‘Greatly exaggerated’: the death of EU studies–new regionalism dialogue? A reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

Abstract

In a recent piece in this journal Jørgensen and Valbjørn (2012) develop a typology of intellectual dialogue across fields that yields rather negative conclusions about the prospects for sustainable dialogue between 'European studies' and the 'new regionalism'. This response explains why we dispute this pessimistic conclusion. First, we argue that while their derivation of models of dialogue is impressive, it is nonetheless incomplete. Using Jørgensen and Valbjørn's premises, we derive a 'market' mode of dialogue that represents a challenge to their assumption that dialogue will tend towards hierarchy. Second, we accept that there are important 'sociology of knowledge' impediments to effective dialogue within political science and International Relations, but maintain that Jørgensen and Valbjørn fail to work through the question of 'dialogue between whom?' We argue that methodological division is the most significant impediment to dialogue, but maintain that withinmethodology dialogue is more than viable in the case under scrutiny in this debate. Third, having established these general parameters of disagreement, we move to a number of more particular criticisms of the assumptions made by Jørgensen and Valbjørn about our own calls for dialogue between scholars in these two fields.

Research Methods in European Union Studies

“…In other words, reflective and transformative knowledge production is the imagined ideal, and yet such ideals face little chance in the current practice of academia. Rosamond and Warleigh-Lack (2013) agree with the desirability of reflective and transformative knowledge production, but represent a more optimistic view on its viability. The central claim is that methodological divisions are the real barriers to overcome, but also that 'within methodology' dialogue across disciplines, or sub-fields, is certainly a viable pathway to the advancement of knowledge production.…”

“…The discovery of methodological commonality across subfields may be a way to engineer communication between them at a time when subfields are increasingly self-contained and closed entities, and when the very idea of the subfield is increasingly fetishised (KaufmanOsborn, 2006). Likewise, the exploration of methodological commonalities across parts of different disciplines that contribute to EU studies would be able to generate meaningful dialogue (Rosamond and Warleigh-Lack, 2013), which in turn is a route to interdisciplinary research (Kaiser, 2008).…”

Methodological Challenges in the Study of Emotions in Politics and How to Deal With Them

“…I adhere to the latter view, but also acknowledge the former “hook‐up to the world” as a perfectly legitimate position and, essentially, that any research methodology should be evaluated on its own terms. Recognizing unlike “hook‐ups to the world” as perfectly legitimate in their own right is a necessary condition for intermethodological dialogue, a dialogue that is almost certainly productive and even transformative for our research endeavors (see Rosamond & Warleigh‐Lack, ). This is in favor of moving beyond narrow and fixed methodological positions, while acknowledging significant implications of unlike philosophical ontologies.…”