Intellectual Exchanges
ESSAY QUESTION: Write a short commentary on the extent to which exchanges between UK and American international relations analysts have shaped the theoretical and methodological concerns of the discipline.
The pervasiveness of Anglo-American schools of thought in a discipline that claims to study global politics is a big conundrum to the discipline of International Relations. This explains the contemporary call for proper evaluation of historical evolution of the discipline by way of critical analysis to understand the societal and political contexts that influenced knowledge production in the field and an account of its origin, development, and current trajectory. Such historical evaluation offers critical reflections on the Anglo-American identities that have shaped the character of the discipline which accounts for the tremendous influence on the way our discipline sees the world and the methodology it employs to give meaning to political realities in the international system the subject and major preoccupation of the discipline.
The evolution of IR as an academic discipline has often been analyzed as an outcome of the devastating experiences of the First World War (Hollis and Smith 1999; Burchill et al 2005). This narrative, though challenged by other scholars (Smith 2000) for its misleading interpretation of the discipline, defines the context through which methodological and theoretical concerns in the field evolved. In a bid to formulate parameters for informed analysis and critical evaluation of the subject matter of the field, the concern for appropriate theories and methodologies became a contested issue. Much contested debates have also pervaded the discipline ranging from issues such as the object of analysis and scope of enquiry, purpose of social and political enquiry, and the distinct area of intellectual endeavor (Burchill et al 2005).
While current efforts are being made across the globe to expand the frontiers of the discipline from the
The pervasiveness of Anglo-American schools of thought in a discipline that claims to study global politics is a big conundrum to the discipline of International Relations. This explains the contemporary call for proper evaluation of historical evolution of the discipline by way of critical analysis to understand the societal and political contexts that influenced knowledge production in the field and an account of its origin, development, and current trajectory. Such historical evaluation offers critical reflections on the Anglo-American identities that have shaped the character of the discipline which accounts for the tremendous influence on the way our discipline sees the world and the methodology it employs to give meaning to political realities in the international system the subject and major preoccupation of the discipline.
The evolution of IR as an academic discipline has often been analyzed as an outcome of the devastating experiences of the First World War (Hollis and Smith 1999; Burchill et al 2005). This narrative, though challenged by other scholars (Smith 2000) for its misleading interpretation of the discipline, defines the context through which methodological and theoretical concerns in the field evolved. In a bid to formulate parameters for informed analysis and critical evaluation of the subject matter of the field, the concern for appropriate theories and methodologies became a contested issue. Much contested debates have also pervaded the discipline ranging from issues such as the object of analysis and scope of enquiry, purpose of social and political enquiry, and the distinct area of intellectual endeavor (Burchill et al 2005).
While current efforts are being made across the globe to expand the frontiers of the discipline from the
References: Burchill, S. et al (2005) Theories of International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Carter, D. and Spirling, A (2008) ‘Under the Influence? Intellectual Exchange in Political Science’, PS Online April, 375-378. [Online] Available at [Accessed 12 October 2012] Friedrichs, J. (2004) European Approaches to IR Theory. London: Routledge. Furlong, P. and Marsh, D. (2010) ‘A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science’, in Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds) Theory and Methods in Political Science, Third Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 184-211. Hollis, M. and Smith, S. (1991) Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holsti, K. J. (1985) The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin. Kurki, M. (2008) Causation in IR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, S. (2000) ‘The discipline of international relations: still an American social science?’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol.2, No.3: 374-402 Smith, S. Booth, K. and Zalewski, M. (eds) (1997) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.