Theoretical and Methodological Foundations for Government Relations Research in Political Science

Cover Page

Cite item


The rethinking of public policy in response to a rapidly changing world and economic development predetermined the relevance of studying the GR-activities of companies in the 21st century. Due to the fact that business-government relations have an interdisciplinary nature, political scientists need an appropriate methodological toolkit for their thorough study. Most of GR research are narrowly focused, and, as a result, are ineffective, since analyzing GR activities within the framework of one methodological paradigm leaves the consideration of GR as a system and its embeddedness in the political structure “behind the scenes”. In this regard, the results obtained do not provide either researchers or policymakers with comprehensive information on effective policy-making. The purpose of this article is to try to find a systemic methodology, enabling political scientists to display, describe and analyze GR-activities with the end of putting the findings into practice in order to improve the efficiency of these activities. The author examines the main paradigms and metatheories used by political scientists and argues for synthesizing theoretical and methodological approaches into a unified methodological system for GR research. The author comes to the conclusion that changes in research approaches to political GR research and in the thinking of researchers could potentially help improve the quality and effectiveness of preparing and implementing public and corporate decisions.

About the authors

Viacheslav V. Romanychev

National Research University “Higher School of Economics”

Author for correspondence.
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5443-6043

PhD student, PhD School for Political Science

Moscow, Russian Federation


  1. Alexeeva, T.A. (2019). Contemporary political thought (XX–XXI cent.): Political theory and international relations. Moscow: Aspect-Press. (In Russian).
  2. Anderson, J., Lee, R., Tofighi, M., & Anderson, S. (2021). Lobbying as a potent political marketing tool for product diversification: an examination of firm-government interaction. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1–19; doi: 10.1080/0965254x.2021.1896568
  3. Berg-Schlosser, D. (2012). Mixed methods in comparative politics: Principles and applications. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  4. Bordovskikh, A.N. (2015). Political risks of international business in the age of globalization. Moscow: Aspect-Press. (In Russian).
  5. Castellini, M., & Paucar‐Caceres, A. (2019). A conceptual framework for integrating methodologies in management: Partial results of a systemic intervention in a textile SME in Argentina. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(1), 20–35. doi: 10.1002/sres.2552
  6. Degtyarev, А.А. (2004). Political decision-making. Мoscow: University. (In Russian).
  7. Evgenieva, T.V. (Ed.). (2019). Political sociology. Moscow: Urait. (In Russian).
  8. Gaman-Golutvina, O.V. (2008). Processes of modern elitogenesis: Global experience and Russian practices. Part I. Polis. Political Studies, 6, 67–85. (In Russian).
  9. Gaman-Golutvina, O.V. (2019). Overcoming methodological differences: The debate about knowledge politics in an age of uncertainty. Polis. Political Studies. 5, 19–42. (In Russian).
  10. Gaman-Golutvina, O.V. (Ed.). (2012). Political class in the modern society. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russian).
  11. Gaman-Golutvina, O.V., & Nikitin, A.I. (Eds.). (2019). Modern political science: Methodology. Мoscow, Aspect Press. (In Russian).
  12. Gaman-Golutvina, O.V., Smorgunov, L.V., & Timofeyeva, L.N. (2016). Political science meets the challenges of modern politics (Report from the 7th All-Russian Congress of Political Scientists). Polis. Political Studies, 3, 7–11. (In Russian).
  13. Grose, Ch. (2021). Experiments, political elites and political institutions. In Druckman, J., & Green, D. (Eds.) Advances in experimental political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Guzzini, S. (2000). A reconstruction of constructivism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6, 147–182.
  15. Guzzini, S. (2013). Power, realism and constructivism. London, Routledge.
  16. Holm, L., Dahl, F., & Barra, M. (2013). Towards a multimethodology in health care synergies between soft systems methodology and discrete event simulation. Health Systems, 2(1), 11–23.
  17. Ignacio, E. (2020). Political marketing: An analysis of business marketing in politics. Senior Honors Projects. Bridgewater College.
  18. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.
  19. Malkin, E.B., & Suchkov, E.B. (2017). Political technologies. Мoscow: Russian Panorama. (In Russian).
  20. Morse, J. (2015). Issues in qualitatively-driven mixed-method designs: Walking through a mixed-method project. In Hesse-Biber, S., & Burke Johnson R. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. Oxford University Press.
  21. Moshchenko, O., Smetanko, A., Glushko, E., Gavel, O., & Kashper, G. (2019). Multimethodology for analysing financial statements of enterprises on the example of Russian fuel and energy companies’ current assets. International transaction journal of engineering management & applied sciences & technologies, 10(18). Retrieved from:
  22. Nedyak, I.L. (2008). Political Marketing. Theoretical Foundations. Moscow: Ves’ mir, (In Russian).
  23. Patrushev, S.V., & Filippova, L.E. (2019). Institutionalism and neoinstitutionalism. In Gaman-Golutvina, O.V., & Nikitin, A.I. Modern Political Science: Methodology. Мoscow: Aspect Press. (In Russian).
  24. Peregudov, S.P., Lapina, N.Yu., & Semenenko, I.S. (1999). Interest groups and the Russian state. Мoscow: URSS. (In Russian).
  25. Pouliot, V. (2007). “Sobjectivism”: Toward a constructivist methodology. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 359–384.
  26. Powell, W., & Dimaggio Р. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  27. Shestopal, E.B., & Selezneva, A.V. (Eds.). (2015). Modern Russian elites: Political and technological analysis. Moscow: Argamak-media. (In Russian).
  28. Simon, Н. (1997). Administrative behavior: А study of decision-making process in administrative organizations. New York: The Macmillan Company.
  29. Smorgunov, L.V. (2014). Methodological synthesis in contemporary comparative political science. Method, 4, 300–310. (In Russian).
  30. Smorgunov, L.V., & Timofeeva, L.N. (2011). Government relations: Theoretical and practical implications and mechanisms. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russian).
  31. Suprun, V. (Ed.). (2011). Dynamics of innovations. Novosibirsk. (In Russian).
  32. Suprun, V.I. (Ed.). (2012). An innovative human and innovative society. Novosibirsk: Foundation for Socioprognostic Research “Trends”. (In Russian).
  33. Tulchinskii, G. (2019). Three narratives of political science: perspectives of interdisciplinary political studies. Political Expertise: POLITEX, 15(2), 174–200. (In Russian).
  34. Zakirov, A., & Zaripova, A. (2020). Conceptualization of government relations (GR) in Russian political science. Laplage Em Revista, 6 (Extra-C), 52–56.

Copyright (c) 2021 Romanychev V.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies