Advertisement

Pushing Boundaries in the Study of International Relations

  • Steve A. YetivEmail author
  • Patrick James
Chapter

Abstract

Multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are major buzzwords but surprisingly few books advance them in depth. This edited book does so by drawing upon multiple disciplines and sub-fields ranging from psychology to history to illuminate international relations and especially international conflict. In the process, the authors offer new perspectives on conflict that also illuminate a neglected actor in the study of international relations: the individual.

Keywords

Foreign Policy International Relation Cognitive Bias International Conflict World Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aalto, Pami. 2015. “Interdisciplinary International Relations in practice”. International Relations 29: 255–259.Google Scholar
  2. Aalto, Pami, Vilho Harle, and Sami Moisio (ed). 2011. International Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. ——— (ed). 2012. Global and Regional Problems: Towards an Interdisciplinary Study. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, Sheldon, Mark Allen Peterson, Stanley W. Toops, and Jeanne A.K. Heyt. 2014. International Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Global Issues, 3rd edn. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  5. Ashworth, Lucian M. 2009. Interdisciplinarity and International Relations. European Political Science 9: 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atran, Scott. 2010. Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists. New York: Ecco.Google Scholar
  7. Bommes, Michael, and Ewa Morawska. 2005. International Migration Research: Constructions, Omissions and the Promises of Interdsciplinarity. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Breuning, Marijke. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, Patricia, Aran MacKinnon, and Christy R. Stevens. 2010. Introduction to Global Studies. Malden, MA: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Cannell, Fenella. 2010. The Anthropology of Secularism. Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantwell, J., and M.Y. Brannen. 2011. Positioning JIBS as an Interdisciplinary Journal. Journal of International Business Studies 42(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cashman, Greg. 2013. What Causes War? New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. Denemark, Robert. 2010. The International Studies Encyclopedia. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Dunoff, Jeffrey L., and Mark A. Pollack (ed). 2013. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Easton, David. 1953. The Political System. An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
  16. Ferguson, Yale H., and Richard Mansbach. 2003. The Elusive Quest Continues: Theory and Global Politics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Grenier, Félix, Helen Louise Turton, and Philippe Beaulieu-Brossard. 2015. The Struggle over the Identity of IR: What is at Stake in the Disciplinary Debate Within and Beyond Academia? International Relations 29(June): 242–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harvey, Frank P., and Michael Brecher (ed). 2002. Critical Perspectives in International Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  19. Holland, Dominic. 2014. Integrating Knowledge Through Interdisciplinary Research: Problems of Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hudson, Valerie M. 2013. Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  21. James, Patrick. 1988. Crisis and War. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2002. Systemism, Social Mechanisms and Scientific Progress: A Case Study of the International Crisis Behavior Project. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34: 352–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2012. Deterrence and Systemism: A Diagrammatic Exposition of Deterrence-Related Processes Leading to the War in Iraq. St. Anthony’s International Review 7: 139–163.Google Scholar
  24. Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kessel, Frank, Patricia Rosenfield, and Norman Anderson. 2008. Interdisciplinary Research: Case Studies from Health and Social Science. Oxford Online Scholarship.Google Scholar
  26. Klabbers, Jan. 2009. The Bridge Crack’d: A Critical Look at Interdisciplinary Relations. International Relations 23: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein, Julie Thompson. 2004. Interdisciplinarity and Complexity: An Evolving Relationship. E:CO 6: 2–10.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2005. Humanities, Culture, and Interdisciplinarity: The Changing American Academy. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lebow, Richard Ned. 1988. Interdisciplinary Research and the Future of Peace and Security Studies. Political Psychology 9: 507–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Long, David. 2011. Interdisciplinarity and the Study of International Relations. In International Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. Pami Aalto, Vilho Harle, and Sami Moisio, 31–65. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyall, Catherine, Ann Bruce, Joyce Tait, and Laura Meagher. 2011. Interdisciplinary Research Journeys: Practical Strategies for Capturing Creativity. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, Raymond C. 2010. Interdisciplinarity: Its Meaning and Consequences. In The International Studies Encyclopedia, Volume VI, ed. Robert A. Denemark, 3900–3915. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, and John A. Vasquez. 2013. Conflict, War, and Peace: An Introduction to Scientific Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Munson, Henry. 2008. Fundamentalisms Compared. Religion Compass 2 10 (1111/): 1–18.Google Scholar
  35. Neumann, Iver B. 2011. End Comment: The Practices of Interdisciplinarity. In International Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. Pami Aalto, Vilho Harle, and Sami Moisio, 257–270. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nye, Joseph S. Jr., and David Welch. 2013. Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation, 9th edn. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
  37. Ruane, Abigail E., and Patrick James. 2012. The International Relations of Middle-Earth: Learning from The Lord of the Rings. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sarkees, Meredith Reid, and Marie T. Henehan. 2010. International Studies as a Discipline and Women’s Status Therein. In The International Studies Encyclopedia, ed. Robert Denemark. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Smallman, Shawn, and Kimberley Brown. 2011. Introduction to International and Global Studies. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stevens, Charles. 2008. International Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Global Issues. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Turton, Helen Louise. 2015. The Importance of Re-affirming IR’s Disciplinary Status. International Relations 29: 244–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  43. Yetiv, Steve A. 2004; 2nd edn. 2011. Explaining Foreign Policy: U.S. Decision-Making & the Persian Gulf Wars. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and GeographyOld Dominion UniversityNorfolk, VAUSA
  2. 2.School of International RelationsUSCLos Angeles, CAUSA

Personalised recommendations