Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge Production and Circulation in Pakistani International Relations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Constructing 'Pakistan' through Knowledge Production in International Relations and Area Studies

  • 130 Accesses

Abstract

The feeble and marginal participation of Pakistani scholars and academics in the processes of international knowledge production cannot be left alone to publishing processes which are tacitly exclusionary and grant more credibility to knowledge produced in the western ‘intellectual’ centers. In this regard, a study of how International Relations scholarship is produced from Pakistan requires more insight into the exogenous and endogenous processes through which scholars and academics produce knowledge about Pakistan. This chapter firstly analyzes the exogenous factors responsible for inhibiting periphery scholars from challenging the dominating discourse. These dominant exogenous factors include the prevalence of academic capitalism and the mercantilization of higher education that followed as a consequence of academic ‘yardsticks’, and the imposition of English as a Lingua Franca for publishing in internationally reputable journals. Secondly, the chapter explores endogenous factors specific to Pakistan because of which Pakistani academics are impeded and implicitly discouraged to produce alternative discourse not only domestically but also internationally. This analysis is based on a detailed exposition of the policies of the Pakistan Higher Education Commission on promotions and incentives to publish.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For instance, see David L. Blaney and Arlene B. Tickner, “Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45, no. 3 (June 12, 2017): 293–311, https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817702446; Arlene B. Tickner, “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323; Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver, International Relations Scholarship Around the World (New York and London: Routledge, 2009); Robbie Shilliam, ed., International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism, and Investigations of Global Modernity (Routledge, 2011); John M. Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096829; Pinar Bilgin, “Looking for ‘the International’ Beyond the West,” Third World Quarterly 31, no. 5 (July 2010): 817–28, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2010.502696.

  2. 2.

    Syed Farid Alatas, “Alternative Discourses in Southeast Asia,” Sari 19 (2001): 49–50, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2650589.

  3. 3.

    A. Suresh Canagarajah, A Geopolitics of Academic Writing (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002), 37.

  4. 4.

    Syed Farid Alatas, “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences,” Current Sociology 51, no. 6 (November 30, 2003): 599–613, https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003; Syed Farid Alatas, “Academic Dependency in the Social Sciences: Reflections on India and Malaysia,” American Studies International (Mid-America American Studies Association, 2000); Henry Wai-Chung Yeung, “Redressing the Geographical Bias in Social Science Knowledge,” Environment and Planning A 33, no. 1 (2001): 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1068/a33181.

  5. 5.

    Ersel Aydinli and Julie Mathews, “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations,” 2000, 289–303; Blaney and Tickner, “Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR”; Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction,” International Relations of Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312; Tickner and Wæver, International Relations Scholarship Around the World.

  6. 6.

    Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge, eds., Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017); Peter A. Jackson, “Space, Theory, and Hegemony: The Dual Crises of Asian Area Studies and Cultural Studies,” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 18, no. 1 (2003): 1–41; Malini J. Schueller, “Area Studies and Multicultural Imperialism: The Project of Decolonizing Knowledge,” Social Text 25, no. 1 90 (March 1, 2007): 41–62, https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-2006-016.

  7. 7.

    Branwen Gruffydd Jones, ed., Decolonizing International Relations (Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006); Shilliam, International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism, and Investigations of Global Modernity; Syed Hussein Alatas, “Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits, and Problems,” Asian Journal of Social Science 28, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 23–45.

  8. 8.

    Henry Wai-Chung Yeung, “Redressing the Geographical Bias in Social Science Knowledge”; Peter A. Jackson, “The Neoliberal University and Global Immobilities of Theory,” in Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn, ed. Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 27–44, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59834-9_1.

  9. 9.

    Peter A. Jackson, “The Neoliberal University and Global Immobilities of Theory,” in Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn, ed. Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 34, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59834-9_1.

  10. 10.

    For an interesting discussion on the commodification of education, see Neil Smith, “Afterword: Who Rules This Sausage Factory?” Antipode 32, no. 3 (2000): 330, 339.

  11. 11.

    Jackson, 35.

  12. 12.

    For a short history of the ISI index and its subsequent rise to ‘power’ see Kwang-Yeong Shin, “Globalization and the National Social Science in the Discourse on the SSCI in South Korea,” Korean Social Science Journal, XXXIV 34, no. 1 (2007): 93–116.

  13. 13.

    Fernanda Beigel, “Introduction: Current Tensions and Trends in the World Scientific System,” Current Sociology 62, no. 5 (September 27, 2014): 617.

  14. 14.

    Fernanda Beigel, “Publishing from the Periphery: Structural Heterogeneity and Segmented Circuits: The Evaluation of Scientific Publications for Tenure in Argentina’s CONICET,” Current Sociology 62, no. 5 (September 3, 2014): 745.

  15. 15.

    Beigel, “Introduction: Current Tensions and Trends in the World Scientific System”; Beigel, “Publishing from the Periphery: Structural Heterogeneity and Segmented Circuits—The Evaluation of Scientific Publications for Tenure in Argentina’s CONICET”; Sari Hanafi, “University Systems in the Arab East: Publish Globally and Perish Locally vs Publish Locally and Perish Globally,” Current Sociology 59, no. 3 (May 28, 2011): 291–309; Frederick H. Gareau, “Another Type of Third World Dependency: The Social Sciences,” International Sociology 3, no. 2 (June 29, 1988): 171–78.

  16. 16.

    Jackson, “The Neoliberal University and Global Immobilities of Theory”, 39.

  17. 17.

    A research article, on feudalism and its impact on Pakistan’s democratic experience, which I had submitted to a journal of international repute, was rejected on the basis of a peer review which argued that “historians, economists and political scientists, among others, find it extremely difficult to trace feudalism in South Asian history, let alone modern Pakistan.” This, despite the fact that there have been numerous studies on the link between feudalism and Pakistan’s democratic experience.

  18. 18.

    For a detailed understanding of the impediments faced by non-western scholars in their efforts to contribute in mainstream knowledge production processes, see A. Suresh. Canagarajah, “‘Nondiscursive’ Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production,” Written Communication 13, no. 4 (1996): 435–72, https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004001; Syed Farid Alatas, “An Introduction to the Idea of Alternative Discourses,” Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 28 (2000): 1–12, https://doi.org/10.2307/24492996; Syed Farid Alatas, “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences,” Current Sociology 51, no. 6 (November 30, 2003): 599–613; Daisy Jacobs, Pit. Pichappan, and S. Sarasvady, “What Do Third World Researchers Lack? Documenting the Peer Review Data,” Current Science 91, no. 12 (2006): 1605–7; Hanafi, “University Systems in the Arab East: Publish Globally and Perish Locally vs Publish Locally and Perish Globally”; Eugene Garfield, “Peer Review, Refereeing, Fraud, and Other Essays,” Essays of an Information Scientist 10 (1987).

  19. 19.

    Alatas categorizes this form of Knowledge production from the non-West as a function of academic imperialism. See Syed Hussein Alatas, “Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits, and Problems”; Alatas, “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences,” November 30, 2003.

  20. 20.

    For case studies of knowledge production in the non-West, see Tickner and Wæver, International Relations Scholarship Around the World; Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia (Routledge, 2010); In the case of Pakistan, an analysis of the academia’s conformity to western International Relations theories, see Ahmed Waqas Waheed, “State Sovereignty and International Relations in Pakistan: Analysing the Realism Stranglehold,” South Asia Research 37, no. 3 (2017): 277–95, https://doi.org/10.1177/0262728017725624.

  21. 21.

    Tickner, “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations”, 636.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., 638.

  23. 23.

    For a detailed discussion on South Asian intellectuals and their quest for proximity to power, see Navnita Chadha Behera, ed., International Relations in South Asia: Search for an Alternative Paradigm (Sage, 2008).

  24. 24.

    N. Behera, “South Asia: A ‘Realist’ Past and Alternative Futures,” in International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. A. Tickner and O. Wæver (London: Routledge, 2009).

  25. 25.

    Waheed, “State Sovereignty and International Relations in Pakistan: Analysing the Realism Stranglehold.”

  26. 26.

    Canagarajah uses the term ‘non-discursive’ in a qualified sense. While much has changed since globalization and technological advancements brought about by computers and internet, changed the way these nondiscursive requirements were imposed upon the non-West scholars, however much of it still remains the same. See Canagarajah, “‘Nondiscursive’ Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production”; Canagarajah, A Geopolitics of Academic Writing.

  27. 27.

    One of my earlier pieces of research got rejected by multiple reputable international journals. A peer reviewer of one journal was “quite disappointed with the overall arguments and style of the author” and a peer reviewer of another quipped that “The language used is also not academic enough: it reads more like a journalistic piece.”

  28. 28.

    See, for instance, Alastair Pennycook, The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language (Routledge, 1994); Robert Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism (Oxford University Press, 1992); Robert Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism Continued (London and New York: Routledge, 2009); Po King Choi, “‘Weep for Chinese University’: A Case Study of English Hegemony and Academic Capitalism in Higher Education in Hong Kong,” Journal of Education Policy 25, no. 2 (March 2010): 233–52; Canagarajah, A Geopolitics of Academic Writing.

  29. 29.

    Bilal Genc and Erdogan Bada, “English as a World Language in Academic Writing,” The Reading Matrix 10, no. 2 (2010): 142; Also see Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, “On English as a Vehicle to Preserve Geographical Diversity,” Progress in Human Geography 28, no. 1 (February 1, 2004): 1–4.

  30. 30.

    Choi, “‘Weep for Chinese University’: A Case Study of English Hegemony and Academic Capitalism in Higher Education in Hong Kong”, 238.

  31. 31.

    Sohail Inayatullah, “Imagining an Alternative Politics of Knowledge: Subverting the Hegemony of International Relations Theory in Pakistan,” Contemporary South Asia 7, no. 1 (March 11, 1998): 30, https://doi.org/10.1080/09584939808719828.

  32. 32.

    Canagarajah, “‘Nondiscursive’ Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production”, 440.

  33. 33.

    Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, “On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason,” Theory, Culture & Society 16, no. 1 (February 1999): 42.

  34. 34.

    Gareau, “Another Type of Third World Dependency: The Social Sciences.”

  35. 35.

    For instance, see Hikyoung Lee and Kathy Lee, “Publish (in International Indexed Journals) or Perish: Neoliberal Ideology in a Korean University,” Language Policy 12, no. 3 (August 16, 2013): 215–30; Kwang-Yeong Shin, “Globalization and the National Social Science in the Discourse on the SSCI in South Korea,” Korean Social Science Journal, XXXIV 34, no. 1 (2007): 93–116; Chuing Prudence Chou, “The SSCI Syndrome in Taiwan’s Academia,” Education Policy Analysis Archives 22, no. 29 (2014): 1–18; Alatas, “Academic Dependency in the Social Sciences: Reflections on India and Malaysia”; Leandro Rodriguez Medina, Centers and Peripheries in Knowledge Production (New York: Routledge, 2015); Choi, “‘Weep for Chinese University’: A Case Study of English Hegemony and Academic Capitalism in Higher Education in Hong Kong.”

  36. 36.

    BR Research, “HEC Aims at Seeing 15 Pak Varsities Among World’s Top-500,” Business Recorder, September 3, 2018, https://www.brecorder.com/2018/09/03/436715/hec-aims-at-seeing-15-pak-varsities-among-worlds-top-500/.

  37. 37.

    Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, “Quality and Research Based Ranking of Pakistani HEIs,” Ranking of Pakistani HEIs, 2015, http://www.hec.gov.pk/english/services/universities/Ranking/Pages/Ranking-of-Pakistani-HEIs.aspx.

  38. 38.

    Anita Makri, “Pakistan and Egypt Had Highest Rises in Research Output in 2018,” Nature: International Journal of Science (December 21, 2018), http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07841-9.

  39. 39.

    For the poor conditions dominating the trajectory of development in the social sciences in Pakistan, see Inayatullah, “Development of the Discipline of Political Science in Pakistan,” in Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile, ed. Inayatullah, R. Saigol, and P. Tahir (Islamabad: Pisces Enterprises, 2005); Inayatullah, R. Saigol, and P. Tahir, eds., Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile (Islamabad: Pisces Enterprises, 2005); S. Akbar Zaidi, “Dismal State of Social Sciences in Pakistan,” Economic and Political Weekly 37, no. 35 (2002): 3644–61; Tahir Kamran, “The State of Social Sciences in Pakistan,” The News on Sunday, 2017, http://tns.thenews.com.pk/state-social-sciences-pakistan/#.XMvtVWJMTIU.

  40. 40.

    P. Hoodbhoy, “Pakistan’s Professor Mafia,” Dawn, July 1, 2017, www.dawn.com/news/1342483.

  41. 41.

    Tenure-Track is a career path which incentivizes teaching and research. While in the North American context, it provides economic security to professors and allows them to pursue unpopular and controversial research without retribution of the education managers in Pakistan the system exists only as a means to incentivize research. The Pakistani Tenure-Track system however does not guarantee economic security and neither does it promote academic freedom.

  42. 42.

    This policy has been revised and been implemented with effect from 1 July 2018.

  43. 43.

    M. Tahir Ali Shah, “Policy Revision in Compliance of the Decision Taken in the 31st Meeting for Development of Social Sciences and Humanities in Pakistan,” 2017, http://hec.gov.pk/english/services/faculty/SSAH/Documents/Journals/NOTIFICATION-RevisionOfPolicyCriteriaforSocialSciencesReseachJournals.pdf.

  44. 44.

    I have mentioned elsewhere how the divisions between think-tanks and academia blur in matters of publishing. While the Higher Education Commission requires scholar to be published in some select national journals for them to be considered for Tenure-Track, however most of these journals in International Relations are housed in Think-Tanks, thus reducing the prospects of theory-driven research and increasing the focus on policy-relevant research articles. See Waheed Ahmed, “Why Are There No International Relations Theories in Pakistan,” South Asia Research 37, no. 3 (2017).

  45. 45.

    “Pakistan Institute of International Affairs,” Pakistan Horizon, accessed May 6, 2019, https://www.piia.org.pk/about-us.

  46. 46.

    “Islamabad Policy Research Institute,” IPRI Journal, accessed May 6, 2019, https://www.ipripak.org/introduction/.

  47. 47.

    “National Defence University, Islamabad,” Margalla Papers, accessed May 6, 2019, https://ndu.edu.pk/issra/issra_ndu_issra_papers_intro.php.

  48. 48.

    Ahmed, “Why Are There No International Relations Theories in Pakistan.”

  49. 49.

    I don’t mean all international journals. For the purpose of this discussion international journals are only mentioned in specific reference to journals listed in the Journal Citation Report and the ISI master list.

  50. 50.

    For a similar critique, see Niamat Ullah Khan, “HEC Recognised Journals,” Daily Times, September 1, 2018, dailytimes.com.pk/290996/hec-recognised-journals/.

  51. 51.

    Higher Education Commission, “Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Recognition, Upgradation & Funding of Journals and Equivalency of Book with Research Article,” 2017, http://hec.gov.pk/site/ssjournals.

  52. 52.

    Associated Press of Pakistan, “Unemployed PhDs Demand Jobs,” Pakistan Today, March 12, 2019, www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2019/03/25/unemployed-phds-demand-jobs/.

  53. 53.

    Even though Hanafi’s work highlights the distinction by emphasizing the use of language in different publishing circuits, however I believe a similar distinction can be made regardless of whether Pakistani scholars publish locally in Urdu or not. See Hanafi, “University Systems in the Arab East: Publish Globally and Perish Locally vs Publish Locally and Perish Globally.”

  54. 54.

    Like Hanafi, Chung’s argument also calls upon the ‘South’s’ scholars to move beyond local vernacular barriers. However here again, I believe that the assertion can be made to scholars participating in national knowledge production irrespective of their vernacular leaning. Chung argues that social science scholars outside the dominant structure of international knowledge production process dominated by a Euro-American system:

    “must also attempt to speak to their counterparts from the ‘North’ by relating their research work and findings to ongoing debates in the ‘mainstream’, even though this may show major contradictions and lead to conflicts with existing ‘paradigms’. In fact, this challenge from the ‘outside’ in both empirical and theoretical terms may prevent the social sciences from gravitating towards a dogmatic worldview in which only one voice dominates”. See Henry Wai-Chung Yeung, “Redressing the Geographical Bias in Social Science Knowledge”, 7.

Bibliography

  • Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. New York: Routledge, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, Waheed. “Why Are There No International Relations Theories in Pakistan.” South Asia Research 37, no. 3 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alatas, Syed Farid. “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 51, no. 6 (November 30, 2003): 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. “Academic Dependency in the Social Sciences: Reflections on India and Malaysia.” American Studies International. Mid-America American Studies Association, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “Alternative Discourses in Southeast Asia.” Sari 19 (2001): 49–67. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2650589.

  • ———. “An Introduction to the Idea of Alternative Discourses.” Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 28 (2000): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/24492996.

  • Alatas, Syed Hussein. “Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits, and Problems.” Asian Journal of Social Science 28, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 23–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Associated Press of Pakistan. “Unemployed PhDs Demand Jobs.” Pakistan Today, March 12, 2019. www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2019/03/25/unemployed-phds-demand-jobs/.

  • Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations,” 2000, 289–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behera, Navnita Chadha, ed. International Relations in South Asia: Search for an Alternative Paradigm. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behera, N. “South Asia: A ‘Realist’ Past and Alternative Futures.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by A. Tickner and O. Wæver. London: Routledge, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beigel, Fernanda. “Introduction: Current Tensions and Trends in the World Scientific System.” Current Sociology 62, no. 5 (September 27, 2014): 617–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. “Publishing from the Periphery: Structural Heterogeneity and Segmented Circuits. The Evaluation of Scientific Publications for Tenure in Argentina’s CONICET.” Current Sociology 62, no. 5 (September 3, 2014): 743–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilgin, Pinar. “Looking for ‘the International’ Beyond the West.” Third World Quarterly 31, no. 5 (July 2010): 817–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2010.502696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaney, David L., and Arlene B. Tickner. “Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45, no. 3 (June 12, 2017): 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817702446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. “On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason.” Theory, Culture & Society 16, no. 1 (February 1999): 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BR Research. “HEC Aims at Seeing 15 Pak Varsities Among World’s Top-500.” Business Recorder, September 3, 2018. https://www.brecorder.com/2018/09/03/436715/hec-aims-at-seeing-15-pak-varsities-among-worlds-top-500/.

  • Canagarajah, A. Suresh. “‘Nondiscursive’ Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production.” Written Communication 13, no. 4 (1996): 435–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Po King. “‘Weep for Chinese University’: A Case Study of English Hegemony and Academic Capitalism in Higher Education in Hong Kong.” Journal of Education Policy 25, no. 2 (March 2010): 233–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, Chuing Prudence. “The SSCI Syndrome in Taiwan’s Academia.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 22, no. 29 (2014): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gareau, Frederick H. “Another Type of Third World Dependency: The Social Sciences.” International Sociology 3, no. 2 (June 29, 1988): 171–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, Eugene. “Peer Review, Refereeing, Fraud, and Other Essays.” Essays of an Information Scientist 10 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Genc, Bilal, and Erdogan Bada. “English as a World Language in Academic Writing.” The Reading Matrix 10, no. 2 (2010): 142–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruffydd Jones, Branwen, ed. Decolonizing International Relations. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanafi, Sari. “University Systems in the Arab East: Publish Globally and Perish Locally vs Publish Locally and Perish Globally.” Current Sociology 59, no. 3 (May 28, 2011): 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higher Education Commission. “Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Recognition, Upgradation & Funding of Journals and Equivalency of Book with Research Article,” 2017. http://hec.gov.pk/site/ssjournals.

  • Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. “Quality and Research Based Ranking of Pakistani HEIs.” Ranking of Pakistani HEIs, 2015. http://www.hec.gov.pk/english/services/universities/Ranking/Pages/Ranking-of-Pakistani-HEIs.aspx.

  • Hobson, John M. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096829.

  • Hoodbhoy, P. “Pakistan’s Professor Mafia.” Dawn, July 1, 2017. www.dawn.com/news/1342483.

  • Inayatullah. “Development of the Discipline of Political Science in Pakistan.” In Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile, edited by Inayatullah, R. Saigol, and P. Tahir. Islamabad: Pisces Enterprises, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inayatullah, R. Saigol, and P. Tahir, eds. Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile. Islamabad: Pisces Enterprises, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inayatullah, Sohail. “Imagining an Alternative Politics of Knowledge: Subverting the Hegemony of International Relations Theory in Pakistan.” Contemporary South Asia 7, no. 1 (March 11, 1998): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09584939808719828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “Islamabad Policy Research Institute.” IPRI Journal. Accessed May 6, 2019. https://www.ipripak.org/introduction/.

  • Jackson, Peter A. “Space, Theory, and Hegemony: The Dual Crises of Asian Area Studies and Cultural Studies.” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 18, no. 1 (2003): 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. “The Neoliberal University and Global Immobilities of Theory.” In Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn, edited by Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge, 27–44. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59834-9_1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Daisy, Pit. Pichappan, and S. Sarasvady. “What Do Third World Researchers Lack? Documenting the Peer Review Data.” Current Science 91, no. 12 (2006): 1605–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamran, Tahir. “The State of Social Sciences in Pakistan.” The News on Sunday, 2017. http://tns.thenews.com.pk/state-social-sciences-pakistan/#.XMvtVWJMTIU.

  • Khan, Niamat Ullah. “HEC Recognised Journals.” Daily Times, September 1, 2018. dailytimes.com.pk/290996/hec-recognised-journals/.

  • Lee, Hikyoung, and Kathy Lee. “Publish (in International Indexed Journals) or Perish: Neoliberal Ideology in a Korean University.” Language Policy 12, no. 3 (August 16, 2013): 215–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makri, Anita. “Pakistan and Egypt Had Highest Rises in Research Output in 2018.” Nature: International Journal of Science (December 21, 2018). http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07841-9.

  • Mielke, Katja, and Anna-Katharina Hornidge, eds. Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • “National Defence University, Islamabad.” Margalla Papers. Accessed May 6, 2019. https://ndu.edu.pk/issra/issra_ndu_issra_papers_intro.php.

  • “Pakistan Institute of International Affairs.” Pakistan Horizon. Accessed May 6, 2019. https://www.piia.org.pk/about-us.

  • Pennycook, Alastair. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. New York: Routledge, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, Robert. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Linguistic Imperialism Continued. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés. “On English as a Vehicle to Preserve Geographical Diversity.” Progress in Human Geography 28, no. 1 (February 1, 2004): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez Medina, Leandro. Centers and Peripheries in Knowledge Production. New York: Routledge, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schueller, Malini J. “Area Studies and Multicultural Imperialism: The Project of Decolonizing Knowledge.” Social Text 25, no. 1 90 (March 1, 2007): 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-2006-016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, M. Tahir Ali. “Policy Revision in Compliance of the Decision Taken in the 31st Meeting for Development of Social Sciences and Humanities in Pakistan,” 2017. http://hec.gov.pk/english/services/faculty/SSAH/Documents/Journals/NOTIFICATION-RevisionOfPolicyCriteriaforSocialSciencesReseachJournals.pdf.

  • Shilliam, Robbie, ed. International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism, and Investigations of Global Modernity. London: Routledge, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, Kwang-Yeong. “Globalization and the National Social Science in the Discourse on the SSCI in South Korea.” Korean Social Science Journal, XXXIV 34, no. 1 (2007): 93–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Neil. “Afterword: Who Rules This Sausage Factory?” Antipode 32, no. 3 (2000): 330:339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, Arlene B. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. New York and London: Routledge, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waheed, Ahmed Waqas. “State Sovereignty and International Relations in Pakistan: Analysing the Realism Stranglehold.” South Asia Research 37, no. 3 (2017): 277–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0262728017725624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, Henry Wai-Chung. “Redressing the Geographical Bias in Social Science Knowledge.” Environment and Planning A 33, no. 1 (2001): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1068/a33181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaidi, S. Akbar. “Dismal State of Social Sciences in Pakistan.” Economic and Political Weekly 37, no. 35 (2002): 3644–61.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for International Peace & Stability, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Ahmed W. Waheed

Authors
  1. Ahmed W. Waheed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed W. Waheed .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Waheed, A.W. (2020). Knowledge Production and Circulation in Pakistani International Relations. In: Constructing 'Pakistan' through Knowledge Production in International Relations and Area Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0742-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation