Advertisement

Global Studies: Contested Fields, One Domain?

  • James GoodmanEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Advocates of state-centric analysis have actively policed boundaries between the ‘domestic’ and the ‘international,’ asserting states as key actors in international contexts. Both claims were overwhelmed by the disciplinary transformations that came with the study of globalization from the 1980s. This chapter debates these drivers for global studies, outlining the struggle for primacy between state-centric and global approaches. It focuses on debates about the proper or primary units of analysis for the study of international phenomena, and the related ‘levels of analysis’ problem, showing how they were radically reconfigured by the ongoing globalization of social sciences and humanities. The chapter ends by echoing Manfred Steger’s work, elaborating with some reflections on the importance of interdisciplinarity for the development of global studies.

References

  1. Boyer, Mark, Mary Caprioli, Robert A. Denemark, Elizabeth Hanson, and Stepehn Lamy. 2000. Visions of international studies in a new millennium. International Studies Perspectives 1: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brecher, Michael. 1999. International Studies in the Twentieth Century and Beyond: Flawed Dichotomies, Synthesis, Cumulation. International Studies Quarterly 43: 213–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buzan, Barry, and Little Richard. 2001. Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do About It. Millennium 30 (1): 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caporaso, James. 1997. Across the Great Divide: Integrating Comparative and International Politics. International Studies Quarterly 41: 563–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drainville, André C. 2003. Critical Pedagogy for the Present Moment: Learning from the Avant-garde to Teach Globalisation from Experiences. International Studies Perspectives 4: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunne, Tim, Michael Cox, and Ken Booth. 1998. Introduction: The 80 Years Crisis. (Special Issue: The Eighty Years Crisis 1919–1989). Review of International Studies 24 (5): v–xii.Google Scholar
  8. Editors. 1962. Editorial. International Studies Quarterly 1, 1.Google Scholar
  9. George, Jim, and David Campbell. 1990. Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 34: 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Global Studies Association. 2017a. About the GSA. https://globalstudiesassoc.wordpress.com/about/. Accessed 27 Dec 2017.
  11. ———. 2017b. Our Rationale for Founding the GSA. http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/mission.html. Accessed 27 Dec 2017.
  12. Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  13. Herman, Margaret G. 1998. One Field, Many Perspectives: Building the Foundations for Dialogue. International Studies Quarterly 42: 605–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Studies Association. 1962. ISA Purpose. International Studies Quarterly 1, 1.Google Scholar
  15. James, Paul, and Manfred B. Steger. 2014. A Genealogy of “Globalization”: The Career of a Concept. Globalizations 11 (4): 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juergensmeyer, Mark. 2012. Global Studies. In Encyclopedia of Global Studies, ed. M. Mark Juergensmeyer and Helmut K. Anheier, 728–737. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1998. Politics, Norms and Peaceful Change (Special Issue: The Eighty Years Crisis 1919-1989). Review of International Studies 24 (5): 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, Laurence. 1995. Chatham House at 75: The Past and the Future. International Affairs 71 (4): 697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mittelman, James. 2002. Globalisation: An Ascendant Paradigm. International Studies Perspectives 3: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murphy, Craig N. 2001. Political Consequences of the New Inequality. International Studies Quarterly 45: 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reynolds, P.A. 1975. International Studies: Retrospect and Prospect. British Journal of International Studies 1 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosow, Stepehn J. 2003. Toward an Inter-disciplinary Global Studies. International Studies Perspectives 4: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spence, J. E. 1975. Editorial. British Journal of International Studies 1, 1. np.Google Scholar
  25. Steger, Manfred B., ed. 2015. The Global Studies Reader. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Steger, Manfred B., and Amentahru Wahlrab. 2016. What Is Global Studies: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Strange, Susan. 1995. 1995 Presidential Address: ISA as a Microcosm. International Studies Quarterly 39: 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations