Meet Our Researchers: James Goldgeier
Meet Our Researchers: James Goldgeier
Exploring U.S. foreign policy and the path to studying how major international decisions are made with Professor James Goldgeier.
The "Meet Our Researchers" series showcases the incredible scholars at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). Through engaging interviews conducted by our undergraduate research assistants, we explore the journeys, passions, and insights of CDDRL’s faculty and researchers.
Professor James Goldgeier is a Research Affiliate at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) and Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). He is also a Professor at the School of International Service at American University, where he served as Dean from 2011 to 2017. His research focuses primarily on U.S.-NATO-Russia relations since the end of the Cold War, examining how key foreign policy decisions were made and how they continue to influence relations between the United States, Europe, and Russia today.
What inspired you to pursue research in your current field? And how did your journey lead you to see your role?
I got into this field because of my undergraduate thesis advisor, Joseph Nye, who inspired me to become a professor of international relations. When I was in college, I thought I wanted to work on political campaigns, and after graduating, my first job was managing a city council campaign in Boston. We lost by a very small margin, and afterward, I received offers to work on other campaigns. But that experience made me realize I wasn’t sure that was what I wanted to do long-term.
I started thinking about people whose careers I admired, and Joseph Nye stood out. Before college, I had never traveled outside the United States, but he traveled extensively, wrote books, and clearly enjoyed teaching. That combination of research, writing, and teaching really appealed to me. I went to him and asked what I would need to do to pursue a similar path. He told me I would need to get a PhD. That conversation ultimately shaped my career. I went on to earn a PhD and become a professor, and I’ve always felt deeply indebted to him for helping me see that this was the path I wanted to pursue.
How did you get into the specific area of study that you ended up focusing on?
I went to U.C. Berkeley to do my PhD in international relations, and during my first year, Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union. I was taking a class on Soviet foreign policy at the time, and that really drew me in. Since the Cold War was central to U.S. foreign policy, it became clear to me that if I wanted to understand international relations, I needed to understand the Soviet Union.
I started studying Russian, taking history courses, and focusing more closely on Soviet and European security issues. Although the Soviet Union collapsed while I was finishing my dissertation, my broader interest in U.S. foreign policy remained constant. My undergraduate thesis had been on NATO nuclear policy, so over time I returned to NATO and became increasingly interested in its role in shaping the post–Cold War order. By the mid-1990s, that had become a central focus of my research.
What’s the most exciting finding from your research, and why does it matter for democracy and development?
In the mid-1990s, I worked in the U.S. government at the State Department and the National Security Council, focusing on Russia and European security. One of the major issues at the time was whether NATO should expand to include countries in Central and Eastern Europe. I later wrote a book on that decision, which was published in 1999.
One of the most important things I found was that NATO enlargement didn’t come from a single formal decision by the president and his cabinet. Instead, it developed gradually, driven by individuals who believed strongly in the policy and worked to move it forward over time. It was a much more incremental and contested process than people often assumed.
What was especially significant was that policymakers saw NATO enlargement as a way to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law in Central and Eastern Europe. By offering countries the prospect of membership, they hoped to encourage democratic reforms and political stability. I think NATO enlargement had a profound impact on democratic development in the region, and my research helped explain how and why that policy came about.
What have been some of the most challenging aspects of conducting research in this field, and how did you overcome them?
Much of my work sits at the intersection of political science and history, and one of the biggest challenges is studying relatively recent events, where records are often incomplete. When you study earlier historical periods, you have access to archives and official records, but when you study more recent foreign policy decisions, much of that material is still classified.
Because of that, I’ve relied heavily on interviews with policymakers and officials. Interviews are incredibly valuable, but they also have limitations. People remember events differently, and often present events in a light that best reflects their own role or perspective, which is why it’s important to interview multiple people and compare their accounts to develop a more accurate understanding of what happened.
I’ve also used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain declassified documents, although that process can take many years. Some requests I filed for my 1999 book didn’t produce results until I was working on later books in 2003 and even 2008. But over time, those documents helped confirm and strengthen my understanding of how key decisions were made. Doing this kind of research requires patience, but it’s essential if you want to understand how foreign policy actually develops.
How has the field changed since you started, and what gives you hope?
The field has changed quite a bit since I finished my PhD in 1990. One major shift was that after the Cold War ended, there was less emphasis on area studies and regional expertise. When I was trained, people were expected to combine theoretical work with deep knowledge of particular regions, which is now less common.
What gives me hope is the current generation of students. Many students today are highly capable of integrating knowledge of politics and history with technological expertise. Especially at places like Stanford, students have the opportunity to combine social science knowledge with new technologies. I think that combination will shape the future of the field.
What gaps still exist in your research, and what projects are you currently working on?
I’m currently working on a project with Michael McFaul and Elizabeth Economy on great power competition, focusing on how major powers try to influence the foreign policy orientation of smaller states. It’s an important issue, especially given the current international environment.
I’ve also continued working on NATO enlargement and its long-term consequences. When I published my book on NATO expansion in 1999, I didn’t expect that these issues would still be so central decades later. But NATO enlargement continues to shape relations between Russia, Europe, and the United States, particularly in light of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Hence, understanding how those earlier decisions connect to current events remains a major focus of my work.
What advice would you give to students interested in this field?
Students should focus on topics that genuinely interest them. You can’t predict what will be important five or ten years from now. Choosing a topic solely because you think it will be important in the future isn’t a good strategy if you’re not truly interested in it. Instead, study subjects that motivate you and that you feel compelled to understand. Unexpected events can suddenly make your area of interest highly relevant. Passion and curiosity are essential for meaningful research.
What book would you recommend to students interested in international relations?
I recommend Robert Jervis’s Perception and Misperception in International Politics, published in 1976. Jervis was one of the most brilliant scholars in international relations and had a major influence on the field.
His book explores how leaders interpret and misinterpret the world, and how those perceptions shape international relations. It combines insights from politics, psychology, and history, and helps explain why cooperation between states is often difficult. It’s an excellent starting point for anyone who wants to understand the role of leadership and perception in international politics.
