Abstract
The preceding contributions to this Symposium have focused on the substantive interpretation of evidence regarding stability and change in Americans' foreign policy beliefs. The purpose of this essay is to further this dialogue by focusing on the methodological and epistemological issues involved generally in the study of foreign policy beliefs. The salient assumptions underlying the approach to inquiry taken by the Holsti–Rosenau and Wittkopf projects are identified, and the obstacles to understanding and threats to valid inference posed by these assumptions are illuminated. After highlighting some cautionary principles surrounding the interpretation of research findings, the essay concludes with a series of prescriptions for subsequent research in this area of investigation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
