Assessment of Master Thesis – Opponent
Study programme:International Economic Relations Field of study:International and Diplomatic Studies Academic year:2020/2021
Master Thesis Topic:India-U.S. strategic cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region Author’s name:Iranda Chaki
Ac. Consultant’s Name:doc. Jeremy Alan Garlick, M.A., Ph.D.
Opponent:Ing. Hana Burešová
Criterion Mark
(1–4)
1. Overall objective achievement 2
2. Logical structure 3
3. Using of literature, citations 3
4. Adequacy of methods used 3
5. Depth of analysis 3
6. Self-reliance of author 2
7. Formal requirements: text, graphs, tables 2
8. Language and stylistics 2
Comments and Questions:
From the start, I would like to commend the choice of an interesting research question. However, I found 2 main issues throughout the thesis: concerning the choice and use of research method to achieve it; and regarding the author’s work with sources and the amount of own analytical input into the final text.
I would say the historical analysis method doesn’t 100% align with the aim of the thesis, or at least the author doesn’t give enough justification as to why this is the best approach. Just from how the research question is formulated, a behavioral or constructivist approach spring to mind as possible alternatives that could shed even more light onto how the U.S. views and uses India in the Indo-Pacific.
Moreover, throughout the text I often lacked substantial analysis that would convince me of the answer the author arrived at. After mentioning some historical milestone, what in many cases follows is a lot of speculation presented as if it were facts, frequently without any evident source linked to them. The author also often uses non-neutral or normative language. All this has a negative impact on the overall credibility of the main argument of the thesis.
The other problem I see is with how the method was used. Low amount of sources, esp. primary, strips away the one requirement for historical analysis the author mentions at page 7: “looking at different perspectives”. For example the whole chapter 1 is cited exclusively from Singh’s 2 articles. But in its last paragraph the author presents some very strong statements on how the US and India felt about each other (“in no way was their intention to form a genuine bond”) – without anything in the previous text pointing to a definitive proof or evidence. Not only are there not presented any potential contrary opinions to Singh or at least sources from other researchers (let alone authors of different nationalities or positions, the official governmental view etc.); but especially the first two empirical chapters read more as if the author was merely summarizing the work of someone who already analyzed this issue in depth; rather than conducting their own analysis.
It would perhaps help the author avoid the common investigator bias or unwarranted source selectivity if they included a chapter dedicated solely to the theoretical-methodological background. This is absent from the thesis, with only very short and very general mentions of theory and methodology in the introduction.
Looking also at the presented theoretical background (realism, Thucydides trap, Balance of Power theory,
ethics in IR…), the author mentions several different general concepts but then uses them only in a handful of instances in the empirical part. The whole theoretical aspect feels as if only attached in hindsight, instead of helping to guide the author to the answer.
The referencing is in many long sections simply missing (e.g. almost a whole page 24 is without any references, yet contains many facts and opinions). I also found the use of certain direct citations confusing for the reader, a few of them completely redundant (e.g. Tempralis on p. 9).
Some of the above issues could be mitigated by a well conducted literature review. However, the text presented as such by the author looks less like a literature review and could have instead been included in the main body of the thesis. This part featured more and higher variety of sources, although still containing numerous unreferenced statements and unclear reasoning (e.g. end of first paragraph on p. 16).
Lastly, the choice of time frame seems slightly overambitious. It is not mentioned in detail why both Cold War and post-Cold War period – many years to analyse on only roughly 43 pages of text. Out of those, the longest Chapter 3 (15 pages compared to the other chapters, that are each only around 4-5 pages long), seems to be the most disconnected from the main topic, India-U.S. strategic cooperation. Setting
background of India’s other relations and the nature of the region may be important; but it should either take place in some introductory chapter or also directly demonstrate what approach U.S. takes towards India. The remaining chapters thus lack space for a deeper level analysis.
All in all the thesis presents a good overview of key events and factors of India-U.S. relations in the region, but it has issues in logical structure and the depth of chosen historical analysis.
Questions for defence: 1.How has India been responding (in practice) to increasing Chinese economic and soft-power influence in the region? Can you give examples of a strategic cooperation between India and the U.S. with a specific aim to counter this Chinese initiative?
2.You conclude that the U.S. mainly use India to cumber Chinese threat and do not treat it as a friend and equal. What is then the main motivation for India to still maintain good relations with the U.S.? What key issues prevent them from instead turning towards a proximate and economically rising China?
Conclusion: The Master Thesis is recommended for the defence.
Suggested Grade: 3
Date: 20/08/2021 Ing. Hana Burešová
Opponent
