International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy.
Recent interventions suggest that the discipline of international relations has moved beyond “grand theories” and “great debates” toward middle range theorizing and quantitative hypothesis testing. At the same time, scholars argue that the field is fragmenting into insular camps. I subject these cla...
| Publicado en: | International Studies Quarterly Vol. 62; no. 2; pp. 245 - 260 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Jun2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=130886323&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 130886323 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00208833 ISQ jtl: International Studies Quarterly issn: 00208833 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jun2018 vid: 62 iid: 2 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 130886323 10.1093/isq/sqy002 ppf: 245 ppct: 15 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T db: hlh ui: 130886323 – @attributes: type: P db: hlh ui: 130886323 tig: atl: International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy. aug: au: Kristensen, Peter Marcus affil: University of Copenhagen su: International relations Science & society New institutionalism (Sociology) Poststructuralism Marxist philosophy Critical theory sug: subj: International relations Science & society New institutionalism (Sociology) Poststructuralism Marxist philosophy Critical theory International Affairs Foreign affairs ab: Recent interventions suggest that the discipline of international relations has moved beyond “grand theories” and “great debates” toward middle range theorizing and quantitative hypothesis testing. At the same time, scholars argue that the field is fragmenting into insular camps. I subject these claims to an analysis that borrows from scholarship on the sociology of science. I apply network analytical methods to dissect the structure of the discipline: its dominant camps, the relationship among them, and their relative role in the discipline. I identify several citation camps, primarily delineated by theory, but also methods and subfields. The realist, liberal institutionalist, and constructivist camps continue to occupy a central role in the field. All three “isms” are identifiable as separate communities. But they are also more closely intertwined and cross-contaminated than the fragmentation thesis suggests. At the margins of the isms, connecting via constructivism, we find three theoretical camps: post-structuralism, English School, and neo-Marxist critical theory. Separate from the theoretical region, we find two camps of formal modeling, methods, and quantitative studies of inter- and intra-state conflict. The most-cited works in the field include both those engaged in grand theorization and quantitative hypothesis testing, but it is still the theoretical camps, the three isms in particular, that give international relations its distinctive sociological structure. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|