Systemist Graphics: Perspectives on Visualizing International Studies

Abstract

This perspective article comments on the four articles within the Social Sciences Special Issue on ‘Systemism and International Studies’ within the broader scholarly and pedagogical context of the discipline. The special issue contributors successfully demonstrate applications of systemism across distinct fields, bringing expert perspectives to graphic design. We identified numerous contributions in theory building and refinement, active learning pedagogy, collaboration within and across disciplines, and partnership among policymakers and scholars. Limitations and obstacles, such as the lack of visual layering and the learning curve for systemist notation, are also noted. This commentary unfolds in four sections: an introduction providing an overview, an analysis of current dynamics highlighting strengths and weaknesses, an exploration of future opportunities and challenges, and a conclusion synthesizing the contributions of the four works.

1. Introduction

This perspective article reflects on the introductory piece (Barnoschi 2025) and three substantive articles (Idika-Kalu 2025; Olson Lounsbery 2025; Money 2025) within the Social Sciences Special Issue on Systemism and International Studies. The issue’s content is also situated within a broader scholarly landscape and pedagogical debate regarding the usefulness of visualization to promote knowledge transfer and retention. Barnoschi’s introduction positions systemism in continuity with Bunge’s (1996) foundational critique of both holism and reductionism in the social sciences. Bunge argued for a more complete and logically coherent approach to theory building—one that embraces the interdependence of individuals and structures and emphasizes the causal interplay between systems and their environments. As Gansen and James (2021, p. 273) note, systemist visualizations elucidate these complexities by enhancing clarity, comprehension, and precision in theoretical exposition.

Within this framework, the Visual International Relations Project (VIRP) emerges as a particularly salient innovation. Founded in 2019 and curated by Patrick James and Sarah Gansen, the VIRP offers a continuously expanding archive of over 1000 systemist diagrams that visually encode the arguments of scholarly publications in international relations (IR).1 These diagrams are built according to a standardized notation in order to distill and compare theoretical arguments across paradigmatic and methodological divides. The implications of this project are far-reaching. As detailed in various recent publications, in particular the piece in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies (Gansen and James 2024) as well as the authors’ chapter in the Handbook of International Relations (Gansen and James 2022), the VIRP’s goals are not only analytical but also pedagogical and methodological.

From a pedagogical standpoint, VIRP diagrams support active learning, particularly by fostering student engagement with complex theoretical material. In addition, the VIRP enhances scholarly communication in a discipline often criticized for its segmentation. As the literature repeatedly emphasizes (see, e.g., Snidal and Wendt 2009; Lake 2013), IR suffers from a fragmentation that impedes dialogue across the different subdisciplines. The systemist method, with its low barriers to entry and intuitive design, provides a method through which scholars with divergent methodological orientations can engage in constructive debate. The use of diagrams that employ a standardized notation not only allows for easier comprehension and retention of information presented but also invites critique, elaboration, and synthesis on any given topic in the discipline.

This special issue offers systemist perspectives on counterterrorism (Barnoschi 2025), women in conflict (Idika-Kalu 2025), civil war actors (Olson Lounsbery 2025), and immigration (Money 2025). While each piece offers a distinct content in its use of macro and micro processes, they collectively form a coherent conversation on their relevance to IR. This commentary proceeds in three additional sections. The subsequent section analyzes current dynamics, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. The following section explores future opportunities and challenges for the field. The concluding section synthesizes the contributions of the four works within this special issue.

2. An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations

The growing prominence of systemism and the VIRP in contemporary IR marks a significant development as systemism offers not only a framework for theoretical synthesis and visual representation, but also a means to reconfigure how knowledge is produced, disseminated, and pedagogically transmitted within the discipline. The articles listed just above illustrate both the potential and limitations of systemism in theory building and refinement, active learning pedagogy, collaboration within and across disciplines, and partnership among policymakers and scholars. A critical analysis of the four contributions in the special issue through the lens of a SWOT framework—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats—reveals both the transformative potential and the limitations of systemism and its application through the VIRP.

A central strength of systemism lies in its capacity to connect disparate communities of knowledge and practice. Across the four contributions in this special issue, systemism emerges as a powerful integrative tool capable of bridging gaps between scholars and practitioners, between and among various fields within IR as well as divergent research traditions, and across disciplinary boundaries. Barnoschi (2025), in her tracing of the evolution of counterterrorism governance through a systemist lens, exemplifies the connection between theoretical scholarship and practical policymaking. By visually mapping the causal progression from the 9/11 attacks to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and beyond, she renders intelligible a complex regime structure that is complicated and particularly difficult for non-specialists to comprehend. This visualization not only enhances accessibility but also offers lots of potential uses for policymakers striving to have a more well-informed and comprehensive discussion on the issues relating to global counterterrorism.

Similarly, the works of Idika-Kalu and Money illustrate the capacity of systemism to connect IR scholars working in diverse subfields. Idika-Kalu (2025) uses systemist diagrams to render the gendered dimensions of terrorism—particularly the roles of women in the Lake Chad Basin—accessible to a broader audience often unfamiliar with the feminist or Africanist literature. By juxtaposing variables such as agency, victimhood, education, and recruitment strategies within a single diagrammatic field, her work facilitates dialogue between scholars and practitioners working in subdisciplines such as Gender Studies and African Studies as well as those in mainstream IR. Money (2025), by contrast, offers a synthesis of migration scholarship, linking earlier paradigmatic debates from the 1990s with more recent theoretical advancements. Her use of systemist elaboration and synthesis demonstrates how diagrams can bring together insights from constructivism, institutionalism, and rational choice theory, showing their cumulative development and interaction over time.

Olson Lounsbery (2025) further expands this connective potential by demonstrating how systemist representation can bridge the divide between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Her diagrams synthesize insights from case studies and large-N datasets to explain the dynamics of rebel group behavior, mediation strategies, and third-party interventions in civil wars. Through systemism, she manages to present findings derived from the Armed Conflict Database alongside case-based interpretations, highlighting the mutual reinforcement of statistical and interpretive approaches. In this regard, systemism functions not merely as a visualization tool, but as a meta-methodological device that facilitates communication between methodological silos often seen as antagonistic.

The broad applicability of systemism is another notable strength underscored across the special issue. From counterterrorism regimes and migration policy to gendered terrorism and civil wars, systemism proves flexible enough to encompass a wide array of topics within International Studies. Underpinning this adaptability is systemism’s strength as a comprehensive framework. As articulated in the Handbook of International Relations chapter by Gansen and James (2021), and echoed in Barnoschi’s (2025) introduction, systemism requires the respective scholar to specify not only intra-systemic relationships (macro–macro, micro–micro, macro–micro, and micro–macro linkages in the diagrams), but also inter-systemic flows (environment into system and system into environment). This comprehensive structuring mandates a completeness often absent in conventional IR theorizing, where assumptions are left implicit or where certain causal pathways are omitted. In systemism, these omissions can easily be identified. This leads to enhanced clarity and logical consistency, promoting a level of theoretical rigor that is both desirable and necessary in the fragmented field of IR and facilitating meaningful discussion of complex issues.

Beyond all of that, the potential of systemism to foster active learning in higher education classrooms represents another significant strength. The contributions within this issue demonstrate its versatile incorporation into diverse topics, including regime complexity, migration policies, civil wars, and the gendered dimensions of terrorism. This inherent versatility provides a considerable pedagogical advantage, allowing students to leverage acquired proficiency in a wide range of academic and professional settings. Consequently, systemism offers a valuable pedagogical tool for instructors across various courses on International Studies and equips students with transferable skills applicable to current and future academic and professional pursuits.

Systemism’s logical coherence and emphasis on visualization facilitate group work, promote peer learning, and foster critical thinking. Instructors can develop a range of interactive sessions, including escape room-style activities and literature review workshops, designed to cultivate active learning and team-building skills. This pedagogy proves particularly valuable for interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary courses, where students engage with scholarship from diverse disciplinary perspectives. For example, Idika-Kalu’s work demonstrates the application of a literature review workshop within a Gender Studies context. Figures 1 through 3 in her article can function as an introductory resource for students exploring the subject of women and terrorism, encouraging them to analyze interconnections, identify scholarly gaps and debates, and synthesize key findings, potentially culminating in a draft literature review. As Money’s substantive article in this issue indicates, this graphic method has the potential to expose limitations and gaps in existing research. Additionally, students can develop policy papers utilizing previously visualized articles on immigration, civil wars, women in conflict, and counterterrorism.

What is more, in a “visual synthesis lab” activity, small student groups can be assigned VIRP diagrams tied to a thematic cluster and be instructed to generate a new, composite systemist diagram that bridges or critiques the existing visualizations. This task encourages critical engagement with methodological choices, fosters theoretical creativity, and strengthens synthesis skills. Instructors can then facilitate plenary discussion where groups present their diagrams and reflect on the conceptual or empirical gaps they encountered. Within the VIRP context, this promotes iterative student-led contributions to the archive and deepens understanding of both theory construction and its visual articulation.

Consider systemism within the greater mandate of the social sciences. The systemist approach holds potential to support multidisciplinary programs and departments by serving as a unifying framework for thematically related courses across diverse disciplinary perspectives. For instance, programs that necessitate a comprehensive understanding of a topic from multiple disciplines could employ systemist graphics as a research methodology. Likewise, separate courses taught concurrently by different faculties could be effectively integrated through a collaborative activity grounded in a systemist approach. For example, migration-related courses offered by anthropology, sociology, and political science departments could collaborate using a systemist approach. Similarly, a Gender Studies department collaborating with a faculty trained in history, economics, anthropology, sociology, and political science could utilize a common course on systemist applications. Both Money (2025) and Idika-Kalu (2025) engage with IR topics with a notable multidisciplinary dimension. For instance, a collaborative project might bring together a Gender Studies and political science faculty in a shared course focused on conflict and peacebuilding. Students could analyze systemist diagrams related to women’s roles in post-conflict recovery and then work across disciplinary teams to expand these diagrams using theoretical lenses from each field. Gender Studies students might emphasize intersectionality and subjectivity while political science students focus on institutional factors or regime types. In this way, systemism can serve not just as a visualization method but as a structured platform for collaborative knowledge generation.

The VIRP archives also offer a valuable pedagogical tool for undergraduate research. For instance, senior seminars requiring an independent project could leverage systemist graphics as an analytical framework. Utilizing a scaffolding approach, instructors can strategically insert a VIRP-based activity into the research paper process. A practical application would involve students developing a visual literature review after completing their annotated bibliography but before writing the main literature review. This exercise could significantly enhance understanding across all components of research design, including theory construction, method selection, and data source identification.

Systemist diagrams present a nested two-box structure. Although the specific content within these boxes differs and addresses all facets of research design, this visual representation serves to foreground underlying theoretical frameworks. The VIRP’s landing page features an image of a hippo pod, establishing a visual metaphor between their majestic yet seemingly static nature and the frequently incremental progress observed in the field of international relations. While notable advancements have occurred within discrete research agendas, scholarly communication and collaboration across these areas remain constrained. Visualization presents a potential avenue for addressing this challenge, with the capacity to contribute to both theory building and theory refinement. Prior work on systemism supports this plausibility; for instance, James (2019, p. 781) demonstrates its potential in theory building through “bricolagic bridging,” creating new insights from existing IR scholarship. This volume further engages in systemist theory building. Money (2025) utilizes two systemist tools: bricolagic bridging, to connect ideas, and elaboration for theory disaggregation. Addressing a gap on systemic influences in migration policy, this piece proposes six key international structures that significantly advance theoretical understanding. In addition, the synthesis of migration policy definitions connects studies across time and space.

Building upon contributions such as those above, the systemist graphic approach presents potential avenues for bridging the research–policy nexus and the Global South–Global North divide by offering a shared visual lexicon that preserves substantive detail, thereby contributing to both theory building and refinement. While policymakers focused on areas such as counterterrorism (Idika-Kalu and Barnoschi) or migration policies (Money) may face time constraints regarding in-depth research engagement, they might find presented figures readily incorporable into decision-making processes. Practitioners can use VIRP diagrams as quick-reference tools to inform decision-making, especially in time-sensitive contexts like counterterrorism or refugee response. Non-governmental organizations or agencies might adapt diagrams to map intervention strategies and policymakers could also use them to visualize potential policy impacts in briefing materials or when communicating with other departments. Furthermore, the open-source nature of the VIRP democratizes access to IR scholarship globally, thereby facilitating the inclusion of scholars with restricted access to academic materials.

Another key strength lies in the potential for theory refinement in complex research agendas. Meaningful theoretical refinement emerges through the systematic communication of discrete yet interconnected conceptual frameworks. James (2017) previously established the utility of the systemist approach in engaging with causal mechanisms to promote scientific advancement in the study of the causes of war. Olson Lounsbery’s contribution offers insight into how such conceptual linkages can be developed in understanding civil war actors through an examination of three prominent scholarly works. Graphic representation explains connections pertaining to “asymmetric power structures typical of civil wars, varying preferences of rebel actors, and decisions to intervene by external actors” (Olson Lounsbery 2025, p. 10). The intricate and multifaceted nature of civil war actors’ preferences presents challenges for both theory building and refinement within this domain. By identifying critical areas of convergence, Olson Lounsbery’s work contributes to the refinement of existing IR theories of civil war.

A fundamental prerequisite for theory refinement is a comprehensive understanding of existing scholarship. Money and Olson Lounsbery both engage with the evolution of specific research agendas, allowing readers to trace connections between works from diverse stages and identify shared themes and pivotal junctures.

Nonetheless, the effective implementation of active learning and theory building through systemism is contingent upon the development of proficiency in interpreting and generating its graphics. The inherent notational and symbolic complexity can be a substantial barrier, especially for undergraduate learners, despite the inherent accessibility of visualization. Moreover, systemism’s reliance on abstract thought and knowledge of IR theory presents a challenge for undergraduate programs. Similarly, practitioners may lack the incentive to invest time in learning systemist notation, despite its visual appeal. The lack of seamless integration with common software could limit digital collaboration, presenting another obstacle.

A further limitation is the absence of digital layering capabilities for multiple diagrams. Without visual superimposition, it is crucial to have textual articulation of relationships. All four articles in this issue provide a detailed description of their systemist approach. While these descriptions function as subtitles to diagrams, they require significant attention and time, contrasting with the VIRP’s visual promise. Developing visual layering for digital comparison and accessible digitalization of graphs could enhance use of the VIRP diagrams. For example, the vast VIRP archive contains over 1000 graphic representations of IR scholarship. Facilitating digital comparison of two to three works to identify overlaps and differences would significantly optimize the utilization of this considerable resource.

Another weakness that becomes evident when looking at the four articles is the issue of subjectivity in interpretation. While systemist diagrams impose a formal structure, they do not eliminate the interpretive discretion of the diagram’s creator. The decision to include or exclude certain variables (or, more inclusively, components), to infer causal directionality, or to designate a particular node as nodal rather than generic, inherently retains a subjective component. Idika-Kalu’s diagrammatic representation of women’s roles in terrorism, for instance, might struggle to convey the affective, symbolic, and emotional dimensions that are central to feminist and phenomenological approaches in ways that conclusively reflect their conditioning by or impact on the larger context or their consequences on a more individual level. Likewise, Olson Lounsbery’s depiction of mediation effects and rebel group dynamics may simplify the temporal fluidity and contingency inherent in civil war processes.

Furthermore, the risk of oversimplification is worth mentioning in the context of a SWOT analysis. Complex sociopolitical phenomena, especially those involving identity, memory, or emotion, often resist clean diagrammatic articulation. Idika-Kalu’s research, grounded in qualitative interviews and rich local context, conveys nuances that are difficult to fully capture in a single visual frame. Likewise, Olson Lounsbery’s focus on the changing roles and internal dynamics of rebel groups raises questions that evolve over time and in reaction to contingent circumstances. These subtleties can potentially be lost when constrained to fixed variables and, therefore, need to be constructed very carefully.

Finally, the static nature of systemist diagrams might pose an additional challenge when attempting to visualize certain publications. While useful for representing causal relationships at a given moment, they are less effective at capturing dynamic processes that evolve over time. This is a particular concern in fast-changing domains such as counterterrorism and migration, where institutional responses and policy shifts often include many nuances that evolve rapidly and cannot all meaningfully be captured in a diagram as a significant increase in the number of variables and/or linkages between and across levels would come at the expense of clarity and lucidity.

