Knowledge Production and Circulation in Pakistani International Relations

  • Ahmed W. WaheedEmail author


The feeble and marginal participation of Pakistani scholars and academics in the processes of international knowledge production cannot be left alone to publishing processes which are tacitly exclusionary and grant more credibility to knowledge produced in the western ‘intellectual’ centers. In this regard, a study of how International Relations scholarship is produced from Pakistan requires more insight into the exogenous and endogenous processes through which scholars and academics produce knowledge about Pakistan. This chapter firstly analyzes the exogenous factors responsible for inhibiting periphery scholars from challenging the dominating discourse. These dominant exogenous factors include the prevalence of academic capitalism and the mercantilization of higher education that followed as a consequence of academic ‘yardsticks’, and the imposition of English as a Lingua Franca for publishing in internationally reputable journals. Secondly, the chapter explores endogenous factors specific to Pakistan because of which Pakistani academics are impeded and implicitly discouraged to produce alternative discourse not only domestically but also internationally. This analysis is based on a detailed exposition of the policies of the Pakistan Higher Education Commission on promotions and incentives to publish.


  1. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. New York: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. ———. “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312.Google Scholar
  3. Ahmed, Waheed. “Why Are There No International Relations Theories in Pakistan.” South Asia Research 37, no. 3 (2017).Google Scholar
  4. Alatas, Syed Farid. “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 51, no. 6 (November 30, 2003): 599–613. Scholar
  5. ———. “Academic Dependency in the Social Sciences: Reflections on India and Malaysia.” American Studies International. Mid-America American Studies Association, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. ———. “Alternative Discourses in Southeast Asia.” Sari 19 (2001): 49–67.
  7. ———. “An Introduction to the Idea of Alternative Discourses.” Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 28 (2000): 1–12.
  8. Alatas, Syed Hussein. “Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits, and Problems.” Asian Journal of Social Science 28, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 23–45.Google Scholar
  9. Associated Press of Pakistan. “Unemployed PhDs Demand Jobs.” Pakistan Today, March 12, 2019.
  10. Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations,” 2000, 289–303.Google Scholar
  11. Behera, Navnita Chadha, ed. International Relations in South Asia: Search for an Alternative Paradigm. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2008.Google Scholar
  12. Behera, N. “South Asia: A ‘Realist’ Past and Alternative Futures.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by A. Tickner and O. Wæver. London: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
  13. Beigel, Fernanda. “Introduction: Current Tensions and Trends in the World Scientific System.” Current Sociology 62, no. 5 (September 27, 2014): 617–25.Google Scholar
  14. ———. “Publishing from the Periphery: Structural Heterogeneity and Segmented Circuits. The Evaluation of Scientific Publications for Tenure in Argentina’s CONICET.” Current Sociology 62, no. 5 (September 3, 2014): 743–65.Google Scholar
  15. Bilgin, Pinar. “Looking for ‘the International’ Beyond the West.” Third World Quarterly 31, no. 5 (July 2010): 817–28. Scholar
  16. Blaney, David L., and Arlene B. Tickner. “Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45, no. 3 (June 12, 2017): 293–311. Scholar
  17. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. “On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason.” Theory, Culture & Society 16, no. 1 (February 1999): 41–58.Google Scholar
  18. BR Research. “HEC Aims at Seeing 15 Pak Varsities Among World’s Top-500.” Business Recorder, September 3, 2018.
  19. Canagarajah, A. Suresh. “‘Nondiscursive’ Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production.” Written Communication 13, no. 4 (1996): 435–72. Scholar
  20. ———. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. Choi, Po King. “‘Weep for Chinese University’: A Case Study of English Hegemony and Academic Capitalism in Higher Education in Hong Kong.” Journal of Education Policy 25, no. 2 (March 2010): 233–52.Google Scholar
  22. Chou, Chuing Prudence. “The SSCI Syndrome in Taiwan’s Academia.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 22, no. 29 (2014): 1–18.Google Scholar
  23. Gareau, Frederick H. “Another Type of Third World Dependency: The Social Sciences.” International Sociology 3, no. 2 (June 29, 1988): 171–78.Google Scholar
  24. Garfield, Eugene. “Peer Review, Refereeing, Fraud, and Other Essays.” Essays of an Information Scientist 10 (1987).Google Scholar
  25. Genc, Bilal, and Erdogan Bada. “English as a World Language in Academic Writing.” The Reading Matrix 10, no. 2 (2010): 142–52.Google Scholar
  26. Gruffydd Jones, Branwen, ed. Decolonizing International Relations. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.Google Scholar
  27. Hanafi, Sari. “University Systems in the Arab East: Publish Globally and Perish Locally vs Publish Locally and Perish Globally.” Current Sociology 59, no. 3 (May 28, 2011): 291–309.Google Scholar
  28. Higher Education Commission. “Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Recognition, Upgradation & Funding of Journals and Equivalency of Book with Research Article,” 2017.
  29. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. “Quality and Research Based Ranking of Pakistani HEIs.” Ranking of Pakistani HEIs, 2015.
  30. Hobson, John M. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  31. Hoodbhoy, P. “Pakistan’s Professor Mafia.” Dawn, July 1, 2017.
  32. Inayatullah. “Development of the Discipline of Political Science in Pakistan.” In Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile, edited by Inayatullah, R. Saigol, and P. Tahir. Islamabad: Pisces Enterprises, 2005.Google Scholar
  33. Inayatullah, R. Saigol, and P. Tahir, eds. Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile. Islamabad: Pisces Enterprises, 2005.Google Scholar
  34. Inayatullah, Sohail. “Imagining an Alternative Politics of Knowledge: Subverting the Hegemony of International Relations Theory in Pakistan.” Contemporary South Asia 7, no. 1 (March 11, 1998): 27–42. Scholar
  35. “Islamabad Policy Research Institute.” IPRI Journal. Accessed May 6, 2019.
  36. Jackson, Peter A. “Space, Theory, and Hegemony: The Dual Crises of Asian Area Studies and Cultural Studies.” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 18, no. 1 (2003): 1–41.Google Scholar
  37. ———. “The Neoliberal University and Global Immobilities of Theory.” In Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn, edited by Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge, 27–44. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Scholar
  38. Jacobs, Daisy, Pit. Pichappan, and S. Sarasvady. “What Do Third World Researchers Lack? Documenting the Peer Review Data.” Current Science 91, no. 12 (2006): 1605–7.Google Scholar
  39. Kamran, Tahir. “The State of Social Sciences in Pakistan.” The News on Sunday, 2017.
  40. Khan, Niamat Ullah. “HEC Recognised Journals.” Daily Times, September 1, 2018.
  41. Lee, Hikyoung, and Kathy Lee. “Publish (in International Indexed Journals) or Perish: Neoliberal Ideology in a Korean University.” Language Policy 12, no. 3 (August 16, 2013): 215–30.Google Scholar
  42. Makri, Anita. “Pakistan and Egypt Had Highest Rises in Research Output in 2018.” Nature: International Journal of Science (December 21, 2018).
  43. Mielke, Katja, and Anna-Katharina Hornidge, eds. Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.Google Scholar
  44. “National Defence University, Islamabad.” Margalla Papers. Accessed May 6, 2019.
  45. “Pakistan Institute of International Affairs.” Pakistan Horizon. Accessed May 6, 2019.
  46. Pennycook, Alastair. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. New York: Routledge, 1994.Google Scholar
  47. Phillipson, Robert. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  48. ———. Linguistic Imperialism Continued. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
  49. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés. “On English as a Vehicle to Preserve Geographical Diversity.” Progress in Human Geography 28, no. 1 (February 1, 2004): 1–4.Google Scholar
  50. Rodriguez Medina, Leandro. Centers and Peripheries in Knowledge Production. New York: Routledge, 2015.Google Scholar
  51. Schueller, Malini J. “Area Studies and Multicultural Imperialism: The Project of Decolonizing Knowledge.” Social Text 25, no. 1 90 (March 1, 2007): 41–62. Scholar
  52. Shah, M. Tahir Ali. “Policy Revision in Compliance of the Decision Taken in the 31st Meeting for Development of Social Sciences and Humanities in Pakistan,” 2017.
  53. Shilliam, Robbie, ed. International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism, and Investigations of Global Modernity. London: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
  54. Shin, Kwang-Yeong. “Globalization and the National Social Science in the Discourse on the SSCI in South Korea.” Korean Social Science Journal, XXXIV 34, no. 1 (2007): 93–116.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, Neil. “Afterword: Who Rules This Sausage Factory?” Antipode 32, no. 3 (2000): 330:339.Google Scholar
  56. Tickner, Arlene B. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627–46. Scholar
  57. Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. New York and London: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
  58. Waheed, Ahmed Waqas. “State Sovereignty and International Relations in Pakistan: Analysing the Realism Stranglehold.” South Asia Research 37, no. 3 (2017): 277–95. Scholar
  59. Yeung, Henry Wai-Chung. “Redressing the Geographical Bias in Social Science Knowledge.” Environment and Planning A 33, no. 1 (2001): 1–9. Scholar
  60. Zaidi, S. Akbar. “Dismal State of Social Sciences in Pakistan.” Economic and Political Weekly 37, no. 35 (2002): 3644–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for International Peace & StabilityNational University of Sciences and TechnologyIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations