This dissertation revolves around questions of how diverse the International Relations (IR) discipline is and what patterns of dominance are shaping it. I approached these questions through an in-depth study of IR scholarship in eight IR journals published in North America, Latin America, and Europe, and findings from the 2014 TRIP faculty survey as a point of reference. I based my study of the journals' geographical, thematic, and theoretical diversity on a threefold definition of the term, which distinguishes between the three properties variety, evenness, and dissimilarity. The first refers to the number of regions, theories, and topics studied by a journal and the number of countries of affiliation on which its authorship is based. Evenness refers to the relative intensity with which each of the present regions, theories, and topics are studied and the relative presence of each of the countries of affiliations in the journal. In the context of this dissertation, dissimilarity refers to the relative mix of critical and non- critical theories, the mix of regions under study and the authors based in the Global South and the Global North. The latter has special relevance to the debate on Global IR to which this dissertation contributes. On the whole, the level of diversity is at a medium level for the journals under study. The published scholarship is rather diverse due to a relatively broad variation of theory and themes as well as regions across the journals under study, but the values do not match the numbers displayed by the survey respondents across the globe which suggest a higher degree of diversity. The values tend to be lower for the individual journals. This is especially the case when looking beyond the standard property variety. In fact, while some of the journals cover a wide range of theories (FI, ISQ, and EJIR), topics (APSR and ISQ), and regions (all journals), none of the journals scored a high level of evenness or dissimilarity for any of the areas of investigation. Following my definition of ...
This volumes engages with the 'Global(izing) International Relations' debate, which is marked by the emerging tensions between the steadily increasing diversity and persisting dividing lines in today's International Relations (IR) scholarship. Its international cast of scholars draw together a diverse set of theoretical and methodological approaches, and a multitude of case studies focusing on IR scholarship in African and Muslim thought, as well as in countries such as China, Iran, Australia, Russia and Southeast Asian and Latin American regions. The following questions underpin this study: how is IR practiced beyond the West, and which theoretical alternatives are there for Western IR concepts? Fundamentally, what divides today's IR scholarship in light of its geo-epistemological diversity? This volume identifies shortcomings in the existing debate and offers new pathways for future research
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
This volumes engages with the 'Global(izing) International Relations' debate, which is marked by the emerging tensions between the steadily increasing diversity and persisting dividing lines in today's International Relations (IR) scholarship. Its international cast of scholars draw together a diverse set of theoretical and methodological approaches, and a multitude of case studies focusing on IR scholarship in African and Muslim thought, as well as in countries such as China, Iran, Australia, Russia and Southeast Asian and Latin American regions. The following questions underpin this study: how is IR practiced beyond the West, and which theoretical alternatives are there for Western IR concepts? Fundamentally, what divides today's IR scholarship in light of its geo-epistemological diversity? This volume identifies shortcomings in the existing debate and offers new pathways for future research.
To what extent is International Relations (IR) a globalized discipline? We investigate the geographic diversity of authorship in seventeen IR journals from Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America, and the United Kingdom. Biographical records were collected for the authors of 2,362 articles published between 2011 and 2015. To interpret the data, we discuss how publishing patterns are driven by author incentives (supply) in tandem with editorial preferences and strategies (demand). Our main findings are twofold. First, global IR is fragmented and provincial. All journals frequently publish works by authors located in their own region—but the size of these local clusters varies. Geographic diversity is highest in what we identify as the "goldilocks zone" of international publishing: English-language journals that are globally visible but not so competitive that North American authors crowd out other contributions. Second, IR is being globalized through researcher mobility. Many scholars have moved to pursue their doctoral education and then publish as expats, returnees, or part of the diaspora. They are joined by academic tourists publishing in regions to which they have no obvious ties. IR journals thus feature more diverse backgrounds than it may seem at first sight, but many of these authors were educated in North America, the United Kingdom, and Europe.
This article contributes to two debates about international relations (IR) as a discipline: first, how global is IR, and how is it structured? Second, what is the state of theory in IR? We conducted (co-) citation analyses of both Web of Science (WoS) and—for the first time— non-WoS publications from Europe, North America, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. With regard to the first question, we find that global IR resembles a core–periphery structure as a "hub and spoke" system whereby transatlantic core nodes are interconnected to each other and to some periphery nodes, while the periphery nodes are connected to the core but not to each other. IR scholarship in the periphery quotes the transatlantic theory cluster but is not linked to each other, not even in the same region. Knowledge produced in the periphery has to go through the transatlantic core in order to be recognized globally. As to the transatlantic core, we identify two major (co-) citation clusters: one committed to IR theory-building across issue areas from a variety of perspectives and the other focused on security studies with a strong emphasis on quantitative methods. With regard to the second question, global IR hangs together through references to the IR theory cluster consisting of North American and European authors who appear to define what IR theory is. Scholars in the periphery refer to this transatlantic IR theory cluster when engaging in theory-building. IR theories have become rather diverse and pluralistic, even in the core. While scholars still refer to the big "isms," they use them around the globe in a synthesizing manner.
Abstract The "global IR" debate lacks systematic data on scholarship in different world regions, particularly outside the Web of Science (WoS). To close this gap, we compare 2,362 articles published in seventeen journals between 2011 and 2015. We map each article's overall approach, main theories, and substantive issue area. These content data are combined with information on the author's biographical background. Crucially, our sample also includes journals from East Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe, and North America not indexed in the WoS. We find a bifurcated Transatlantic core of IR, with an emphasis on quantitative-rationalist research on one side compared to more constructivist and critical theorizing on the other. Journals outside the core more often feature articles with a descriptive approach, and this tendency is not limited to atheoretical works. Theoretical paradigms vary in popularity between regions. Many articles draw on multiple theories, including concepts from adjacent fields, which supports the notion of analytical eclecticism. Yet explicitly "non-Western" theorizing remains rare. To explore the influence of academic socialization, we compare subsamples within journals. The origins of doctoral degrees indeed seem linked to research preferences, suggesting that journals can become more well-rounded by publishing works by authors from diverse academic backgrounds. El debate sobre las "relaciones internacionales globales" carece de datos sistemáticos sobre los estudios en diferentes regiones del mundo, especialmente fuera de la plataforma Web of Science (WoS). Para cubrir esta falta de datos, comparamos 2362 artículos que se publicaron en 17 revistas entre 2011 y 2015. Realizamos un esquema del enfoque general, las teorías principales y el ámbito temático sustancial de cada artículo. Estos datos del contenido se combinan con información sobre los antecedentes biográficos del autor. Crucialmente, nuestra muestra también incluye revistas de Asia oriental, África, América Latina, Europa y Norteamérica que no están indexadas en la plataforma WoS. Observamos una base transatlántica bifurcada de las relaciones internacionales, con un énfasis en la investigación cuantitativa y racionalista por un lado, en comparación con una teorización más constructivista y crítica por el otro. Con más frecuencia, las revistas que no se encuentran en la base incluyen artículos con un enfoque descriptivo, y esta tendencia no se limita a las obras no teóricas. Los paradigmas teóricos varían en materia de popularidad entre las regiones. Muchos artículos recurren a varias teorías e incluyen los conceptos de campos adyacentes, lo cual respalda la noción del eclecticismo analítico. No obstante, la teorización que es explícitamente "no occidental" continúa siendo escasa. Para analizar la influencia de la socialización académica, comparamos submuestras dentro de las revistas. En efecto, los orígenes de los doctorados parecen estar relacionados con las preferencias de investigación, lo cual sugiere que las revistas pueden tornarse más integrales publicando obras de autores de distintos antecedentes académicos. Le débat sur les « RI mondiales » manque de données systématiques sur les recherches menées dans différentes régions du monde, tout particulièrement hors de Web of Science (WoS). Pour combler cette lacune, nous avons comparé 2 362 articles publiés dans 17 revues entre 2011 et 2015. Nous avons cartographié l'approche globale, les principales théories et le domaine de la problématique substantielle de chaque article. Ces données sont alliées à des informations sur le parcours biographique des auteurs. Mais surtout, notre échantillon inclut aussi des revues issues d'Asie de l'Est, d'Afrique, d'Amérique latine, d'Europe et d'Amérique du Nord qui ne sont pas indexées dans WoS. Nous avons d'une part décelé un noyau de RI transatlantique dichotomique, une facette mettant l'accent sur les recherches quantitatives/rationalistes alors que l'autre se concentre sur une théorisation plus constructiviste et critique. Les revues hors de ce noyau présentent plus souvent des articles adoptant une approche descriptive et cette tendance ne se limite pas aux travaux athéoriques. Les paradigmes varient en popularité entre les régions. De nombreux articles s'appuient sur plusieurs théories, notamment sur des concepts issus de domaines adjacents, ce qui contribue à la notion d'éclectisme analytique. Pourtant, la théorisation explicitement « non occidentale » reste rare. Nous avons comparé des sous-échantillons au sein des revues pour explorer l'influence de la socialisation académique. Les origines des diplômes de doctorat semblent en réalité associées à des préférences de recherche, ce qui suggère que les revues pourraient devenir plus équilibrées en publiant des travaux d'auteurs aux divers parcours académiques.
This paper asked two interrelated questions through citation analyses of both WoS- and – for the first time – seven non-WoS publications from Latin America, Africa, and Asia: 1) What is the state of IR theory in various journals? 2) To what extent is IR theory global rather than con-fined to transatlantic IR? We find that IR theory is alive and kicking everywhere. There is little evidence for continued paradigmatic warfare as experienced during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The two main clusters of the 300 top-cited sources represented in our WoS dataset are both engaged in theory-building, one with regard to one substantive issue-area in world poli-tics, namely international security, the other more generally devoted to theorizing from a variety of substantive perspectives. As to the non-WoS journals in our sample, a similar picture of non-paradigmatic theory use emerges. However, while IR theory is referred to everywhere, it is definitely not global. Our top-300 WoS cited sources have been exclusively published in the U.S., the UK, and (Western) Europe. Highly cited theory sources in our dataset of non-WoS journals do not contain references to non-Western IR scholarship either. There are few theory citations in non-WoS journals referring to scholars of the particular region or country, but these cites do not travel beyond the individual journal. In sum, we can observe a core-periphery structure of global IR whereby a strongly interconnected transatlantic core community faces a periphery that only connects through common references to the core.
