Suchergebnisse

This article provides a state-of-the-art of 'Reflexive studies on IR', namely the research literature that has recently questioned the identity, traditional narratives, and conditions of knowledge production in the academic field of International Relations. Empirical accounts of International Relations' existence make explicit the social and political relations that order the academic field as well as the biases and the myths that are perpetuated in associated scholarly practices and literature. To further our understanding of Reflexive studies on IR, this article delineates a typology of the main perspectives recently developed in this research agenda, namely the geo-epistemic, the historiographical, and the sociological. This typology is a valuable tool for analysis, synthesis, and further engagement. Reviewing these three perspectives also illustrates how Reflexive studies on IR can help scholars and students to extend their critical awareness towards the historical and current conditions of knowledge production, which reflects the understanding of science as a product of complex social interactions.

Over the last few decades, several administrations in Canada have organized programs for training local elected officials (LEOs). While improving LEOs' competences is beneficial, this trend is developing amidst a persisting tension between democratic and technocratic approaches to governance. Indeed, training - and the professionalization it entails - disrupts the enduring principle holding that everyone is equally authorized to govern following the democratic election. Despite the significance of these transformations, training activities for LEOs have received limited scholarly attention until now. In this paper, we detail our conceptualization of the professionalization process and the role of training programs within it. We then review the existing Canadian training programs for LEOs. We also examine one case study: the main introductory training program for LEOs in Québec (Canada) since 2011. Accordingly, we advance our understanding of training's effects on elected officials by emphasizing how they contribute to a long-term process of professionalization.

Since the inception of International Relations (IR) within university departments, its disciplinary status has been the subject of constant debate. Yet, the current literature on 'the state of the discipline' silences this debate either through IR's assumed disciplinarity or conflation of debates about theory with the existence of IR. This Forum moves beyond this literature by explicitly engaging whether IR is a discipline or not and by enquiring how this status matters. Contributors rely on the sociology and philosophy of social science to call into question or affirm the disciplinarity of IR to argue whether IR is as a subfield of Political Science, a full-blown and autonomous discipline, or a hybrid field of interdisciplinary studies. Furthermore, contributors reveal the implications of the different disciplinary statuses regarding the academic institution, interdisciplinary possibilities and modes of organizing IR. Overall, these contributions aim to engage rather than close the disciplinary debate, creating further space for reflection.