Advertisement

Conclusion: Completing the Practice Turn

  • Christian Bueger
  • Frank Gadinger
Chapter

Abstract

The concluding chapter zooms out and reflects on recent developments. IPT has become a mature and very successful programme of research. Asking whether it has lived up to its promises, we find that some of them are clearly on the way to being realised, while others require further effort. Promises such as producing relevant knowledge that can trigger change, and moving closer to the actions of practitioners, remain important issues on the agenda. The practice turn is far from being completed, we end by speculating about the future of IPT, investigating three scenarios. Is IPT becoming an ever-growing and thriving trading zone, is it evolving into a paradigm, or will it soon begin to disappear into the annals of IR theory? The current state of play does not indicate that IPT has failed or will disappear in the near future. Instead, IPT has developed as a trading zone, as demonstrated by the quantitative and substantial expansion of IPT scholarship. The risks associated with turning IPT into a new paradigm will require close and sustained attention, however.

Keywords

International practice theory Discipline of international relations Scenarios Paradigms Mainstreaming Sociology of science 

Literature

  1. Acuto, Michele, and Simon Curtis, eds. 2013. Reassembling International Theory: Assemblage Thinking and International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, Emanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. 2011a. International Practices. International Theory 3 (1): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———, eds. 2011b. International Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2015. Fulfilling the Promises of Practice Theory in IR. International Studies Quarterly Online, 14 December. https://www.isanet.org/Publications/ISQ/Posts/ID/4956/Fulfilling-The-Promises-of-Practice-Theory-in-IR. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.
  5. Beck, Ulrich, and Wolfgang Bonß. 1989. Verwissenschaftlichung ohne Aufklärung? Zum Strukturwandel von Sozialwissenschaft und Praxis. In Weder Sozialtechnologie noch Aufklärung? Analysen zur Verwendung sozialwissenschaftlichen Wissens, ed. Ulrich Beck and Wolfgang Bonß, 7–45. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Berling, Trine Villumsen, and Christian Bueger. 2017. Expertise in the Age of Post-Factual Politics: An Outline of Reflexive Strategies. GeoForum 84: 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bethke, Felix S., and Christian Bueger. 2014. Bursts! Theoretical Fashions in the Study of International Organizations – A Bibliometric Analysis. Presented at the 55th Annual Conference of the International Studies Association, Toronto, March 2014.Google Scholar
  8. Bort, Suleika, and Alfred Kieser. 2011. Fashion in Organization Theory: An Empirical Analysis of the Diffusion of Theoretical Concepts. Organization Studies 32 (5): 655–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bremberg, Niklas, and Federica Bicchi, eds. 2017. European Diplomacy in Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2015. Making Things Known: Epistemic Infrastructures, the United Nations and the Translation of Piracy. International Political Sociology 9 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2017. Let’s Count Beyond Three: Understanding the Conceptual and Methodological Terrain of International Practice Theories. International Studies Quarterly Online, 3 April. http://www.isanet.org/Publications/ISQ/Posts/ID/5478/Lets-count-beyond-three-Understanding-the-conceptual-and-methodological-terrain-of-international-practice-theories. Accessed 31 Oct 2017.
  12. ———. 2014. International Practice Theory: New Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2015. The Play of International Practice. International Studies Quarterly 59 (3): 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2017. From Community to Practice: International Relations as a Practical Configuration. In The SAGE Handbook of the History, Philosophy and Sociology of International Relations, ed. Andreas Gofas, Inanna Hamati-Ataya, and Nicholas Onuf. London: Sage, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, Randall. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Belknap: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Drieschova, Alena. 2017. Peirce’s Semeiotics: A Methodology for Bridging the Material–Ideational Divide in IR Scholarship. International Theory 9 (1): 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duvall, Raymond, and Arjun Chowdhury. 2011. Practices of Theory. In International Practices, ed. Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot, 335–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fierke, Karin. 2002. Links Across the Abyss: Language and Logic in International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 46 (3): 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franke, Ulrich, and Ralph Weber. 2012. At the Papini Hotel – On Pragmatism in the Study of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 18 (4): 669–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frost, Mervyn, and Silviya Lechner. 2016a. Two Conceptions of International Practice: Aristotelian Praxis and Wittgensteinian Language-Games? Review of International Studies 42 (2): 334–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galtung, Johan. 1986. On the Anthropology of the United Nations System. In The Nature of United Nations Bureaucracies, ed. David Pitt and Thomas G. Weiss, 1–22. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2010. The Logic of Habit in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 16 (4): 539–561.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2017. Change in International Practices. European Journal of International Relations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1354066117718041.
  24. Jonas, Michael, and Beate Littig, eds. 2017. Praxeological Political Analysis. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Kustermans, Jorg. 2016. Parsing the Practice Turn: Practice, Practical Knowledge, Practices. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44 (2): 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Löwy, Ilana. 1992. The Strength of Loose Concepts—Boundary Concepts, Federative Experimental Strategies and Disciplinary Growth: The Case of Immunology. History of Science 30 (4): 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCourt, David M. 2012. The Roles States Play: A Meadian Interactionist Approach. Journal of International Relations and Development 13 (3): 370–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCourt, David. 2017. Practice Theory and Relationalism as the New Constructivism. International Studies Quarterly 60 (3): 475–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neumann, Iver B. 2002. Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31 (3): 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pouliot, Vincent. 2008. The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities. International Organization 62 (2): 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ———. 2010a. The Materials of Practice: Nuclear Warheads, Rhetorical Commonplaces and Committee Meetings in Russian–Atlantic Relations. Cooperation and Conflict 45 (3): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2010b. International Security in Practice. The Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2016. International Pecking Orders. The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pratt, Simon Frankel. 2016. Pragmatism as Ontology, Not (Just) Epistemology: Exploring the Full Horizon of Pragmatism as an Approach to IR Theory. International Studies Review 18 (3): 508–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ralph, Jason, and Jess Gifkins. 2017. The Purpose of the United Nations Security Council Practice: Contesting Competence Claims in the Normative Context Created by the Responsibility to Protect. European Journal of International Relations 23 (3): 630–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reckwitz, Andreas. 2002. Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2): 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ringmar, Erik. 2014. The Search for Dialogue as a Hindrance to Understanding: Practices as Interparadigmatic Research Program. International Theory 6 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schatzki, Theodore R., Karin Knorr Cetina, and Eike von Savigny, eds. 2001. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Schindler, Sebastian, and Tobias Wille. 2015. Change in and Through Practice: Pierre Bourdieu, Vincent Pouliot, and the End of the Cold War. International Theory 7 (2): 330–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt, Sebastian. 2014. Foreign Military Presence and the Changing Practice of Sovereignty: A Pragmatist Explanation of Norm Change. American Political Science Review 108 (4): 817–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmitt, Olivier. 2017. International Organization at War: NATO Practices in the Afghan Campaign. Cooperation and Conflict. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0010836717701969.
  43. ———. 2011. Banking on Power. How Some Practices in an International Organization Anchor Others. In International Practices, ed. Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot, 231–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilcox, Lauren. 2017. Practising Gender, Queering Theory. Review of International Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000183.
  45. Yanow, Dvora, Marleen van der Haar, and Karlijn Völke. 2016. Troubled Taxonomies and the Calculating State: Everyday Categorizing and “Race-Ethnicity” – The Netherlands Case. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 1 (2): 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Bueger
    • 1
  • Frank Gadinger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Politics and International RelationsCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Centre for Global Cooperation ResearchUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations