Suchergebnisse

Many scholars, intentionally or unintentionally, have entangled constructivisms and critical theories in problematic ways, either by assigning a critical-theoretical politics to constructivisms or by assuming the appropriateness of constructivist epistemology and methods for critical theorizing. IR's Last Synthesis? makes the argument that these connections mirror IR's grand theoretical syntheses of the 1980s and 1990s and have similar constraining effects on the possibilities of IR theory. They have been made without adequate reflection, in contradiction to the base assumptions of each theoretical perspective, and to the detriment of both knowledge accumulation about global politics and theoretical rigor in disciplinary IR. By rejecting its over-simple syntheses, this book hews a road toward reviving IR theorizing.

What is missing from the debate about the "end of IR theory" or the rejection of the now infamous "isms"? Queer theory. Those who declare that IR theory is over and those who see it as making a comeback; those who reject the "isms" and those who champion them seem like they are on opposite sides of a very wide spectrum. This article argues, however, that all is not as it seems. Instead, the various "sides" of the debates about the futures of IR all take for granted a common set of understandings of what research is, what research success is, that research success is valuable, and how those things predict the futures of IR. Their only significant disagreement is about how they see the story unfolding. We disagree on the result as well, but the root of our disagreement is in the terms of the debates. We see IR as failing in two ways: failing to find a self-satisfactory grand narrative and failing to achieve its necessarily impossible goals. The current state-of-the-field literature fights the failing of IR theory—even those who see it as over memorialize its successes. We argue that failure is not to be fought but to be celebrated and actively participated in. Analyzing IR's failures using queer methodology and queer analysis, we argue that recognizing IR's failure can revive IR as an enterprise.

AbstractThe concept of public goods is often operationalized in the literature as anything that demands some form of international cooperation. While this may be politically useful in generating international cooperation, it is analytically problematic for designing international law with the purpose of enhancing international cooperation. Many of the issues characterized as public goods are in fact common pool resources, which pose distinct issues for international cooperation and demand different legal architectures than public goods for effective international cooperation.

This article suggests to quantitative methodologists that the tools that they use (and often others they do not) are more broadly applicable than is often assumed; to reflexivist researchers that there are many more tools available to their research than are often seen as appropriate; and to the IR discipline writ large that most of the disciplinary thinking about the relationships between research, ontology, epistemology, methodology and methods is unnecessarily narrow. Our core goal is to reveal the problematically inaccurate nature of both the qualitative/quantitative and the positivist/post-positivist divides, as well as of traditional methods training. We suggest that the ability to pair, and the utility of pairing, quantitative (traditionally neopositivist) methods with critical (traditionally non-neopositivist) theorising makes this intervention. To this end, the article begins with discussions of the relationships between epistemology and method in IR research. We continue on to frame a disunity of social science in the quantitative/qualitative divide, which lays the groundwork for a section rethinking traditional understandings of how methods, methodology, and epistemology relate. We then make the case for the utility of methods traditionally classified as 'quantitative' for critical research in IR. The article concludes by discussing the transformative implications of this understanding for critical theorising, and for theorising knowledge within disciplinary IR.