IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v52y1998i04p687-727_44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations

Author

Listed:
  • Wæver, Ole

Abstract

The international relations (IR) discipline is dominated by the American research community. Data about publication patterns in leading journals document this situation as well as a variance in theoretical orientations. IR is conducted differently in different places. The main patterns are explained through a sociology of science model that emphasizes the different nineteenth-century histories of the state, the early format of social science, and the institutionalized delineation among the different social sciences. The internal social and intellectual structure of American IR is two-tiered, with relatively independent subfields and a top layer defined by access to the leading journals (on which IR, in contrast to some social sciences, has a high consensus). The famous successive “great debates” serve an important function by letting lead theorists focus and structure the whole discipline. IR in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom has historically been structured differently, often with power vested more locally. American IR now moves in a direction that undermines its global hegemony. The widespread turn to rational choice privileges a reintegration (and status-wise rehabilitation) with the rest of political science over attention to IR practices elsewhere. This rationalistic turn is alien to Europeans, both because their IR is generally closer to sociology, philosophy, and anthropology, and because the liberal ontological premises of rational choice are less fitting to European societies. Simultaneously, European IR is beginning to break the local power bastions and establish independent research communities at a national or, increasingly, a European level. As American IR turns from global hegemony to national professionalization, IR becomes more pluralistic.

Suggested Citation

  • Wæver, Ole, 1998. "The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 687-727, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:52:y:1998:i:04:p:687-727_44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818398440542/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kakonen Jyrki, 2011. "Interpreting the Transforming World: Perspectives from Peace Research," New Global Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 1-28, December.
    2. Amelia C. Arsenault & Andrew Heffernan & Michael P. A. Murphy, 2021. "What Is the Role of Graduate Student Journals in the Publish-or-Perish Academy? Three Lessons from Three Editors-in-Chief," International Studies, , vol. 58(1), pages 98-115, January.
    3. Vüllers, Johannes, 2014. "Geographical Patterns of Analysis in IR Research: Representative Cross-Regional Comparison as a Way Forward," GIGA Working Papers 256, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    4. Anssi Paasi, 2005. "Globalisation, Academic Capitalism, and the Uneven Geographies of International Journal Publishing Spaces," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(5), pages 769-789, May.
    5. Anton M. Pillay & Jeremiah Madzimure, 2021. "Democracy in Decline: Three Global Trends and How They Highlight the Case of “American Exceptionalism” and the Need to Re-Think IR Theory," Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Eurasian Publications, vol. 9(3), pages 138-149.
    6. Patrick Maravic, 2012. "Limits of knowing or the consequences of difficult-access problems for multi-method research and public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(2), pages 153-168, June.
    7. Scarlett Cornelissen, 2011. "Mega Event Securitisation in a Third World Setting," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(15), pages 3221-3240, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:52:y:1998:i:04:p:687-727_44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.