Erik Lin-Greenberg, Reid B.C. Pauly, Jacquelyn G. Schneider
5 min
Political scientists are increasingly turning to wargaming to investigate enduring puzzles in International Relations (IR), such as nuclear escalation, crisis signaling, and the impact of emerging technologies. While long utilized by military and policy practitioners, wargaming is now being adapted as a rigorous scholarly method. The authors define a wargame as an interactive event characterized by four core elements: human players, immersive scenarios, explicit rules, and consequence-based outcomes. These features distinguish wargames from computer simulations or standard lab experiments, offering a unique opportunity to observe how individuals and groups navigate complex, high-pressure environments.
The primary advantage of wargaming is its high ecological validity—the extent to which the research environment mirrors real-world conditions. The authors propose that wargames are superior to other methods because they are more immersive, often utilize elite or expert participants, facilitate realistic group interactions, and force players to grapple with the consequences of their decisions. By requiring participants to act as decision-makers rather than passive survey respondents, wargames allow researchers to explore the microfoundations of IR theories, such as how cognitive biases, group dynamics, and organizational pressures shape foreign policy choices.
To effectively use wargames for research, scholars must balance the trade-offs between internal validity (control) and ecological validity (realism). The authors provide a framework for designing these studies, emphasizing that researchers must clearly define their units of analysis—whether individual players, teams, or the game itself—and develop robust strategies for collecting both outcome data (final decisions) and deliberative data (the "why" and "how" behind those decisions). Whether fielding original games or analyzing declassified archival records, researchers must be vigilant about potential biases, such as the Hawthorne effect, sponsor-driven agendas in practitioner games, and the limitations imposed by declassification filters.
The authors argue that wargaming should not be viewed as a replacement for other methods but as a complementary tool that can fill gaps in existing research. Future scholarship should focus on testing the propositions regarding the unique value of wargames, such as comparing the decision-making of experts versus non-experts and investigating how different levels of immersion affect behavioral outcomes. By systematically addressing these methodological questions, political scientists can better leverage wargames to understand the complex, human-centric processes that drive international conflict and cooperation.
Political scientists are increasingly integrating wargames into their research. Either by fielding original games or by leveraging archival wargame materials, researchers can study rare events or topics where evidence is difficult to observe. However, scholars have little guidance on how to apply this novel methodological approach to political science research. This article evaluates how political scientists can use wargames as a method of scholarly inquiry and sets out to establish a research agenda for wargaming in International Relations. We first differentiate wargames from other methodological approaches and highlight their ecological validity. We then chart out how researchers can build and run their own games or draw from archival wargames for theory development and testing. In doing so, we explain how researchers can navigate issues of recruitment, bias, validity, and generalizability when using wargames for research, and identify ways to evaluate the potential benefits and pitfalls of wargames as a tool of inquiry. We argue that wargames offer unique opportunities for political scientists to study decision-making processes both in and beyond the International Relations subfield.
Alex: [leaning in, analytical] The historical record complicates that. Archival wargames come with declassification bias, and many were sponsored to justify particular budgets. How do you do theory testing on that?
Sam: [measured, steady] You start by separating raw data from processed reports. Processed reports are filtered through bureaucratic agendas. That makes them useful for studying organizational politics but dangerous as an objective record. The remedy is triangulation: read the archival documents alongside process tracing, and see where a game's conclusions line up with actual policy decisions.
Alex: [thoughtful, slower pace] So the bias becomes a data point rather than just noise.
Sam: [nodding, precise] Yes. If a sponsored wargame concludes the Air Force needs more bombers, that conclusion says something about the institutional pressures on the game. Comparing sponsored games with independent academic iterations lets scholars isolate the effect of bureaucratic incentives. [[RP_SECTION:participant-selection-and-validity|Participant selection and validity]]
Alex: [curious, pace quickening slightly] And the participants? Does it matter, in a measurable way, whether the players are senior officials or students?
Sam: [grounded, teaching mode] The authors call that a live debate, and they don't treat it as settled. Their proposed solution is parallel games: run the same scenario with both groups and compare the decision-making logic. If the logic holds across samples, the conclusions are more robust.
Alex: [slower, reflecting] So the next step is not simply more games but more comparative ones. Where does that leave the ecological validity claim we started with?
Sam: [nodding] It becomes something to test rather than assume. By varying team composition and rules, researchers can map which factors actually drive behavior. That moves the field toward a more systematic experimental framework, which is the real point of the paper.
Alex: [measured] If you want the method choices and caveats we skipped, you can generate a deep dive of this paper. The paper itself has the rest either way.
Sam: [warm] Thanks for listening.