While these limitations are currently present, the subsequent section will explore potential opportunities for their remediation and also identifies potential threats.

3. The Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges

A significant future challenge lies in the prevailing academic incentive system. While the discussed strengths of systemism presuppose a scholarly inclination towards cross-disciplinary linkages and theory enhancement, tenure and promotion criteria often prioritize publication volume and citations over the sustained intellectual investment required for in-depth interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary inquiry or theory building. The “publish or perish” culture can incentivize early career researchers to favor rapid, fragmented publication (“salami slicing”) over reflective and contemplative approaches. Consequently, the considerable time and resources needed for formulating novel theoretical frameworks, interdisciplinary collaboration, and innovative thinking may inadvertently discourage scholars from pursuing more expansive research agendas within their fields.

Similarly, scholarly expectations regarding productivity incentivize a deep focus on methodological expertise and the hyper-refinement of terminology. While this pursuit can drive progress within specific fields, it inadvertently creates a trade-off, discouraging interdisciplinary bridge building and the amplification of communication across research areas. Money’s (2025) examination of the evolution of migration policy definitions and Barnoschi’s exposition of the ‘counterterrorism regime complex’ illustrate the dynamic nature of academic concepts and perspectives. Although conceptual change is a desirable and inevitable aspect of research, the cultivation of linkages across temporal contexts remains of equal importance.

In order to achieve optimum relevance and outreach, systemism must also contend with structural inequalities in visibility and access of scholarship. The field of IR and by extension the VIRP archive, which, especially in its early stages, was focused on an inclusion of visualizations of the most important works in the discipline, remain disproportionately populated by contributions from Global North institutions and dominant theoretical paradigms. This imbalance risks not providing adequate or meaningful representation of more marginalizing perspectives, particularly from the Global South but also from indigenous communities and critical traditions that might not easily conform to systemism’s lucid visual and logical structure. The framework’s implicit emphasis on formal causality and discrete variables may underrepresent forms of knowledge that prioritize ambiguity, fluidity, or contextual specificity.

Importantly, both Idika-Kalu and Money acknowledge these exclusions in their respective articles. Idika-Kalu’s work addresses the silencing of African women’s experiences in terrorism studies and IR more broadly, using systemism to foreground their roles in ways that challenge conventional narratives. Money, meanwhile, critiques the limited attention paid to non-Western migration models and emphasizes the need for a more inclusive comparative agenda. Their use of systemism to surface these gaps demonstrates that the method can be used to counteract marginalization provided that scholars are mindful of the broader context in its application.

Technological innovation could also present a promising path forward, especially through the potential use of artificial intelligence to support systemist work. Machine learning tools could assist in analyzing text and suggesting diagrammatic forms, thus expanding access to systemism for scholars unfamiliar with diagramming software. At the same time, such developments could also facilitate real-time editing, collaborative modeling, and dynamic representations of evolving systems. In doing so, they could facilitate overcoming limitations and enable more interactive forms of knowledge production.

In addition to enhancing systemism’s reach, technological advances may also promote its role in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration. The standardized structure of systemist diagrams allows them to be intelligible across disciplines, providing a shared medium through which scholars in other disciplines such as law, economics, sociology, or environmental studies can engage with IR scholars. This bridging function is particularly relevant for global challenges such as forced displacement, climate security, or cyber conflict that demand integrated interdisciplinary frameworks. Through systemism, researchers from different traditions can pool insights without compromising methodological rigor.

Policy relevance is another key domain where systemism demonstrates value. Its visual lucidity and conciseness enable practitioners to grasp complex theoretical relationships quickly. Barnoschi’s diagrams of UNSC resolutions, for example, offer a clear, comprehensive overview of institutional mechanisms and strategic responses in the counterterrorism regime complex. Idika-Kalu’s representation of education, empowerment, and radicalization pathways, meanwhile, provides policy-relevant insights for actors working in Internally Displaced Persons camps or are active in gender-sensitive peacebuilding. In both cases, the visual clarity afforded by systemist methods bridges the gap between academic insight and applied utility.

From a pedagogical standpoint, systemism contributes to a more active and structured learning environment. Diagrams help students visualize abstract concepts, differentiate between levels of analysis, and understand the logical underpinnings of complex arguments. The VIRP’s growing archive of diagrams has proven useful in classrooms, aiding students in exam preparation and literature reviews while also supporting the development of original research projects. Instructors can use diagrams to encourage comparative analysis, highlight theoretical debates, and stimulate discussion about the strengths and limitations of various approaches.

This special issue exemplifies the potential to transform challenges into opportunities. Through its introductory piece, three substantive articles, and concluding commentary, it has engaged six researchers in the application of systemism. Notable outcomes include the creation of numerous new graphic representations for the VIRP archives and contributions to the authors’ scholarly output. These positive feedback mechanisms offer a promising strategy for addressing the identified challenges and further leveraging existing opportunities. Therefore, it is crucial to recognize the value of contributions, such as the preceding four articles, that actively aim to synthesize different elements within the field.

Although the visualization of complex academic works offers significant advantages, notably enhanced clarity, the potential for over-reliance on visual representations merits careful consideration. By its very nature, the process of visualization entails information filtering, and even with rigorous and effective application, the emergence of inherent limitations is unavoidable. For example, Olson Lounsberry successfully produces a diagram for Regan’s (2009) book Sixteen Million One: Understanding Civil War. It is impossible to capture all elements of a book like this in a single figure and Olson Lounsberry does not claim to do so. Olson Lounsbery’s expertise is the key factor contributing to the success of this illustration. The reliability of the VIRP archive is ensured by its expert production and vetting processes. However, the increasing capacity of AI to rapidly generate graphics poses a potential risk of misinformation, a concern echoed in other scholarly fields. To mitigate this and ensure the continued development of reliable, consistent, and coherent diagrams, a steady flow of peer-reviewed manuscripts engaging with the systemist approach is essential.

4. Conclusions

This commentary article assessed strengths and limitations. We identified numerous contributions in theory building and refinement, active learning pedagogy, collaboration within and across disciplines, and partnership among policymakers and scholars. Limitations and obstacles, such as the lack of visual layering and the learning curve for systemist notation, were also noted. Furthermore, we explored the landscape of opportunities and challenges, focusing on digital collaboration, the risk of misinformation, and the dangers of oversimplification.

The introductory article (Barnoschi 2025) and the three substantive contributions (Idika-Kalu 2025; Olson Lounsbery 2025; Money 2025) illustrate the considerable reach of the systemist approach within International Studies and its potential to facilitate interdisciplinary engagement. Collectively, the contributors underscore the need for synthesis and reflection on the findings across our respective fields. They collectively articulate both the potential and the limits of systemism as a methodological, pedagogical, and practical instrument in International Studies. At the same time, the contributions demonstrate systemism’s capacity to integrate theoretical innovation with clear visualization and practical relevance. The method’s most crucial advantage is its capacity to bring diverse strands of IR scholarship such as feminist, institutionalist, quantitative, and interpretive approaches used in the articles in this special issue into productive dialogue without forcing premature consensus or resolution. As shown across the contributions, systemism excels in revealing connections: between scholarship and policy, between methods and epistemologies, and between macro structures and micro dynamics.

Looking ahead, the systemist method and the VIRP are well-positioned to make lasting contributions to International Studies, but doing so will require intentional reflection on the values embedded in the visual tools themselves. Inclusivity, transparency, adaptability, and rigor must remain guiding principles. As researchers, educators, and practitioners engage with systemist techniques, they must be prepared to use them not only as means of clarification but as opportunities for critical interrogation. The goal is not to replace narrative or argumentation, but to complement and extend them in ways that foster deeper understanding and more meaningful exchange. In this sense, systemism does not offer a final answer to IR’s methodological challenges, but it provides a vital platform for addressing them more effectively and collaboratively.

Systemism can foster integration across research traditions, support cumulative theory building, and promote engagement with both policy and pedagogical communities. However, the approach also demands ongoing critical reflection, particularly regarding interpretive choices, and the range of the pieces selected for inclusion. As the VIRP continues to expand and systemist techniques evolve, the challenge will be to maintain analytical clarity while ensuring that the tools remain responsive to the diverse, dynamic, and often contested realities that define global politics.