Rafael A. Duarte Villa and Marilia Carolina B. de Souza Pimenta | Jan./Apr. 2017
Over the last 40 years, investigations have shown the discipline of International Relations to reproduce the American influence on its methods, paradigms, and institutional dynamics. This article explores the case for the Latin American community, based on the survey data from the Teaching, Research, and International Politics project (TRIP) 2014 developed by the Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations of the College of William and Mary, Virginia (USA). TRIP evaluated International Relations communities in 32 countries around the world. The article aims to answer two main questions: (i) is American influence still dominant over epistemological, methodological, paradigmatic, and institutional representative terms in Latin American International Relations communities, as has been considered in the past? (ii) Is there in the region any contestation to this supposed influence? Primarily, the present article shows an affirmative answer for the first issue. Therefore, and most importantly, the data analysis shows upcoming local pressures rooted in American influence, especially on its epistemic and paradigmatic terms. The data strengthens the miscegenation tendency on its epistemological and paradigmatic aspects, which underlines a lack of consensus over the structure of American dominance over the discipline of International Relations in Latin America, especially if one observes the most numerous and structured group in the region: the Brazilian International Relations community.
Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar & Thomas Risse | August 2016
This article describes the German International Relations (IR) community and their research and writing preferences based on data from the 2014 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) faculty survey. Germany has a relatively young IR community with a relatively large share of women, however, this changes once scholars reach tenured professorships. We found that German IR scholars are, on average, more oriented towards IR theory and the study of international organisation(s) than other national IR communities. The overall picture is one of paradigmatic as well as theoretical pluralism and a rejection of ontological warfare, despite there being more IR scholars in Germany than anywhere else in the world self-identifying as social constructivists. Their methodological orientations are overwhelmingly qualitative – again above average as compared to other IR communities in the world. At the same time, German respondents identified methodology and epistemology as two of the main factors causing division among IR scholars today. Moreover, German IR scholars are almost completely internationalised with a strong leaning toward the Anglo-American core of the discipline. Various ‘beauty contests’ reveal a still vividly accurate image of IR as an ‘American social science’.
Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar, Nicholas J. Bell, Mariana Navarrete Morales, and Michael J. Tierney | March 2016
This article presents findings from the 2014 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project’s worldwide faculty survey that speak to recent claims in the Global International Relations (IR) Debate. The expansion of the 2014 TRIP faculty survey to thirty-two countries, including more than a dozen non-Western IR communities, enables an initial empirical assessment of some key questions raised by advocates and detractors of “Global IR.” This contribution describes and analyzes scholars’ own perceptions of the IR discipline and adds to the empirical literature on the Global IR Debate. In particular, we address three claims: that IR is a Western/American dominated discipline, that geography is the core dividing line in IR, and that there is a division of labor within IR wherein scholars in the West are responsible for theory production while the non-West supplies data and local expertise for theory testing. We believe that these findings shed light both on how the discipline came to be divided between dominant and marginalized discourses and in which areas this division is most embedded and/or ready to be dismantled.
Jacek Czaputowicz and Kamil Ławniczak | December 2015
In 2014, Poland was the first Central and Eastern European (CEE) country to be included in the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project. This article characterizes the Polish International Relations (IR) scholarly community and compares it with other IR scholarly communities throughout the world that also participated in the 2014 TRIP project. The 2014 TRIP survey, the Survey of International Relations Scholars (SIRS) asked Polish participants to identify: the strengths and weaknesses of the Polish IR discipline, influential Polish scholars and books published in Poland, and useful divergent study areas for practical policy purposes. Polish SIRS participants were also asked to share their research interests in both substantive areas and geographical regions, their opinions on economic and social issues, and their predictions concerning important developments in international policy. We concluded that while Polish scholars have much in common with their counterparts around the world, there are also significant differences. For example, Polish scholars identify themselves as more conservative than their international peers in social and ideological matters, more liberal in the economic sphere, and were more pessimistic about relations between the US and Russia in the near future.
Lindsay Hundley, Benjamin Kenzer, and Susan Peterson | August 2015
Scholars of international relations (IR) simultaneously believe that their work is policy-relevant and that a gap exists between the academic and policy worlds of IR. Using data from the 2011 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey and the TRIP journal article database, we explore this disjuncture in one specific area, research on East Asia. If US scholars' work addresses policy-relevant issues, as they believe, we would expect academic work to provide insights on a region that US policy makers have long thought to be growing in strategic importance. We find that academics recognize the strategic significance of East Asia, but comparatively few scholars teach about or do research on the region. Compared with the IR discipline more broadly, published research on East Asia is more paradigmatic, qualitative, and oriented toward the study of international political economy. The neglect of East Asia and the systematic differences in the way it is studied have potentially important consequences for the study and practice of IR.
J.C. Sharman and Catherine Weaver | October 2013
On the occasion of the Review of International Political Economy's 20th anniversary, this paper systematically assesses RIPE's claim to represent an alternative to the ‘mainstream’ study of international political economy (IPE) with several new sources of evidence. The first is the IPE component of a 20-country survey of international relations (IR) faculty, the second a database of books in the field. The third, and most important, is derived from coding 326 RIPE articles published 2000–10 to discover key cleavages and trends. These results are compared with those from prior studies of the 12 IR journals identified as the ‘leading’ journals by the Teaching, Research and International Politics (TRIP) project. The article concentrates on five key issues: paradigmatic orientation, epistemology, methodology, policy orientation, and demography. The results provide ground for scepticism that the ‘American School’ of IPE does or will define the mainstream. The findings further tend to confirm that RIPE has stayed relatively true to its founders’ intentions in representing diversity in the global study of IPE.
Dr. Mustafa Aydin and Korhan Yazgan| August 2013
IR Scholars Dr. Mustafa Aydin and Mr. Korhan Yazgan present the results of the Teaching, Research and International Policy Survey (TRIP) - 2011 in the Journal of International Relations in Turkey [VOLUME 9, ISSUE 36, WINTER 2013].
This report of the survey, conducted in conjunction with the Institute for the Theory & Practice of International Relations at the College of William & Mary in the United States, shows the results aimed at providing a global and comparative scale of Turkey in international relations. The principal investigators: Mustafa Aydin, Professor. Dr., International Relations Department, İİSBF, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, and Mr.Korhan Yazgan, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of Exeter, England. The authors thank all the faculty members who responded to the survey.
Abstract and summary written in English.
Lee Morgenbesser | July 2013
Lee Morgenbesser analyzes the results of the most recent and largest cross-national survey on the international relations discipline. Completed by scholars in 20 countries, the survey covers the areas of teaching, research, foreign policy, the profession and the relationship between policy and academia. From an Australian perspective, the key findings include the strong link between what academics teach and research; the narrowing epistemological gap between the U.S. and Australia; the curious pessimism of scholars on a wide range of foreign policy issues; and the ability of scholars to define research quality independently of other national settings. The most significant and alarming finding, however, concerns how the present structure of the field is undermining scholars’ attempts to forge closer, more influential ties with policymakers in Canberra. In fact, it is clear from the results that wha tacademics research and how they go about it is actually counterintuitive to this goal. The article concludes with three recommendations aimed at rectifying this problem.
Jérémie Cornut and Dario Battistella | June 2013
In the second edition of the 2013 French Journal of Political Science, this article provides an overview of French International Relations (IR) from the responses obtained in the fourth TRIP survey, in which 3,466 internationalists from 20 different countries — among them 101 French — participated in September 2011. The picture that emerges from this study brings a number of things into perspective: the role of IR in the French university, the possible existence of IR to the French, French internationalist positioning relative to current trends in global IR, practitioners' attitudes toward international relations and the issue of the French language.
Stephanie J. Rickard | June 2012
In the most comprehensive survey of its kind in Ireland, this article analyses the growing ﬁeld of international relations and international politics, examining what scholars working in universities in the Republic of Ireland think about international politics and what they are teaching the current generation of students. The article also provides for inter- national comparisons with 10 other countries as the survey is part of a larger cross-national survey, led by academics at the college of William and Mary in Virginia, USA on teaching, research and international policy.
Read the full article (pdf)
Daniel Maliniak, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney | May 2012
How do IR scholars’ views about teaching, research, the discipline, and contemporary policy issues vary across the globe? This report provides descriptive statistics on the responses of IR scholars from 20 countries. This is the 4th such survey that TRIP researchers have conducted since 2004 and the first to break the language barrier, including Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Turkish speaking scholars in the survey. The TRIP survey is one part of a broader effort to explore trends in the academic study of IR and to assess the relationship between IR scholars and practitioners. Previous TRIP survey Reports from 2004, 2006, and 2008 can be found on the TRIP Publications Page.
Read the full article (pdf)
Inanna Hamati-Ataya | November 2011
Dissidence in IR, as in any other social field, reflects both an identity and a practice of opposition to the system. While the fact of dissidence is largely manifested in its very discursive occurrence, this article attempts to go beyond the performative nature of dissidence in order to identify the collective, common ground that unites self-acclaimed dissident scholars, to understand whether they form an objectively constituted social group, and to what extent they encompass dissidence in the field. Based on the analysis of a survey sent to American IR academia, this article shows that contemporary dissidence in American IR is structured not only by its opposition to mainstream IR, but also by internal divisions between the first generation of now established critical dissidents, and an emerging group of Constructivist scholars who do no claim, but do practice, a clearly dissident and more marginalized scholarship.
Jérémie Cornut and Stéphane Roussel | September 2011
This study analyses the French-language scholars' place in Canadian foreign policy. More precisely, it measures and compares their productions in French and English (output) and the citations to this output (impact) in works by English-language scholars. The output is measured using the Canadian Foreign Relations Index. Then a representative sample of bibliographies taken from books and articles written by English-language scholars in the field are drawn from these data, including their small contribution to Canadian foreign policy and the absence of citations to works in French by English-language scholars. Political implications of the results are discussed.
Read the full article (pdf)
Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney | June 2011
TRIP researchers recently published an article in the June 2011 issue of International Studies Quarterly that addresses a number of questions about the nature and trajectory of the IR field within the United States.
Using two new data sources to describe trends in the international relations (IR) discipline since 1980-a database of every article published in the 12 leading journals in the field and three surveys of IR faculty at US colleges and universities-we explore the extent of theoretical, methodological, and epistemological diversity in the American study of IR and the relationship between IR scholarship and the policy-making community in the United States.
We find, first, that there is considerable and increasing theoretical diversity. Although US scholars believe and teach their students that the major paradigms-realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism-define and divide the discipline, most peer-reviewed research does not advance a theoretical argument from one of these theoretical traditions. There is no evidence, moreover, that realism and its focus on power relations among states dominate, or since 1980 ever has dominated, the literature. Second, although three times as many IR scholars report using qualitative methods as their primary approach, more articles published in the top journals currently employ quantitative tools than any other methodological approach. Third, there exists little epistemological diversity in the field: American IR scholars share a strong and growing commitment to positivism. Finally, there is a disjuncture between what American scholars of IR think about the value of producing policy-relevant work and the actual research they generate: few articles in top journals offer explicit policy advice, but scholars believe that their work is both prescriptive and useful to policymakers.
Read the full article (pdf)
J.C. Sharman and Jacqui True | April 2011
This article examines the results of the world's largest ever survey of international relations (IR) scholars with an eye to establishing the particularities of the discipline in Australia and New Zealand. The survey covered the areas of teaching, research, the structure of the profession and scholars' views on foreign policy. From these results, this paper compares IR in New Zealand and Australia, and discusses the extent to which the discipline in these two countries is distinctive from its overseas counterparts, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. The particular areas of focus include the degree to which the field in Australasia conforms to or differs from US or Commonwealth identities; epistemological and gender divides; the distinctive foci of what IR scholars in both countries teach and research; which publications are favored and disfavored; and the contrasting linkages between academia and the world of government and policy. We conclude with some suggestions about how the field in both countries might be improved.
Richard Jordan, Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael Tierney | February 2009
To what extent is there national variation in how scholars teach IR, think about the discipline, view their role in the policy process, and approach critical contemporary foreign policy debates? Conversely, to what extent is there a single-perhaps American-driven-IR discipline? To begin to answer these questions, the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project has conducted the first cross-national survey of IR faculty in ten countries: Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, United Kingdom, and the United States. This report provides descriptive statistics and top line results for all 90 questions asked on the 2008 survey.
Daniel Maliniak and Michael J. Tierney | February 2009
This paper uses the results of the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project: a multi-year study of the international relations (IR) field in order to discern the major characteristics of international political economy scholarship in the United States today. It finds that, like Benjamin Cohen's depiction of the American school, IPE in the United States is increasingly positivist, quantitative, and liberal in orientation. It employs data from a journal article database that tracks trends in publication patterns. It also analyzes data from two surveys of IR scholars in the US and Canada that were conducted in the fall of 2006.
Read the full article (pdf)
David A. Lake | February 2009
Women now receive political science degrees in record numbers, but female representation among political science faculty still lags behind that of many other disciplines. Women may be underrepresented in the profession and trail their male colleagues because they see the world differently; they may see the world differently because of their minority status within the discipline; or the causal arrow may run in both directions. Many feminist scholars contend that gender subordination explains significant differences in worldview between men and women. Other scholars suggest that female political scientists adopt methods and choose topics that are not considered to be the best or most rigorous types of research by the editors of leading journals in order to differentiate themselves. This article examines the role that female scholars play in the discipline of international relations, using the 2006 TRIP survey to follow trends unique to female academics in the United States.
Michael Lipson, Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney | Spring 2007
How does international relations teaching and scholarship differ across countries? This article reports results from the TRIP survey of international relations faculty at US and Canadian universities conducted in 2006. The article compares trends in the content and methods of college instructors at four year universities as well as their individual research and outlook on foreign policy. Some interesting differences emerge in this portrait of two IR communities. Canadian IR, for instance, appears to be both more internationally born and educated than US IR, as well as more politically liberal, while US professors devote more time to traditional paradigmatic debates. Course content, however, remains remarkably similar. Learn more about the way teaching and research differs between the US and Canada in this groundbreaking international study.
Read the full article (pdf)