Organizing Interdisciplinary International Studies: From Puzzlement to Research Programmes

  • Pami Aalto
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series book series (PSIR)

Abstract

In this chapter I will elaborate on some of the major questions pertaining to the organization of our research efforts when we attempt to move from international relations (IR) towards the wider and more plural field of interdisciplinary international studies (IS). When consciously moving towards the wider research directions afforded by IS, we will inevitably be faced with choices regarding the methodological means by which to open up the various aspects of the ‘international’, while drawing upon various forms of interdisciplinarity – including the multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary and neodisciplinary forms of scholarship (see  Chapter 2).

Keywords

International Relation Hard Core Paradigmatic Programme International Relation English School 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aalto, P. and D. Korkmaz (2011) ‘Towards a Wider European Energy Security Society: From Vulnerability and Viability to Sustainability’ in P. Aalto, V. Harle and S. Moisio (eds) Global and Regional Problems: Towards Interdisciplinary Study (Farnham: Ashgate).Google Scholar
  2. Aalto, P., V. Harle and S. Moisio (2011) ‘Introduction’ in P. Aalto, V. Harle and S. Moisio (eds) Global and Regional Problems: Towards Interdisciplinary Study (Farnham: Ashgate).Google Scholar
  3. Adler, E. (1997) ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 3: 319–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backhouse, R. (1994) ‘The Lakatosian Legacy in Economic Methodology’ in R. Backhouse (ed.) New Directions in Economic Methodology (New York: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baylis, J., S. Smith and P. Owens (eds) (2005) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  6. Bird, A. (2004) ‘Kuhn, Naturalism and the Positivist Legacy’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 35(2): 337–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruun, H., J. Hukkinen, K. Huutoniemi and J.T. Klein (2005) Promoting Interdisciplinary Research: The Case of the Academy of Finland (Helsinki: EDITA).Google Scholar
  8. Buzan, B. (2004) From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chalmers, M. (1999) What Is This Thing Called Science? (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc).Google Scholar
  10. Chaturvedi, S. (2011) ‘Circumpolar Arctic in “Global” Climate Change: (De) securitizing the Ice’ in P. Aalto, V. Harle and S. Moisio (eds) Global and Regional Problems: Towards Interdisciplinary Study (Farnham: Ashgate).Google Scholar
  11. Galtung, J. (1985) ‘Twenty-Five Years of Peace Research: Ten Challenges and Some Responses’, Journal of Peace Research, 22(2): 141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chernoff, F. (2005) The Power of International Theory: Reforging the Link to Policy- Making through Scientific Enquiry (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  13. Elman, C. and M.F. Elman (2003a) ‘Lessons from Lakatos’ in C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  14. Elman, C. and M.F. Elman (2003b) ‘Introduction’ in C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  15. Harrison, E. (2003) ‘International Relations and Scientific Progress’, International Studies Review, 5: 355–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haukkala, H. (2010) The EU-Russia Strategic Partnership: The Limits of Post- Sovereignty in International Relations (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  17. Hess, D.J. (1997) Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction (New York: New York University Press).Google Scholar
  18. Hobbs, H. (ed.) (2000) Pondering Post-Internationalism: A Paradigm for the Twenty- First Century? (Albany, NY: SUNY Press).Google Scholar
  19. Hobson, J.M. and L. Seabrooke (2007) ‘Everyday IPE: Revealing Everyday Forms of Change in the World Economy’ in J.M. Hobson and L. Seabrooke (eds) Everyday Politics of the World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  20. Hollis, M. and S. Smith (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  21. Huyssteen, J.W. (1999) The Shaping of Rationality: Towards Interdisciplinarity in Theology and Science (Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing).Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, P.T. and D. Nexon (2009) ‘Paradigmatic Faults in International-Relations Theory’, International Studies Quarterly, 53: 907–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. James, P. (2002) International Relations and Scientific Progress: Structural Realism Reconsidered (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).Google Scholar
  24. Kagan, J. (2009) The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and the Humanities in the 21st Century: Revisiting J.P. Snow (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katzenstein, P., R.O. Keohane and S. Krasner (1998) ‘International Organization and the Study of World Politics’, International Organization, 52(4): 645–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keohane, R. (1986) ‘Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond’ in R. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
  27. Kitcher, P. (1995) The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein, J. (2001) ‘Interdisciplinarity and the Prospect of Complexity: The Tests of Theory’, Issues in Integrative Studies, 19: 43–57.Google Scholar
  29. Kratochwil, F. (2009) ‘Ten Points to Ponder about Pragmatism: Some Critical Reflections on Knowledge Generation in the Social Sciences’ in H. Bauer and E. Brighi (eds) Pragmatism in International Relations (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, T. (1970 [1962]) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  31. Kurki, M. and C. Wight (2007) ‘International Relations and Social Science’ in T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  32. Lakatos, I. (1970) ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’ in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laudan, L. (1977) Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth (Berkeley: University California Press).Google Scholar
  34. Martin, L. (2007) ‘Neoliberalism’ in T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  35. Molteberg, E., C. Bergstrøm and R. Haug (2000) ‘Interdisciplinarity in Development Studies: Myths and Realities’, Forum for Development Studies, 26(2): 317–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moran, J. (2002) Interdisciplinarity (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neumann, I. and O. Wæver (eds) (1997) The Future of International Relations? Masters in the Making (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  38. Panke, D. and T. Risse (2007) ‘Liberalism’ in T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  39. Popper, K. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
  40. Rosenau, J.N. (1996) ‘Probing Puzzles Persistently: a Desirable But Improbable Future for IR Theory’ in S. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  41. Rosenau Vaillancourt, P. (1990) ‘Once Again into the Fray: International Relations Confronts the Humanities’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 1: 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmidt, B.C. (2002) ‘On the History and Historiography of International Relations’ in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B.A. Simmons (eds) Handbook of International Relations (London: SAGE).Google Scholar
  43. Simowitz, R. (2003) ‘Measuring Intra-Programmatic Progress’ in C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  44. Smith, C.B. (2003) ‘How Do Textbooks Represent the Field of International Studies?’, International Studies Review, 5: 421–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Snyder, J. (2003) ‘ “Is” and “Ought”: Evaluating Empirical Aspects of Normative Research’ in C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  46. Vasquez, J. (2003) ‘Kuhn vs. Lakatos: The Case for Multiple Frames in Appraising IR Theory’ in C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  47. Wæver, O. (2007) ‘Still a Discipline after all These Debates?’ in T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  48. Wendt, A. (1995) ‘Constructing International Politics’, International Security, 20: 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wight, C. (2002) ‘Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations’ in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B.A. Simmons (eds) Handbook of International Relations (London: SAGE).Google Scholar
  50. Wight, C. (2006) Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Winch, P. (2008) The Idea of Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  52. Zinnes, D.A. (1980) ‘Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher’, International Studies Quarterly, 24(3): 315–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pami Aalto 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pami Aalto

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations