Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T06:19:55.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IR Studies East and West: Some Sociological Observations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Paul Bacon  and
Edward Newman
Paul Bacon
Affiliation:
Tokyo Jogakkan University
Edward Newman
Affiliation:
United Nations University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mainstream International Relations teaching and scholarship is often argued to be social scientific and therefore able to generate propositions about international life that have general (even universal) explanatory value. However, the methods and research questions of IR can in part be explained by the nature of the national academies in which they develop and by a range of national and regional sociological and political circumstances. Thus, following Ole Waever, the “American approach to the study of IR” and its predominance can be explained by reference to certain cultural and structural factors. Yet if the sociological underpinnings of teaching and researching in IR are inevitable and readily apparent, why is there no distinct ‘East Asian tradition’? Why is the East Asian IR community relatively weak? In fact, the relative weakness of indigenous national and regional East Asian IR approaches can be understood as an extension of national academic environments, historical circumstances, and national political traditions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 21 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

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

Ashley, Richard. 1984. The Poverty of Neo-Realism. International Organization 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, David, ed. 1993. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Banks, Michael. 1984. The Evolution of International Relations Theory. In Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations, edited by Banks, Michael. Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Brown, Chris. 1992. International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Brown, Chris. 1997. Understanding International Relations. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1969. International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach. In Contending Approaches to International Politics, edited by Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. 1978. The Twenty Years Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Derian, Der, James, . 1987. On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dunne, Timothy. 1998. Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Grieco, Joseph. 1988. Anarchy and the Limits of Co-operation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organization 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, Martin, and Smith, Steve. 1991. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter, Keohane, Robert O. and Krasner, Stephen. 1998. International Organization and the Study of World Politics. International Organization 52.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1988. International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. ed. 1986. Neo-Realism and its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph. 1977. Power and Interdependence. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Knorr, Klaus, and Rosenau, James, eds. 1969. Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Mouritzen, Hans. 1997. Kenneth Waltz: A Critical Rationalist between International Politics and Foreign Policy. In The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? edited by Neumann, Iver B. and Waever, Ole. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Olson, William, and Groom, A.J.R. 1991. International Relations: Then and Now. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Robert. 1972. On the Costs of Realism. Political Science Quarterly 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viotti, Paul R., and Kauppi, Mark V. 1993. International Relations Theory, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Waever, Ole. 1997. Figures of International Thought: Introducing Persons Instead of Paradigms. In The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? edited by Neumann, Iver B. and Waever, Ole. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Waever, Ole. 1998. The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization 52.Google Scholar
Waltz, K. N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Waltz, K. N. 1986. Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics. In Neo-Realism and its Critics, edited by Keohane, Robert O. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar