Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diversity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reappraising European IR Theoretical Traditions

Part of the book series: Trends in European IR Theory ((TEIRT))

  • 244 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter positions the book series in the context of the growing concerns of the lack of diversity in IR. Since the 1980s, scholars have been addressing this challenge by mapping “Global IR” and promoting pluralism in the discipline. In comparison with “scholars from the Global South”, European IR scholars still have to properly engage with the specificity of their contributions to the global debate—a gap this book series aims to bridge. If academic “dialogue” implies the encountering of two distinct perspectives, in their quest for academic otherness, European scholars may have forgotten to construct their own part of the dialogical formula. The chapter illustrates how scholars around the world—and in particular in Brazil, India and China—have already done so.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acharya, A. 2011. Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 619–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A., and B. Buzan. 2007. Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7 (3): 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, J. 2007. Know-Where: Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics. International Political Sociology 1 (2): 138–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajpai, K., and S. Mallavarapu. 2005. International Relations in India: Theorising the Region and Nation. New Delhi: Orient Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behera, N.C. 2007. Re-Imagining IR in India. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7 (3): 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilgin, P. 2004. Is the “Orientalist” Past the Future of Middle East studies? Third World Quarterly 25 (2): 423–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilgin, P. 2010. The “Western-Centrism” of Security Studies: “Blind Spot” or Constitutive Practice? Security Dialogue 41 (6): 615–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleek, W. 2001. Geschichte Der Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland. München: C.H. Beck Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonanate, L. 1990. Guide Agli Studi di Scienze Sociali in Italia. In Studi Internazionali. Torino: Edizioni Della Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyu, C., C.C. Hwang, and L.H.M. Ling. 2009. Lust/Caution in IR: Democratising World Politics with Culture as a Method. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 37 (3): 743–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breitenbauch, H.Ø., and A. Wivel. 2004. Understanding National IR Disciplines Outside the United States: Political Culture and the Construction of International Relations in Denmark. Journal of International Relations and Development 7 (4): 414–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. 2011. The Development of International Relations Theory in the UK: Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives, and Trajectories. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11 (2): 309–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Q. 2001. Selling Culture? Ancient Chinese Conceptions of “The Other” in Legends. In The Zen of ‘International Relations’: IR Theories from East to West, ed. S. Chan, P.G. Mandaville, and R. Bleiker, 178–202. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervo, A.L. 2008. Formação dos Conceitos Brasileiros. São Paulo: Saraiva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, G. 1999. Chinese Perspectives on International Relations: A Framework for Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chernilo, D. 2011. The Critique of Methodological Nationalism: Theory and History. Thesis Eleven 106 (1): 98–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chimni, B.S., and S. Mallavarapu. 2012. International Relations: Perspectives for the Global South. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A., and N. Hamilton-Hart. 2008. Teaching International Relations in Southeast Asia: Historical Memory, Academic Context, and Politics—An Introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 9 (1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A., and S.S. Tan. 2009. Teaching International Relations in Singapore 1956–2008: From Supporting Development to Global City Aspirations? International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 9 (1): 19–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornut, J., and D. Battistella. 2013. Des RI Françaises en Emergence? Les Internationalistes Français dans le Sondage TRIP 2011. Revue Française de Science Politique 63 (2): 303–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czempiel, E.O. 1986. Der Stand der Wissenschaft von den Internationalen Beziehungen und der Friedensforschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderheft 17: 250–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Almeida, P.R. 1993. Estudos de Relações Internacionais do Brasil: Etapas da produção historiográfica brasileira, 1927–1992. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 36 (1): 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Almeida, P.R. 2006. O Estudo das Relações Internacionais do Brasil: Um Diálogo entre a Diplomacia e a Academia. Brasília: LGE Editor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dos Santos, N.B. 2005. História das Relações Internacionais no Brasil: esboço de uma avaliação sobre a área. História (São Paulo) 24 (1): 11–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty, R.L. 1996. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drulák, P. 2009. Introduction to the International Relations in Central and Eastern Europe Forum. Journal of International Relations and Development 12 (2): 168–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, J.L., and J.O. Voll. 2000. Islam and the West: Muslim Voices of Dialogue. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 29 (3): 613–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, G. 1987. Studies on International Relations in Brazil: Recent Times (1950–80). Millennium-Journal of International Studies 16 (2): 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichs, J. 2006. The Nordic Countries. In International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations, ed. K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen, 125–148. Oxon, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichs, J., and O. Wæver. 2009. Western Europe: Structure and Strategy at the National and Regional Levels. In International Relations Scholarship Around the World: Worlding beyond the West, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 261–286. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, C., 2003. El estado actual de la enseñanza de las Relaciones Internacionales en España, La Unión Europea ante el siglo XXI: los retos de Niza. Actas de las XIX Jornadas de la Asociación Española de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales, Madrid, 393–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gareau, F.H. 1981. The Discipline of International Relations: A Multi-National Perspective. The Journal of Politics 43 (3): 779–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groom, A.J.R. 2005. International Relations: Never Just an American Social Science. Net Kiosk Plus: The Net Journal of Political Science 3 (1): 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, G. 2003. Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations? International Studies Review 5 (1): 123–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, G. 2014. Methodological Transnationalism –Europe’s Offering to Global IR. European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellman, G., K.-D. Wolf, and M. Zürn (eds.). 2003. Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen: Forschungsstand and Perspektiven in Deutschland. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, M.G. 1998. One Field, Many Perspectives: Building the Foundations for Dialogue. International Studies Quarterly 42 (4): 605–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, M.G. 2002. One Field, Many Perspectives: Shifting from Debate to Dialogue. In Visions of International Relations: Assessing an Academic Field, ed. D. Puchala, 16–41. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herz, M. 2002. O Crescimento da Área de Relações Internacionais no Brasil. Contexto Internacional 24 (1): 7–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herz, M. (n.d.) The Study of International Relations in Latin America. http://interamericanos.itam.mx/documentos/herz_disciplina_ri.pdf.

  • Hobson, J.M. 2007. Decolonizing “Western Exceptionalism and Universality” One More Time. Historically Speaking: The Bulletin of the Historical Society 9 (2): 16–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, J.M. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, J.M. 2014. The Twin Self-Delusions of IR: Why “Hierarchy” and Not “Anarchy” is the Core Concept of IR. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 42 (3): 557–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden, G. 2014. Worlding beyond the West. Cooperation and Conflict 49 (1): 133–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, K.J. 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, K. 2011. ‘Dialogue Between Whom? The Role of the West/Non-West Distinction in Promoting Global Dialogue in IR. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 639–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huysmans, J., and Wæver, O. (eds.). 2009. Special Issue, Beyond European and North American Traditions of Social and Political Thought, International Political Sociology 3 (3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoguchi, T., and P. Bacon. 2001. The Study of International Relations in Japan: Towards a More International Discipline. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1 (1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P. 2008. Pierre Bourdieu, the “Cultural Turn” and the Practice of International History. Review of International Studies 34 (1): 155–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P.T. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, D.S.L. 2001. International Relations: An International Discipline? In International Relations –Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, ed. R.M.A. Crawford, and D.S.L. Jarvis, 369–380. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, K.E. 2000. Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret. European Journal of International Relations 6 (1): 9–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, K.E., and T.B. Knudsen (eds.). 2006a. International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, K.E., and T.B. Knudsen. 2006b. Introduction. In International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations, ed. K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A. 2012. Social Science Research and Engagement in Pakistan. In Thinking International Relations Differently, ed. A.B. Tickner and D.L. Blaney, 322–341. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitaro, N. 2002. The forms of Culture of the Classical Periods of East and West Seen from a Metaphysical Perspective. In Comparative Political Culture in the Age of Globalization: An Introductory Anthology, ed. H.Y. Jung, 213–230. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, T.L. 2014. Western Approaches. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 42 (2): 448–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korany, B. 2009. IR theory: Contributions from Research in the Middle East. In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 173–179. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, R.N. 2014. European Voices in IR Theory: A Transatlantic Perspective. European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 65–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessa, A.C. 2005. Instituições, atores e dinâmicas do ensino e da pesquisa em Relações Internacionais no Brasil: o diálogo entre a história, a ciência política e os novos paradigmas de interpretação (dos anos 90 aos nossos dias). Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 48 (2): 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucarelli, S., and R. Menotti. 2006. Italy. In International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations, ed. K.E. Jørgensen and T.L. Knudsen, 47–71. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupovici, A. 2013. Me and the Other in International Relations: An Alternative Pluralist International Relations 101. International Studies Perspectives 14 (3): 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, S. 2010. International Studies in India: Some Comments. International Studies 47 (1): 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makdisi, K. 2009. Reflections on the State of IR in the Arab Region. In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. A.B. Tickner, and O. Wæver, 180–189. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maliniak, D., S. Peterson, and M. J. Tierney. 2012. TRIP Around the World: Teaching, Research, and Policy Views of International Relations Faculty in 20 Countries. Williamsburg, Virginia: The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations at the College of William & Mary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbach, R.W. 2014. Among the Very Best: A Brief Selection of European Contributors and Contributions to IR Theory. European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 80–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesbahi, M. 2009. IR Scholars and International Systems: Learning and Socialization. International Political Sociology 3 (3): 346–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyamoto, S. 1999. O estudo das Relações Internacionais no Brasil. Revista de Sociología E Política 12 (1): 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, S. (ed.). 1998. International Relations Theory and the Third World (History and Society). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, I.B. 2014. What Does Europe Have to Offer IR? Exogenisation and Real-Life Data. European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 98–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nossal, K.R. 2001. Tales that Textbooks Tell: Ethnocentricity and Diversity in American Introductions to International Relations. In International Relations –Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, ed. R. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis, 167–186. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paipais, V. 2016. Political Ontology and International Political Thought: Voiding a Pluralist World. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasirtsuk, K. 2009. Teaching International Relations in Thailand: Status and Prospects. International Relations of the Asia Pacific 9 (1): 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puchala, D. 2002. Visions of International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafael, V. 1994. The Cultures of Area Studies in the United States. Social Text 41 (1): 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rytövuori-Apunen, H. 2014. Catching a Formative Moment: Epistemic Unity in the European Plurality. ERIS-European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 103–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebastian, L.C., and I.G. Lanti. 2010. Perceiving Indonesian Approaches to International Relations Theory. In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia, ed. A. Acharya, and B. Buzan, 148–173. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shilliam, R. 2011. International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism, and Investigations of Global Modernity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, M. 2010. Guest Editor’s Note. International Studies 46 (3): 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. 2002. The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline. International Studies Review 4 (2): 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. 2007. Introduction. In Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory, ed. T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smouts, M.C. 1989. The Study of International Relations in France. In The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, ed. H.C. Dreyer and L. Margasarian, 221–228. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Song, X. 2001. Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics. Journal of Contemporary China 10 (26): 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sridharan, E. 2005. Theory and International Relations. Economic and Political Weekly 40 (46): 4819–4821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadtmüller, E. 2014. European Voices in International Studies: What Does Europe Have to Offer? European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamaki, T. 2007. Confusing Confucius in Asian Values? A Constructivist Critique. International Relations 21 (3): 284–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B. 2008. Latin American IR and the Primacy of lo práctico. International Studies Review 10 (4): 735–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B. 2009. Latin America: Still Policy Dependent After all These Years. In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 32–52. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B., and O. Wæver. 2009. Introduction: Geocultural Epistemologies. In International Relation Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 1–31. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B. 2013. Core, Periphery and (Neo)imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 627–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B., and D.L. Blaney (eds.). 2012. Thinking International Relations Differently. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitalis, R. 2000. The Graceful and Generous Liberal Gesture: Making Racism Invisible in American International Relations. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 29 (2): 331–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volgy, T.J. 2014. A Cautious But Optimistic View from the Other Side of the Water’s Edge. European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vüllers, J. 2014. Geographical Patterns of Analysis in IR Research: Representative Cross-Regional Comparison as a Way Forward. Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wæver, O. 1998. The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization 52 (4): 687–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. 2003. International Relations Studies in China Today: Achievements, Trends and Conditions. In International Relations Studies in China: A Review of Ford Foundation Past Grantmaking and Future Choices, 114. Beijing: Ford Foundation China Representative Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. 2009. China: Between Copying and Constructing. In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 103–199. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, R.E. 1974. Culture and the Comparative Study of Politics, or the Constipated Dialectic. The American Political Science Review 68 (1): 190–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye, Z., and X. Pang. 2001. Schools of Diplomatic Thought during the Spring and the Autumn and Warring States Periods in China—A Comparison with the West. World Economics and Politics 30 (12): 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y. 2002. Review: International Relations Theory in China Today: The State of the Field. The China Journal 47 (6): 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Audrey Alejandro

  2. Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Knud Erik Jørgensen

  3. Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany

    Alexander Reichwein

  4. Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    Felix Rösch

  5. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Helen Turton

Authors
  1. Audrey Alejandro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Knud Erik Jørgensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Reichwein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Felix Rösch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Helen Turton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Audrey Alejandro .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Alejandro, A., Jørgensen, K., Reichwein, A., Rösch, F., Turton, H. (2017). Diversity. In: Reappraising European IR Theoretical Traditions. Trends in European IR Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58400-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation