Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-07T16:41:19.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Does Pluralism Matter When We Study Politics? A View from Contemporary International Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2018

Daniel J. Levine  and
David M. McCourt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pluralism has become a buzzword in International Relations. It has emerged in a number of linked literatures and has drawn the support of an unusual coalition of scholars: advocates of greater methodological diversity; those who feel that IR has degenerated into a clash of paradigmatic “-isms”; those who favor a closer relationship between academics and policy-makers; and those who wish to see greater reflexivity within the field. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no single vision of pluralism unites these scholars; they appear to be using the term in divergent ways. Accordingly, our aim is threefold. First, we wish to highlight this odd state of affairs, by placing it in disciplinary and intellectual context. Second, we distinguish between plurality—the de facto recognition that IR has become a more diverse field—and pluralism—a normative position which values that diversity, given the public vocation of social science. Finally, we lay out a more consistent understanding and defense of pluralism in those latter terms. We argue that, properly understood, pluralism entails a position of epistemological skepticism: the straightforward claim that no single knowledge system, discipline, theory, or method can claim singular access to truth.

Information

Type
Special Section: The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 92 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acharya, Amitav. 2014. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 58(4): 647–59.Google Scholar
Adcock, Robert, Bevir, Mark, and Stimson, Shannon. 2007. Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1973. Negative Dialectics. New York: Continuum, 1973, tr. E. B. Ashton.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. and Horkheimer, Max. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Trans. Jephcott, Edmund. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Agathangelou, Anna and Ling, L. H. M.. 2004. “The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism.” International Studies Review 6(4): 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amoureux, Jack L. 2016. A Practice of Ethics for Global Politics: Ethical Reflexivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Amoureux, Jack L. and Steele, Brent J.. 2016. Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anievas, Alexander. 2014. Capital, the State and War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Anievas, Alexander, Manchanda, Nivi, and Shilliam, Robbie, eds. 2015. Race and Racism in International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1978. The Life of the Mind. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Ashley, Richard K. and Walker, R. B. J.. 1990. “Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 34(3): 259–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, Lucian. 2002. “Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations.” International Relations 16(1): 33–51.Google Scholar
Avey, Paul C. and Desch, Michael C.. 2014. “What Do Policymakers Want from Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Advisors.” International Studies Quarterly 58(2): 227–46.Google Scholar
Barder, Alexander. 2015. Empire Within: International Hierarchy and Its Imperial Laboratories of Governance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bastow, Simon, Dunleavy, Patrick, and Tinkler, Jane. 2014. The Impact of the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1994. “The Critique of Instrumental Reason.” In Mapping Ideologies, ed. Žižek, Slavoj. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jane. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah. 1973. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bettelheim, Bruno. 1979. Surviving and Other Essays. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Bewes, Timothy. 2002. Reification. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bilgin, Pinar. 2008. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR.” Third World Quarterly 29(1): 5–23.Google Scholar
Blyth, M. and Varghese, R.. 1999. “The State of the Discipline in American Political Science: Be Careful What You Wish For? British Journal of Politics & International Relations 1: 345–65.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Chris. 2012. “The ‘Practice Turn’, Phronēsis and Classical Realism: Towards a Phronetic International Political Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40(3): 439–56.Google Scholar
Buck-Morss, Susan. 1977. The Origin of Negative Dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, and the Frankfurt Institute. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Buck-Morss, Susan. 2009. Hegel, History and Universal History. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Bueger, Christian and Gadinger, Frank. 2007. “Reassembling and Dissecting: International Relations Practice from a Science Studies Perspective.” International Studies Perspectives 8(1): 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byman, Daniel and Kroenig, Matthew. 2016. “Reaching Beyond the Ivory Tower: A How To Manual.” Security Studies 25(2): 289–319.Google Scholar
Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth, eds. 2012. Sage Handbook on International Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Charli. 2012. “‘You Talk of Terrible Things So Matter-of-Factly in This Language of Science’: Constructing Human Rights in the Academy.” Perspectives on Politics 10(2): 363–83.Google Scholar
Connolly, William E. 2004. “Problem, Method, Faith.” In Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Smith, Rogers M., and Masoud, Tarek E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corwin, Edward S. 1929. “The Democratic Dogma and the Future of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 23(3): 569–92.Google Scholar
Craig, Campbell. 2003. The Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and Waltz. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dauphinee, Elizabeth. 2013. The Politics of Exile. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Denemark, Robert, ed. 2010. The International Studies Encyclopedia. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Desch, Michael C. 2015. “Technique Trumps Relevance: The Professionalization of Political Science and the Marginalization of Security Studies.” Perspectives on Politics 13(2): 377–93.Google Scholar
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1996. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Dunne, Tim, Hansen, Lene, and Wight, Colin. 2013. “The End of International Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 405–25.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1969. “The New Revolution in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 63(4): 1051–61.Google Scholar
Ellis, Elizabeth 2004. “Provisionalism in the Study of Politics.” In Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Smith, Rogers M., and Masoud, Tarek E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erskine, Toni and Lebow, Richard Ned (eds.). 2012. Tragedy and International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Brent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: How Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Brent. 2006. “A Perestroikan Straw Man Answers Back: David Laitin and Phronetic Political Science.” In Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method., ed. Schram, Sanford F. and Caterino, Brian. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Friedrichs, Jörg. 2004. European Approaches to International Relations: A House with Many Mansions. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2017. “The Real Problem with Diversity in Political Science.” Duck of Minerva, April 27. Available at http://duckofminerva.com/2017/04/the-real-problem-with-diversity-in-political-science.html.Google Scholar
Gallucci, Robert L. 2012. “How Scholars can Improve International Relations.” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 26. Available at http://chronicle.com/article/How-Scholars-Can-Improve/135898/, accessed July 25, 2016.Google Scholar
Grovogui, Siba N. 1996. Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Grovogui, Siba N. 2001. “Come to Africa: A Hermeneutics of Race in International Theory.” Alternatives 26(4): 425–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guha, Ranajit. 2002. History at the Limit of World-History. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2011. The Invention of International Relations Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John. 2015. “Pluralism and the Fate of Perestroika: A Historical Reflection.” Perspectives on Politics 13(2): 408–15.Google Scholar
Haas, Ernst B. and Haas, Peter. 2002. “Pragmatic Constructivism and the Study of International Institutions.” Millennium 31(3): 573–601.Google Scholar
Haas, Ernst B., Williams, Mary Pat, and Babai, Don. 1977. Scientists and World Order: The Uses of Technical Knowledge in International Organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hamati-Ataya, Inanna. 2011a. “Contemporary ‘Dissidence’ in American IR: The New Structure of Anti-Mainstream Scholarship?” International Studies Perspectives 12: 362–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamati-Ataya, Inanna. 2011b. “The ‘Problem of Values’ and International Relations Scholarship: From Applied Reflexivity to Reflexivism.” International Studies Review 13: 259–87.Google Scholar
Hendrix, Cullen. 2015. “Google Scholar Metrics and Scholarly Productivity in International Relations.” Duck of Minerva, August 6. Available at http://duckofminerva.com/2015/08/google-scholar-metrics-and-scholarly-productivity-in-international-relations.html#more-27500.Google Scholar
Hobson, John. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobson, John M. 2013. “Part 2—Reconstructing the Non-Eurocentric Foundations of IPE: From Eurocentric ‘Open Economy Politics’ to Inter-civilizational Political Economy.” Review of International Political Economy 20(5): 1055–81.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Stanley. 1977. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106(3): 41–60.Google Scholar
Honig, Bonnie. 1993. Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 2008. Reification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Michael. 2001. The Invention of Peace. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Inayatullah, Naeem, ed. 2011. Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2015a. “For a More Public Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 13(2): 269–83.Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2015b. “Varieties of Empiricism in Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 13(4): 929–34.Google Scholar
Ish-Shalom, Piki. 2013. Democratic Peace Theory: A Political History. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2002. Rethinking Weber: Towards a Non-individualist Sociology of World Politics. International Review of Sociology 12(3): 439–68.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2006. “A Statistician Strikes Out: In Defence of Genuine Methodological Diversity.” In Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method, ed. Schram, Sanford F. and Caterino, Brian. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2015. “Must International Studies Be a Science?” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43(3): 942–65.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2009. “Paradigmatic Faults in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Quarterly 53: 907–30.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2013. “International Theory in a Post-Paradigmatic Era: From Substantive Wagers to Scientific Ontologies.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 169–83.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2015. “Academia Isn’t Baseball.” Duck of Minerva, August 10. Available at http://duckofminerva.com/2015/08/academia-isnt-baseball.html#more-27509.Google Scholar
Jahn, Beate. 2017. “Theorizing the Political Relevance of International Relations Theory.” International Studies Quarterly International Studies Quarterly 61(1): 64–77.Google Scholar
Jentleson, Bruce W. 2002. “The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In.” International Security 26(4): 169–83.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1987 [1790]. Critique of Judgment. Trans. Pluhar, Werner S.. Indiana: Hackett.Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira. 2003. Desolation and Enlightenment. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira and Milner, Helen V., eds. 2002. Political Science: The State of the Discipline. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2010. “‘Walls’ between ‘Those People’? Contrasting Perspectives on World Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 8(1): 11–25.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 2008. “Big Questions in the Study of World Politics.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. Reus-Smit, C. and Snidal, D..New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 2009. “Political Science as a Vocation.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42(2): 359–63.Google Scholar
King, Charles. 2015. “The Decline of Regional Studies.” Foreign Affairs, July/August. Available at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/decline-international-studies.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert, and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kinnvall, Catarina. 2005. “Not Here, Not Now! The Absence of a European Perestroika Movement.” In Perestroika!, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kinsella, Helen. 2011. The Image before the Weapon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Krishna, Sankaran. 2001. “Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations.” Alternatives 26(4): 401–24.Google Scholar
Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2012. “Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in International Relations.” International Studies Review 14: 32–50.Google Scholar
Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2016. “Discipline Admonished: On International Relations Fragmentation and the Disciplinary Politics of Stocktaking.” European Journal of International Relations 22: 243–67.Google Scholar
Kucklick, Bruce. 2006. Blind Oracles: Intellectuals and War from Kennan to Kissinger Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lake, David. 2011. “Why ‘Isms’ Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress.” International Studies Quarterly 55(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Lake, David. 2016. “White Man’s IR: An Intellectual Confession.” Perspectives on Politics 14(4): 1112–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2003. Tragic Vision of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Legro, Jeffrey and Moravcsik, Andrew. 1999. “Is Anyone Still a Realist?” International Security 24(2): 5–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leira, Halvard. 2015. “International Relations Pluralism and History—Embracing Amateurism to Strengthen the Profession.” International Studies Perspectives 16: 23–31.Google Scholar
Lepgold, Joseph. 1998. “Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and the Problem of Policy Relevance.” Political Science Quarterly 113(1): 43–62.Google Scholar
Levine, Daniel J. 2012. Recovering International Relations: The Promise of Sustainable Critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, Daniel J. and Barder, Alexander D.. 2014. “The Closing of the American Mind: ‘American School’ International Relations and the State of Grand Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 20(4): 863–88.Google Scholar
Linklater, Andrew and Suganami, Hidemi. 2006. The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisle, Debbie: 2016. “Waiting for International Political Sociology: A Field Guide to Living In-Between.” International Political Sociology 10: 417–33.Google Scholar
Löwenheim, Oded. 2014. The Politics of the Trail. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Cecilia. 2013. Interpreting International Politics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Oakes, Amy, Peterson, Susan, and Tierney, Michael J.. 2011. “International Relations in the US Academy.” International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 437–64.Google Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Peterson, Susan, and Tierney, Michael J.. 2012. “Trip around the World: Teaching, Research, and Policy Views of International Relations Faculty in 20 Countries.” Available at https://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/trip/trip_around_the_world_2011.pdf.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. 1954. Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co.Google Scholar
Martin, Lisa L. 1999. “The Contributions of Rational Choice: A Defense of Pluralism.” International Security 24(2): 74–83.Google Scholar
McCourt, David M. 2012. What’s at Stake in the Historical Turn? Theory, Practice, and Phronēsis in International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41(1): 23–42.Google Scholar
McNamara, Kathleen R. 2009. “Of Intellectual Monocultures and the Study of IPE.” Review of International Political Economy 16(1): 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 2005. “E.H. Carr vs. Idealism: The Battle Rages On.” International Relations 19(2): 46–9.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen M.. 2013. “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing Is Bad for International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 427–57.Google Scholar
Meckstroth, Christopher. 2012. “Socratic Method and Political Science.” American Political Science Review 106(3): 644–60.Google Scholar
Monroe, Kristen Renwick, ed. 2005. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1972. Science: Servant or Master? New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Naumes, Sarah. 2015. “Is All ‘I’, IR?” Millennium 43(3): 820–32.Google Scholar
NPR (National Public Radio). 2007. “NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Not Sure that Global Warming Is a Problem.” Morning Edition, May 31. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499l; accessed August 17.Google Scholar
Norton, Anne. 2004. 95 Theses on Politics, Culture, and Method. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. 1986. Nuclear Ethics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. 1997. Understanding International Conflicts. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. 2008. “International Relations: The Relevance of Theory to Practice.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oren, Ido. 2003. Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Oren, Ido. 2016. “A Sociological Analysis of the Decline of American IR Theory.” International Studies Review 18(4): 571–96.Google Scholar
Parmar, Inderjeet. 2012. Foundations of the American Century. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hannah Fenichel. 1987. “Rethinking Reification.” Theory and Society 16(2): 263–93.Google Scholar
Rengger, Nicholas. 2015. “Pluralism in International Relations Theory: Three Questions.” International Studies Review 16(1): 32–9.Google Scholar
Ricci, David M. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Robin, Ron. 2001. The Making of the Cold War Enemy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, Joy. 2013. Armed with Expertise. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Gillian. 1978. The Melancholy Science. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Justin. 1994. The Empire of Civil Society. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Justin. 2016. “International Relations in the Prison of Political Science” International Relations 30(2): 127–53.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce. 2005. “Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace.” International Studies Perspective, 6(4): 305–408.Google Scholar
Sabaratnam, Meera. 2011. “IR in Dialogue … but Can We Change the Subjects? A Typology of Decolonising Strategies for the Study of World Politics.” Millennium 39(3): 781–803.Google Scholar
Said, Edward. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Schouten, Peer. 2008–2016. “Theory Talks.” http://www.theory-talks.org, accessed December 15, 2016.Google Scholar
Schram, Sanford F. and Caterino, Brian. 2006. Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Shapcott, Richard. 2001. Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2004. “Problems, Methods and Theories in the Study of Politics, or: What’s Wrong with Political Science and What to do about It?” In Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Smith, Rogers M. and Masoud, Tarek E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian, Smith, Rogers M., and Masoud, Tarek E., eds. 2004. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shilliam, Robbie. 2017. Race and Revolution at Bwa Kayiman. Millennium. Online-before-print, DOI: 10.1177/0305829817693692.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra. 2004. “Problems Chasing Methods, or Methods Chasing Problems? Research Communities, Constrained Pluralism, and the Role of Eclecticism.” In, Problems and in the Study of Politics, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Smith, Rogers M., and Masoud, Tarek E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 2008. “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra and Katzenstein, Peter J. 2010. “Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions.” Perspectives on Politics 8(2): 411–31.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 2011. Beyond Paradigms: Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Laura. 2014. “Queering the “Territorial Peace”? Queer Theory Conversing With Mainstream International Relations.” International Studies Review 16(4): 608–12.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Laura. 2015a. “Locating Relevance in Security Studies.” Perspectives on Politics 13(2): 396–8.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Laura. 2015b. “Why I Don’t Give a Shit about my H-Index.” Relations International, August 17. Available at http://relationsinternational.com/why-i-dont-give-a-shit-about-my-h-index.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Laura. 2017. “Caging Confessions: My Womanhood in David Lake’s White Man’s IR” Relations International, January 6. Available at http://relationsinternational.com/caging-confessions-womanhood-david-lakes-white-mans-ir/.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Laura, Kadera, Kelley, and Thies, Cameron. 2016. “Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, online-before-print. DOI: 10.1177/0022002716669207 Google Scholar
Smith, Steve. 2004. “Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11.” International Studies Quarterly 48: 499–515.Google Scholar
Snidal, Duncan and Reus-Smit, Christian eds. 2008. Oxford Handbook on International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert and Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1967. The Development of Political Science from Burgess to Behavioralism. New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2015. “All Hail to the Chief: Liberal IR Theory in the New World Order.” International Studies Perspectives 16: 40–49.Google Scholar
Sylvester, Christine. 2007a. “Anatomy of a Footnote.” Security Dialogue 38(4): 547–58.Google Scholar
Sylvester, Christine. 2007b. “Whither the International at the End of IR.” Millennium 35(3): 551–73.Google Scholar
Tickner, Arlene B. and Waever, Ole, eds. International Relations Scholarship around the World. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tjalve, Vibeke Schou and Michael C. Williams, M. C. 2015. “Reviving the Rhetoric of Realism: Politics and Responsibility in Grand Strategy.” Security Studies 24(1): 37–60.Google Scholar
Tønder, Lars. 2014. “Comic Power: Another Road Not Taken?” Theory and Event 17(4).Google Scholar
Tönnies, Ferdinand. 1957. Community and Society. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Turton, Helen Louise. 2016. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van der Ree, Gerard. 2014. “Saving the Discipline: Plurality, Social Capital, and the Sociology of IR Theorizing.” International Political Sociology 8: 218–33.Google Scholar
Vitalis, Robert. 2015. White World Order, Black Power Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vucetic, Srdjan. 2011. The Anglosphere. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Waever, Ole. 1998. “The Sociology of a Not-So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52(4): 687–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waever, Ole. 2013. “Still a Discipline after All These Debates?” In International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, ed. Dunne, Tim, Kurki, Milja, and Smith, Steve. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1999. “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies.” International Security 23(4): 5–48.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 2005. “The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations.” Annual Review of Political Science 8: 23–48.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1986. “Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to my Critics.” In Neorealism and Its Critics, ed. Keohane, Robert O.. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Cynthia. 2015. “Why Is There No Queer International Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 21(1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1949. “‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy.” In Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. Shils, Edward and Finch, Henry. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wight, Colin. 2006. Agents, Structures, and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael C. 2013.” In the Beginning: The International Relations Enlightenment and the Ends of IR Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 647–65.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, eds. 2006. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zerilli, Linda. 2016. A Democratic Theory of Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar