Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:38:18.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International vs. area? The disciplinary-politics of knowledge-exchange between IR and Area Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2020

Stephen Aris Open the ORCID record for Stephen Aris [Opens in a new window]
Stephen Aris*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Environment, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: stephen_aris@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Within the political-economy of the social sciences, Area Studies (AS) is supposed to supply contextually-informed knowledge on (non-Western) areas to the other social sciences, in exchange for theory to guide further empirical investigations. Based on this assumption, there are regular calls for greater engagement with AS to counteract the shortcomings of International Relations’ (IR) knowledge-base on many areas, perspectives, and practices of the international. However, there has been little work empirically detailing knowledge-exchange practices between IR and AS, so it remains an open question if the relationship functions as an exchange of ‘international’ theory-for-‘area’ empirics. This paper provides a macro-sociological analysis of the practices of IR–AS knowledge-exchange. By focusing on citation practice, it moves beyond accounts that treat the two disciplines as ‘black boxes’, to trace which parts of the ‘dividing discipline’ of IR are active in exchanging knowledge with which ‘area’ scholarships. Hence, it asks: Are there ‘area’ blindspots in IR's knowledge-production? And, what type of IR theory is exported to AS? This analysis informs an assessment of whether AS represents a significant resource for IR in its efforts to, one, better inform its knowledge-production about ‘other’ areas of the international, and two, assert its disciplinary-relevance within the academy.

Keywords

area studiesinterdisciplinarityknowledge-productionInternational Relationssociology of science
Type
Research Article
Information
International Theory , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , November 2021 , pp. 451 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Aalto, Pami. 2015. “Interdisciplinary International Relations in Practice.” International Relations 29 (2): 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aalto, Pami, Harle, Vilho, and Moisio, Sami. 2012. Global and Regional Problems: Towards an Interdisciplinary Study. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Acharya, Amitav. 2011. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West.” Millennium – Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 619–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharya, Amitav. 2014. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds.” International Studies Quarterly 58 (4): 647–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharya, Amitav. 2016. “Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions.” International Studies Review 18 (1): 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharya, Amitav, and Buzan, Barry. 2007. “Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7 (3): 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agathangelou, Anna M., 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
Albert, Mathias, and Buzan, Barry. 2017. “On the Subject Matter of International Relations.” Review of International Studies 43 (5): 898–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, Lucian M. 2013. “Mapping a New World: Geography and the Interwar Study of International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 57 (1): 138–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Ilan Zvi. 2014. “The Continuing Failure of International Relations and the Challenges of Disciplinary Boundaries.” Millennium – Journal of International Studies 43 (1): 224–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Duncan. 2009. “Writing the World: Disciplinary History and Beyond.” International Affairs 85 (1): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigo, Didier, and Walker, R. B. J.. 2007. “Political Sociology and the Problem of the International.” Millennium 35 (3): 725–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilgin, Pinar. 2008. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29 (1): 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Leonard. 1958. “The Middle East as a Subordinate International System.” World Politics 10 (3): 408–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börner, Katy, Chen, Chaomei, and Boyack, Kevin W.. 2003. “Visualizing Knowledge Domains.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37 (1): 179–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyack, Kevin W., and Klavans, Richard. 2010. “Co-Citation Analysis, Bibliographic Coupling, and Direct Citation: Which Citation Approach Represents the Research Front Most Accurately?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (12): 2389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, Laurie A. 1999. “Middle Eastern Alliances: From Neorealism to Political Economy.” In Area Studies and Social Science: Strategies for Understanding Middle East Politics, edited by Tessler, Mark A., Nachtwey, Jodi, and Banda, Anne, 134–147. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Breuning, Marijke, Bredehoft, Joseph, and Walton, Eugene. 2005. “Promise and Performance: An Evaluation of Journals in International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 6 (4): 447–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, Jan. 2018. “ASC 2.0 – The Area Studies Controversy Revisited.” APSA-MENA Newsletter 5 (Fall): 29–32.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Wæver, Ole. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Little, Richard. 2001. “Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do About It.” Millennium – Journal of International Studies 30 (1): 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, Craig, and Rhoten, Diana. 2010. “Integrating the Social Sciences: Theoretical Knowledge, Methodological Tools, and Practical Applications.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Frodeman, Robert, Klein, Julie T., and Mitcham, Carl, 103–18. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cello, Lorenzo. 2018. “Taking History Seriously in IR: Towards a Historicist Approach.” Review of International Studies 44 (2): 236–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheah, Pheng. 2001. “Universal Areas: Asian Studies in a World in Motion.” Traces 1 (1): 37–70.Google Scholar
Chen, Chaomei. 2006. “CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (3): 359–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunne, Tim, Hansen, Lene, and Wight, Colin. 2013. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 405–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engerman, David C. 2010. Know Your Enemy: The Rise and Fall of America's Soviet Experts. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Louise. 2013. “Introduction.” In International Relations of the Middle East, edited by Fawcett, Louise, 1–16. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 2001. “TAKING STOCK: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 4 (1): 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frodeman, Robert. 2013. Sustainable Knowledge: A Theory of Interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Grenier, Félix. 2015. “An Eclectic Fox: IR from Restrictive Discipline to Hybrid and Pluralist Field.” International Relations 29 (2): 250–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenier, Félix, Turton, Helen Louise, and Beaulieu-Brossard, Philippe. 2015. “The Struggle over the Identity of IR: What Is at Stake in the Disciplinary Debate within and beyond Academia?” International Relations 29 (2): 242–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 1998. Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hobson, John M. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Stanley. 1977. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106 (3): 41–60.Google Scholar
Holsti, Kalevi Jaakko. 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2009. “Paradigmatic Faults in International-Relations Theory.” International Studies Quarterly 53 (4): 907–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jazeel, Tariq. 2016. “Between Area and Discipline: Progress, Knowledge Production and the Geographies of Geography.” Progress in Human Geography 40 (5): 649–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Knud Erik, Alejandro, Audrey, Reichwein, Alexander, Rösch, Felix, and Turton, Helen. 2017. Reappraising European IR Theoretical Traditions. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Knud Erik, and Valbjørn, Morten. 2012. “Four Dialogues and the Funeral of a Beautiful Relationship: European Studies and New Regionalism.” Cooperation and Conflict 47 (1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Julie Thompson. 1996. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Julie Thompson, and Mitcham, Carl. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Klinke, Ian. 2015. “Area Studies, Geography and the Study of Europe's East.” The Geographical Journal 181 (4): 423–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Natalie. 2016. “Is a ‘Critical’ Area Studies Possible?” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (5): 807–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korany, Bahgat. 1999. “International Relations Theory – Contributions from Research in the Middle East.” In Area Studies and Social Science: Strategies for Understanding Middle East Politics, edited by Tessler, Mark A., Nachtwey, Jodi, and Banda, Anne, 148–158. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Kristensen, Peter M. 2012. “Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in International Relations.” International Studies Review 14 (1): 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, Peter M. 2015. “Revisiting the ‘American Social Science’ – Mapping the Geography of International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 16 (3): 246–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, Peter M. 2018. “International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy.” International Studies Quarterly 62 (2): 245–59.Google Scholar
Kurki, Milja. 2006. “Causes of a Divided Discipline: Rethinking the Concept of Cause in International Relations Theory.” Review of International Studies 32 (2): 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuru, Deniz. 2016. “Historicising Eurocentrism and Anti-Eurocentrism in IR: A Revisionist Account of Disciplinary Self-Reflexivity.” Review of International Studies 42 (2): 351–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 2011. “Why ‘Isms’ Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress.” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2): 465–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapid, Yosef. 1989. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 235–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, George, and Shilliam, Robbie. 2010. “Sociology and International Relations: Legacies and Prospects.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (1): 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2007. “Social Science as an Ethical Practice.” Journal of International Relations and Development 10 (1): 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydesdorff, Loet. 2007. “Betweenness Centrality as an Indicator of the Interdisciplinarity of Scientific Journals.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (9): 1303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydesdorff, Loet, and Milojević, Staša. 2012. “Scientometrics.” ArXiv:1208.4566v2 [cs.DL], August. http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4566.Google Scholar
Lockman, Zachary. 2016. Field Notes: The Making of Middle East Studies in the United States. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Powers, Ryan, and Walter, Barbara F.. 2013. “The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations.” International Organization 67 (4): 889–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matin, Kamran. 2012. “Redeeming the Universal: Postcolonialism and the Inner Life of Eurocentrism.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (2): 353–77.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, Lange, Samantha, and Brus, Holly. 2013. “Gendered Citation Patterns in International Relations Journals.” International Studies Perspectives 14 (4): 485–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy. 2003. “Deterritorialization and the Crisis of Social Science.” In Localizing Knowledge in a Globalizing World: Recasting the Area Studies Debate, edited by Ali, Mirsepassi, Amrita, Basu, and Weaver, Frederick S., 148–170. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy. 2004. “The Middle East in the Past and Future of Social Science.” In The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines, edited by Szanton, David L., 74–118. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1952. “Area Studies and the Study of International Relations.” International Social Science Bulletin 4 (4): 647–48.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L., and Snyder, Richard. 2007. “Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (1): 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Richard C., Klinke, Ian, Jazeel, Tariq, Daley, Patricia, Kamata, Ng'wanza, Heffernan, Michael, Swain, Adam, McConnell, Fiona, Barry, Andrew, and Phillips, Richard. 2017. “Interventions in the Political Geographies of ‘Area’.” Political Geography 57 (March): 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, Dan. 2015. “Should We Leave Behind the Subfield of International Relations?” Annual Review of Political Science 18 (1): 481–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosamond, Ben. 2007. “European Integration and the Social Science of EU Studies: The Disciplinary Politics of a Subfield.” International Affairs 83 (2): 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Justin. 2016. “International Relations in the Prison of Political Science.” International Relations 30 (2): 127–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, Andreas, and Mudde, Cas. 2010. “Data Usage in Quantitative Comparative Politics.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (2): 417–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Brian C. 1998. The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Seabrooke, Leonard, and Young, Kevin L.. 2017. “The Networks and Niches of International Political Economy.” Review of International Political Economy 24 (2): 288–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidaway, James D, Ho, Elaine LE, Rigg, Jonathan D, and Woon, Chih Yuan. 2016. “Area Studies and Geography: Trajectories and Manifesto.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (5): 777–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillanpää, Antti, and Koivula, Tommi. 2010. “Mapping Conflict Research: A Bibliometric Study of Contemporary Scientific Discourses.” International Studies Perspectives 11 (2): 148–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, Henry G. 1978. “Cited Documents as Concept Symbols.” Social Studies of Science 8 (3): 327–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylvester, Christine. 2007. “Whither the International at the End of IR.” Millennium 35 (3): 551–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szanton, David L. 2004. “Introduction: The Origin, Nature, and Challenges of Area Studies in the United States.” In The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines, edited by Szanton, David L., 1–33. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Peter J. 2013. “Metageographical Moments: A Geohistorical Interpretation of Embedded Statism and Globalization.” In Rethinking Global Political Economy: Emerging Issues, Unfolding Odysseys, edited by Burch, Kurt, Denemark, Robert A., Thomas, Kenneth P., and Tétreault, Mary Ann. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tessler, Mark A., Nachtwey, Jodi, and Banda, Anne. 1999. “Introduction: The Area Studies Controversy.” In Area Studies and Social Science: Strategies for Understanding Middle East Politics, edited by Tessler, Mark A., Nachtwey, Jodi, and Banda, Anne, vii–xxi. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Teti, Andrea. 2007. “Bridging the Gap: IR, Middle East Studies and the Disciplinary Politics of the Area Studies Controversy.” European Journal of International Relations 13 (1): 117–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tickner, Arlene. 2003. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium – Journal of International Studies 32 (2): 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tickner, Arlene. 2013. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 627–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turton, Helen Louise. 2015a. “The Importance of Re-Affirming IR's Disciplinary Status.” International Relations 29 (2): 244–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turton, Helen Louise. 2015b. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline, 1st edition. London; New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valbjørn, Morten. 2004. “Toward a ‘Mesopotamian Turn’: Disciplinarity and the Study of the International Relations of the Middle East.” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 14 (1): 47–75.Google Scholar
Valbjørn, Morten. 2017a. “Dialoguing about Dialogues: On the Purpose, Procedure and Product of Dialogues in Inter-National Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 19 (2): 291–96.Google Scholar
Valbjørn, Morten. 2017b. “Strategies for Reviving the International Relations/Middle East Nexus after the Arab Uprisings.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (3): 647–51.Google Scholar
van Schendel, Willem. 2002. “Geographies of Knowing, Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping Scale in Southeast Asia.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20 (6): 647–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wæver, 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. 2016. “Still A Discipline After All These Debates?” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, edited by Dunne, Tim, Kurki, Milja, and Smith, Steve, 300–321. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wagner, Caroline S., David Roessner, J., Bobb, Kamau, Klein, Julie Thompson, Boyack, Kevin W., Keyton, Joann, Rafols, Ismael, and Börner, Katy. 2011. “Approaches to Understanding and Measuring Interdisciplinary Scientific Research (IDR): A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Informetrics 5 (1): 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, Peter. 2010. “A Short History of Knowledge Formations.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Frodeman, Robert, Klein, Julie T., and Mitcham, Carl, 3–14. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wyatt, Sally, Milojević, Staša, Woo Park, Han, and Leydesdorff, Loet. 2015. “Quantitative and Qualitative STS: The Intellectual and Practical Contributions of Scientometrics.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2588336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar