Les langues comme institutions de savoir/pouvoir dans les études critiques de sécurité canadiennes: le récit personnel d’un initié/profane

The “UFO Taboo” Is What IR Theorists Make of It: “Sovereignty and the UFO” in Citational Perspective

“…The rationale for the genre restriction is that in the field of international relations, “journals are the most direct measure of the discipline itself” ( Waever, 1998 , p. 697). While recognizing the deleterious impacts of the anglonormativity of international relations ( D’Aoust, 2012 ; Grondin et al, 2012 ; Grondin, 2014 ; Murphy & Wigginton, 2020 ), the decision to opt for English-language publications only was based on researcher competence in the languages of works citing “Sovereignty and the UFO.” 10 All of the articles meeting these selection criteria were manually reviewed by the author. Citation data for the articles citing Wendt & Duvall (2008) were recorded from Google Scholar during the same refresh cycle as noted above.…”

CJSoTL at 10: A Quantitative Analysis of Authorship, Genre, and Impact

“…As studies in academic more generally have noted (Altbach, 2007;Stockemer & Wigginton, 2019), pressures to publish in English have created a normalization of one language at the expense of others. The politics of language in the Canadian academy lie at the heart of the question of access, and have been explored at length in disciplines such as politics and international relations (e.g., D 'Aoust, 2012;Grondin, 2014;Grondin et al, 2012;Murphy & Wigginton, 2020;Turenne Sjolander, 2007). While the existing data cannot tell us what threshold would mark a truly bilingual journal, less than 5% of non-editorial content is insufficient.…”

Assessing Three Elements of “Canadian” International Relations

“…Anglonormativity leads to situations where students enrolled in French-language programs are frequently assigned English texts but not vice versa (Turenne Sjolander, 2007). Francophone scholars are often faced with the difficult reality that they are less likely to be read and cited if they choose to publish in French (Grondin, 2014). The latter point is particularly troublesome, as Anne-Marie D'Aoust (2012) argues, because it leaves scholars with the unfortunate choice between contributing to marginalization of their own mother tongue or taking on significant professional risks.…”

“…In the literature on Canadian IR, the term Americanized typically refers to both a focus on the approaches dominant within the American academy (positivism, as well as the three paradigms of realism, liberalism and constructivism) and a tendency to hire scholars trained at institutions in the United States and, to a lesser extent, writing on US-centric topics, such as American foreign policy. In recognition of the unique realities faced by scholars and students of IR at French-language institutions (Cornut and Roussel, 2011a, 2011b; D'Aoust, 2012; Grondin, 2014; Grondin et al, 2012; Murphy and Wigginton, 2020), we also introduce a measurement of French-language institutions, the FLI, consisting of the four largest French-language universities in our analysis—Université de Montréal, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Université Laval and Université de Sherbrooke 1 . As well, our conference tracking captures Canadian participation at a wider variety of institutions in order to determine patterns that might differentiate the various universities.…”