To what extent is International Relations (IR) a globalized discipline? We investigate the geographic diversity of authorship in seventeen IR journals from Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America, and the United Kingdom. Biographical records were collected for the authors of 2,362 articles published between 2011 and 2015. To interpret the data, we discuss how publishing patterns are driven by author incentives (supply) in tandem with editorial preferences and strategies (demand). Our main findings are twofold. First, global IR is fragmented and provincial. All journals frequently publish works by authors located in their own region—but the size of these local clusters varies. Geographic diversity is highest in what we identify as the “goldilocks zone” of international publishing: English-language journals that are globally visible but not so competitive that North American authors crowd out other contributions. Second, IR is being globalized through researcher mobility. Many scholars have moved to pursue their doctoral education and then publish as expats, returnees, or part of the diaspora. They are joined by academic tourists publishing in regions to which they have no obvious ties. IR journals thus feature more diverse backgrounds than it may seem at first sight, but many of these authors were educated in North America, the United Kingdom, and Europe.
Several studies have pointed to an unproductive 'division of labor' in theInternational Relations discipline (IR), notably its publication patterns, in which scholars based in a 'core' publish theory-building work while scholars based in a 'periphery' publish mainly empirical, area-oriented, or theory-testing work. The latter would thus mainly act as 'local informants' feeding empirical material on 'their own' country or region into the theorizing efforts of the 'core'. We investigate this argument empirically using the dataset compiled by the Global Pathways (GP) project that studies the content in both 'core'-and 'periphery'based and edited journals. Overall, our findings corroborate the argument about a core-periphery division of labor. Our main findings are threefold: (1) In terms of theory, we find that 'core' journals publish a larger proportion of theory-developing (and statistical) work and a lower proportion of analytical case studies and descriptive work than do 'periphery' journals. Scholars based in the 'periphery' are rarely published in these more theoretical 'core' journals (accounting for just 5.5% of articles in the journals studied here), but the published articles tend to apply theory. The main division of labor is thus not playing out within 'core' journals, but across the 'core' and 'periphery' worlds of publishing. In the 'periphery' journals, we actually find that scholars tend to publish a significant proportion of work using theory. ( 2) In terms of regional focus, we find that all journals and authors tend to have an empirical 'home bias', i.e. focus their empirical work on the region in which they are based, but that this is stronger for 'periphery'-based journals and authors. This provides some confirmation of an unproductive division of labor where 'core' authors publish works about all regions of the globe, while 'periphery' authors have a stronger regional orientation. (3) Finally, we find evidence that some journals and authors -particularly those based in Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia -tend to be more policy-oriented, but we find no conclusive evidence of a core-periphery gap in this context.
The “global IR” debate lacks systematic data on scholarship in different world regions, particularly outside the Web of Science (WoS). To close this gap, we compare 2,362 articles published in seventeen journals between 2011 and 2015. We map each article's overall approach, main theories, and substantive issue area. These content data are combined with information on the author's biographical background. Crucially, our sample also includes journals from East Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe, and North America not indexed in the WoS. We find a bifurcated Transatlantic core of IR, with an emphasis on quantitative-rationalist research on one side compared to more constructivist and critical theorizing on the other. Journals outside the core more often feature articles with a descriptive approach, and this tendency is not limited to atheoretical works. Theoretical paradigms vary in popularity between regions. Many articles draw on multiple theories, including concepts from adjacent fields, which supports the notion of analytical eclecticism. Yet explicitly “non-Western” theorizing remains rare. To explore the influence of academic socialization, we compare subsamples within journals. The origins of doctoral degrees indeed seem linked to research preferences, suggesting that journals can become more well-rounded by publishing works by authors from diverse academic backgrounds. El debate sobre las “relaciones internacionales globales” carece de datos sistemáticos sobre los estudios en diferentes regiones del mundo, especialmente fuera de la plataforma Web of Science (WoS). Para cubrir esta falta de datos, comparamos 2362 artículos que se publicaron en 17 revistas entre 2011 y 2015. Realizamos un esquema del enfoque general, las teorías principales y el ámbito temático sustancial de cada artículo. Estos datos del contenido se combinan con información sobre los antecedentes biográficos del autor. Crucialmente, nuestra muestra también incluye revistas de Asia oriental, África, América Latina, Europa y Norteamérica que no están indexadas en la plataforma WoS. Observamos una base transatlántica bifurcada de las relaciones internacionales, con un énfasis en la investigación cuantitativa y racionalista por un lado, en comparación con una teorización más constructivista y crítica por el otro. Con más frecuencia, las revistas que no se encuentran en la base incluyen artículos con un enfoque descriptivo, y esta tendencia no se limita a las obras no teóricas. Los paradigmas teóricos varían en materia de popularidad entre las regiones. Muchos artículos recurren a varias teorías e incluyen los conceptos de campos adyacentes, lo cual respalda la noción del eclecticismo analítico. No obstante, la teorización que es explícitamente “no occidental” continúa siendo escasa. Para analizar la influencia de la socialización académica, comparamos submuestras dentro de las revistas. En efecto, los orígenes de los doctorados parecen estar relacionados con las preferencias de investigación, lo cual sugiere que las revistas pueden tornarse más integrales publicando obras de autores de distintos antecedentes académicos. Le débat sur les « RI mondiales » manque de données systématiques sur les recherches menées dans différentes régions du monde, tout particulièrement hors de Web of Science (WoS). Pour combler cette lacune, nous avons comparé 2 362 articles publiés dans 17 revues entre 2011 et 2015. Nous avons cartographié l'approche globale, les principales théories et le domaine de la problématique substantielle de chaque article. Ces données sont alliées à des informations sur le parcours biographique des auteurs. Mais surtout, notre échantillon inclut aussi des revues issues d'Asie de l'Est, d'Afrique, d'Amérique latine, d'Europe et d'Amérique du Nord qui ne sont pas indexées dans WoS. Nous avons d'une part décelé un noyau de RI transatlantique dichotomique, une facette mettant l'accent sur les recherches quantitatives/rationalistes alors que l'autre se concentre sur une théorisation plus constructiviste et critique. Les revues hors de ce noyau présentent plus souvent des articles adoptant une approche descriptive et cette tendance ne se limite pas aux travaux athéoriques. Les paradigmes varient en popularité entre les régions. De nombreux articles s'appuient sur plusieurs théories, notamment sur des concepts issus de domaines adjacents, ce qui contribue à la notion d’éclectisme analytique. Pourtant, la théorisation explicitement « non occidentale » reste rare. Nous avons comparé des sous-échantillons au sein des revues pour explorer l'influence de la socialisation académique. Les origines des diplômes de doctorat semblent en réalité associées à des préférences de recherche, ce qui suggère que les revues pourraient devenir plus équilibrées en publiant des travaux d'auteurs aux divers parcours académiques.
Five key drivers will shape the future of transatlantic relations in the next decade. Generally, the extent of shared liberal culture and European collective action capacity are crucial for cooperation between the EU and US. Additionally, it matters whether policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic agree on a conception of global order, on how to handle future technologies, and on the use of military force. Building on these drivers we develop and discuss four scenarios. The first describes a world of selective cooperation as the EU disintegrates. In the second, the US withdraws from the global stage and Europeans are forced to assume a leadership position. The third depicts negative consequences from populist nationalism, reducing transatlantic cooperation to military action against perceived Islamist threats. In the fourth scenario we focus on future technology that threatens to overwhelm transatlantic regulatory capacity.
Attempts to improve the domestic quality of government often involve international arrangements and the fight against corruption is a prominent example. Since the 1990s, anticorruption pledges, international treaties, soft law arrangements, transnational advocacy campaigns, and other commitments have proliferated to control bribery and corruption in a range of contexts. This chapter surveys the literature on the emergence and characteristics of these various initiatives and provides an overview of what is known about their impacts on policy and discourse, law, and behavior. While empirical evidence on the impact of international anticorruption efforts is mixed, existing studies and directions for future research suggest that the quality of government in highly developed states is crucial when it comes to controlling transnational business bribery, money laundering, and other illicit financial flows.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.