Advertisement

International Relations as a Scholarly Discipline

  • Jacek Czaputowicz
  • Anna Wojciuk
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents International Relations as a scholarly discipline and its developmental models in different states. It analyzes the historical development of the field, institutional setups, disciplinary power, as well as the theoretical and methodological preferences in the discipline in the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Nordic states. It identifies distinctive IR models in continental Europe, i.e., “self-reliant,” “resigned marginalization,” and “multi-level research collaboration.” These models serve as a background for the presentation of Polish IR later in this book. The aim is to establish which of these models is the closest to IR in Poland. Finally, this chapter discusses IR in the Soviet Union, which, like Poland, remained under the influence of communist ideology in the Cold War period. There is no single way of organizing the discipline; the existing setups are deeply embedded in the history of the given country, the broad organization of its academia, as well as the position of the country within the global political and economic order.

Keywords

Discipline of International Relations Comparative approach Disciplinary power Theories Methods 

References

  1. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2010). Conclusion: On the possibility of a non-western international relations theory. In A. Acharya & B. Buzan (Eds.), Non-western international relations theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia (pp. 221–239). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Amstrup, N. (1989). The study of international relations. Old or new? A historical outline (1500 to 1939) (Working Paper). Aarhus: Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth, L. M. (2009). Interdisciplinarity and international relations. European Political Science, 8(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, A. (2013). The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and structured pluralism in international relations theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 459–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biersteker, T. J. (2009). The parochialism of hegemony. Challenges for “American” international relations. In Arlene B. Tickner & Ole Wæver (Eds.), International relations scholarship around the world (pp. 308–327). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Breitenbauch, H. Ø. (2013). International relations in France: Writing between discipline and state. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Breitenbauch, H. Ø., & Wivel, A. (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. Google Scholar
  8. Bull, H. (1966). International theory: The case for a classical approach. World Politics, 18(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buzan, B. (1999). The English school as a research programme. Paper for the BISA Conference, Manchester.Google Scholar
  10. Buzan, B. & Little, R. (2001). Why international relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it, Millennium, 30(1), 19–39.Google Scholar
  11. Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2010). World history and the development of non-western international relations theory. In A. Acharya & B. Buzan (Eds.), Non-western international relations theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia (pp. 197–221). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Chilland, M. (2009). International Relations in France: The ‘usual suspects’ in a French scientific field of study? European Political Science, 8, 239–253.Google Scholar
  13. C.A.S.E. Collective. (2006). Critical approaches to security in Europe: A networked manifesto. Security Dialogue, 37(4), 443–487.Google Scholar
  14. Cox, W. S., & Nossal, K. R. (2009). The “crimson world”: The Anglo core, the post-imperial non-core, and the hegemony of American IR. In A. B. Tickner & O. Wæver (Eds.), International relations scholarship around the world (pp. 287–307). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Crawford, R. M. A. (2001). Where Have All the Theorists Gone – Gone to Britain, Every One? The story of two Parochialisms in International Relations. In: Crawford & Jervis, International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Towards Diversity on International Thought, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Czaputowicz, J. (2012). Czy interdyscyplinarność jest właściwym kierunkiem rozwoju stosunków międzynarodowych w Polsce? [Is interdisciplinarity the proper direction for the development of international relations in Poland?]. In A. Gałganek, E. Haliżak & M. Piertaś (Ed.), Wielo- i interdyscyplinarność nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych [Multi- and interdisciplinarity in the study of international relations] (pp. 229–246). Warszawa: Polskie Towarzystwo Studiów Międzynarodowych, Wydawnictwo Rambler.Google Scholar
  17. Czaputowicz, J., & Ławniczak, K. (2015). Ankieta teaching, research and international policy 2014 w Polsce. Raport z badań. Warszawa: Wydział Dziennikarstwa i Nauk Politycznych, Uniwersytet Warszawski.Google Scholar
  18. Czaputowicz, J., & Stasiak, D. (2013). Political expertise in Poland in the field of foreign policy and the emergence of think tanks. In S. Brooks, D. Stasiak, & T. Żyro (Eds.), Policy expertise in contemporary democracies (pp. 165–182). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  19. de Madariaga, S. (1937). Theory and practice of international relations. Philadelphia, PA: Swarhmore College.Google Scholar
  20. Drulák, P. (2009). Introduction to international relations (IR) in Central and Eastern Europe Forum. Journal of International Relations and Development, 12(2), 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferguson, Y. H. (2014). The transatlantic tennis match in IR Theory: Personal reflections. European Review of International Studies, 1(1), 18–24.Google Scholar
  22. Ferreira-Pereira, L. C., & Freire, M. R. (2009). International relations in Portugal: The state of the field and beyond. Global Society. doi: 10.1080/13600820802556850.Google Scholar
  23. Friedrichs, J. (2004). European approaches to international relations theory: A house with many mansions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Friedrichs, J. (2006). The Nordic countries. In: Jørgensen & Knudsen (Eds.). International Relations in Europe. Traditions, perspectives and destinations. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Friedrichs, J., & Wæver, O. (2009). Western Europe. Structure and strategy at the national and regional levels. In A. B. Tickner & O. Wæver (Eds.), International relations scholarship around the world (pp. 261–286). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Giesen, K.-G. (2006). France and other French-speaking countries (1945−1994). In K. E. Jørgensen & T. B. Knudsen (Ed.), International relations in Europe. Traditions, perspectives and destinations (pp. 19–46). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Golovin, I. (1844). Science de la politique. Paris: Éditeur Cappelle. Retrieved April 12, 2015, from http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k37011x.
  29. Groom, A. J. R., & Lequesne, C. (2014). Foreword. European Review of International Studies, 1(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
  30. Grosser, A. (1965). L’étude des relations internationales: spécialité Américaine? Revue française des science politique, 6(3), 634–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guzzini, S. (2013). The periphery starts in our heads. Przegląd Europejski, 1(27), 14–18.Google Scholar
  32. Hancock, K. J., Baum, M. A., & Breuning, M. (2013). Women and pre-tenure scholarly productivity in international studies: An investigation into the leaky career pipeline. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 507–527.Google Scholar
  33. Hellmann, G. (1994). Für eine problemorientiere Grundlagenforschung: Kritik und Perspektiven der Disziplin. Zeitschrift für Internationale Bezeihungen, 1(1), 65–90. Google Scholar
  34. Hoffmann, S. (1977). An American social science. International relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41–60.Google Scholar
  35. Humrich, C. (2006). Germany. In K. E. Jørgensen & T. B. Knudsen (Ed.), International relations in Europe. Traditions, perspectives and destinations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. International relations study in six European countries: The United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy: Reports to Ford Foundation. (1976). New York: Ford Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Jørgensen, K. E. (2004). Towards a six continents social science: International relations. Journal of International Relations and Development, 6(4), 330–343.Google Scholar
  38. Jørgensen, K. E., & Knudsen, T. B. (Eds.). (2006). International relations in Europe: Traditions, perspectives and destinations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Karran, T. (2007). Academic freedom in Europe: A preliminary comparative analysis. Higher Education Policy, 20(3), 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kohler-Koch, B. (Ed.). (1989). Regime in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  42. Kristensen, P. M. (2012). Dividing discipline: Structures of communication in international relations. International Studies Review, 14(1), 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levy, J. (1997). Too important to the other: History and political science in the study of international relations. International Security, 22(1), 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lucarelli, S., & Menotti, R. (2006). Italy. In K. E. Jørgensen & T. B. Knudsen (Ed.), International relations in Europe. Traditions, perspectives and destinations (pp. 47–71). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Mearsheimer, J., & Walt, S. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 427–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morgenthau, H. J. (1959). The nature and limits of a theory of international relations. In W. T. R. Fox (Ed.), Theoretical aspects of international relations (pp. 15–28). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  47. Müller, H. (1994). Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln, Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien. Zeitschrift für Internationale Bezeihungen, 1(1), 15–44.Google Scholar
  48. Müller, H. (2014). US and European IR communities and foreign policy. A comparative speculation. European Review of International Studies, 1(1), 88–97.Google Scholar
  49. Nye, J. S. (2008). The relevance of theory to practice. In C. Reuss-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 648–660). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nye, J. S. (2009, April 13). Scholars on the sidelines. Washington Post.Google Scholar
  51. Peterson, S., Tierney, M. J., & Maliniak, D. (2005). Teaching and research practices, views on the discipline, and policy attitudes of international relations faculty at U.S. Colleges and Universities. Williamsburg: College of William and Mary.Google Scholar
  52. Rittberger, V. (Ed.). (1993). Regime theory of international relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  53. Schmidt, C. B. (1998). The political discourse of anarchy: A disciplinary history of international relations. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schwarzenberger, G. (1941). Power politics: An introduction to the study of international relations and post-war planning. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  55. Segura, C. G. (2006). Spain. In K. E. Jørgensen & T. B. Knudsen (Ed.), International relations in Europe. Traditions, perspectives and destinations (pp. 100–124). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Sergounin, A. (2009). Russia. IR at the crossroads. In A. B. Tickner & O. Wæver (Eds.), International relations scholarship around the world (pp. 223–241). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Sharman, J. C., & Weaver, C. E. (2013). Between the covers: International relations in books. Political Science and Politics, 46(1), 124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science? British Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 374–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smouts, M. -C. (1998). Introduction. La Mutation d’une discipline. In M. -C. Smouts (Ed.), Les Nouvelles Relations Internationales. Pratiques et théories (pp. 11–33). Paris: Presses de Sciences PO.Google Scholar
  60. Soutou, G.-H. (2014). A French whisper among European voices. European Review of International Studies, 1(1), 111–116.Google Scholar
  61. Tsygankov, A. P., & Tsygankov, P. A. (2004). New directions in Russian international studies: Pluralization, westernization, and isolationism. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 37(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tsygankov, A., & Tsygankov, P. (2014). Russian IR theory: The crisis of a globally-pluralist discipline. European Review of International Studies, 1(2), 92–106.Google Scholar
  63. Turton, H. L. (2015). International relations and American dominance: A diverse discipline. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. 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), 141–146.Google Scholar
  65. Wæver, O. (1998). The Sociology of not so international discipline. American and European developments in international relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687–727.Google Scholar
  66. Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., & Risse, T. (2016). International relations scholars in Germany: Young, internationalised, and non-paradigmatic. German Politics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2016.1253683.
  67. Wight, M. (1991). International theory: The three traditions. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wojciuk, A. (2014). International dimensions of higher education in the age of knowledge. Stosunki Międzynarodowe, 1(49), 219–228.Google Scholar
  69. Wojciuk, A., Michałek, M., & Stormowska, M. (2015). Education as a source and tool of soft power in international relations. European Political Science, 14(3), 298–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zimmern, A. E. (Ed.). (1939). L’Enseignement Universitaire des Relations Internationales. Paris: Institute International de Cooperation Intellectuelle.Google Scholar
  71. Zürn, M. (1994). We can do much better! Aber muss es auf amerikanisch sein? Zeitschrift für Internationale Bezeihungen, 1(1), 91–114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of European Studies, Faculty of Political Sciences and International StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Institute of International Relations, Faculty of Political Sciences and International StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations