. (Russ. ed.: Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J.H., & Jackson, D.D. Pragmatika chelovecheskikh kommunikatsii. Moscow: Eksmo-Press).

Weber, M. (1990). Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Weber, M. Selected works]. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.)

See also: