On the History and Historiography of International
                    Relations

Schmidt, Brian C.

doi:10.4135/9781446247587.n1

Cited by 45 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(132 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, it is easy to slip into a way of telling history that (a) places the 'present' as the telos to which all hitherto existing theory leads and (b) treats earlier phases of work as necessarily 'prototypical of the present' (Gunnell, 2005: 597). Conventional (textbook) narratives of IR have been criticised precisely because of this tendency towards 'presentism' (Schmidt, 1998(Schmidt, , 2002Smith, 2000b;Williams, 2005;Waever, 2003). Thus the oft heard claim that IR is about the problem of inter-state war actively excludes work from the canon that is not premised on the discussion of this topic.…”

Section: Understanding the Course Of The Study Of Eu Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Sciences of European Integration: Disciplinary History and EU Studies

Rosamond¹

2006

Handbook of European Union Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe task of writing disciplinary history is far from straightforward.1 Like all history, the composition of a narrative about a field is undertaken at a particular time and in a particular place -from a particular 'subject position' that may reflect certain biases which in turn follow from a multiplicity of concerns that follow from those temporal and spatial coordinates. 'Formal' disciplinary histories in any field are relatively rare, while stock-taking, 'state of the art' exegeses are found rather more often. More common still, though largely unacknowledged as exercises in disciplinary history, are those acts of framing and story-telling about a field's past that routinely pepper scholarship in an area of enquiry. In other words scholarly activity is characterised by the constant flow of stories, which offer claims about routes to progress through the rectification of past errors and classify the field's development over time. Thus interventions in a field's present routinely make arguments about that field's past.The net result could well be that the history of a field 'is known more by reputation than readership' (Fuller, 2003: 29).The most prominent recent historian of the discipline of international relations (IR) argues that there 'is an intimate link between disciplinary identity and the manner in which we understand the history of the field' (Schmidt, 2002: 16 showing how, overwhelmingly, extant stories about the evolution of EU studies are bound up with particular claims about the organisation of knowledge in the present.Indeed the argument here suggests that disciplinary history is used to adjudicate disputes about the proper scope and substance of the study of EU politics, which in turn connect to some quite fundamental struggles for the soul of political science.Thus the chapter is also attentive to sociology of knowledge questions. These remind us that our knowledge about the world is produced amidst broad scientific and more specific disciplinary structures, norms, practices and institutions -what Jørgensen (2000) neatly calls the 'cultural-institutional context' of academic work. It follows that the evolution of a field is (at the very least) partly a function of developments within the field. These in turn might reflect much broader path dependent pathologies, which take us back to the intellectual and socio-political conditions of disciplinary foundation (Mancias, 1987). This 'internalist' take on disciplinary history might not necessarily provide a full explanation of why scholars of EU politics address particular puzzles at particular moment, but it does offer a framework for understanding why particular theories and approaches dominate at particular times (Schmidt, 1998;Waever, 2003). At the same time, many would prefer to argue for an 'externalist' understanding of disciplinary evolution, where the main academic 4 innovations are largely construed as responses to the changing anatomy of the field's primary object of study (the EU/the politics of European integration).

show abstract

Section: Understanding the Course Of The Study Of Eu Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Sciences of European Integration: Disciplinary History and EU Studies

Rosamond¹

2006

Handbook of European Union Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, it narrates its own history is terms of a series of debates (between realism and idealism, between traditionalists and behaviouralists and between a realist mainstream and a plurality of alternative voices) that, once retold, help to reinforce the core state-centric, 'hard security' ontology of the field's (supposedly) legitimate domain (Schmidt, 1998;Smith, 1995). Sorensen's book is not an exercise in the sociology of knowledge, but his depiction of the orthodox terms of engagement in IR debates about the state is a useful reminder to scholars and a crucial observation for students that the liberal-realist exchange is rooted in conditions of disciplinary foundation (on which see MacLean, 2000;Schmidt, 1998Schmidt, , 2002Smith, 2004). His conclusion, which he shares with many others, is that the classical IR traditions -realism and liberalism -are 'predestined' to ask inappropriate questions about the contemporary state, thereby underscoring the point that our modes of knowledge production are not straightforwardly responsive to our object.…”

Section: Putting Globalization In Its Placementioning

confidence: 99%

Disciplinarity and the political economy of transformation: the epistemological politics of globalization studies

Rosamond

2006

Review of International Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…EU Studies is a very rich field where the dynamics of this interaction can be seen (Schmidt 2002;Wessels 2006). The interaction object / production/ teaching of European Studies is very active in the UK both institutionally, through the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES) (Jones 2000) and Standing Conference of Heads of European Studies (SCHES) , and individually (Church 1993;Flood 1997;Bruzzone 2000;, advancing quickly after 1993.…”

Section: Current Aspects Of Curricula Development In European Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analytical and Methodological Framework of Research in European and/or EU Studies Curriculum

Buda

Horga

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the History and Historiography of International Relations

Cited by 45 publications

References 78 publications

The Political Sciences of European Integration: Disciplinary History and EU Studies

The Political Sciences of European Integration: Disciplinary History and EU Studies

Disciplinarity and the political economy of transformation: the epistemological politics of globalization studies

Analytical and Methodological Framework of Research in European and/or EU Studies Curriculum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About