Abstract
In this concluding comment, I try to take stock of the discussion presented in the volume. First, moving from the general to the specific, I set off with a discussion of how academic disciplines emerge as a result of both ‘fission’ and ‘fusion’. Of the two options, international studies (IS) began as, and remains, a case of fusion. Second, I then try to identify the ‘centripetal force’, and find it in subject matter as well as in social theory. Since their institutional inception within academia, social sciences have acquired a certain cohesion through social theory. This may also be seen in the types of historians and lawyers who are drawn to international studies: there tends to be at least some theoretical bent involved.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ardener, E. (1989) ‘Remote Areas: Some Theoretical Considerations’ in E. Ardener, The Voice of Prophecy and Other Essays (Oxford: Blackwell).
Autesserre, S. (2011) Failing the Congo: International Intervention and Local Violence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Bauer, H. and E. Brighi (eds) (2009) Pragmatism in International Relations (London: Routledge).
Becker, T. and P.R. Trowler (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, 2nd edn (Buckingham: Open University Press).
Buzan, B. and R. Little (2001) ‘Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do about It’, Millennium, 30(1): 19–39.
Derrida, J. (1985 [1978]) ‘The Question of Style’ in D.B. Allison (ed.) The New Nietzsche: Contemporary Styles of Interpretation, 2nd edn (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Hacking, I. (2002) Historical Ontology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Jackson, P.T. (2011) The Conduct of Inquiry in International relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics (London: Routledge).
Leira, H. and I.B. Neumann (2007) ‘Internasjonal politikk i Norge: En disiplins fremvekst i første halvdel av 1900-tallet’, Internasjonal politikk, 65(2): 141–71.
Marcus, G.E. (1998) Ethnography Through Thick and Thin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Neumann, I.B. (2002) ‘Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy’, Millennium 32(3): 627–52.
Neumann, I.B. (2011) At Home with the Diplomats: The Ethnography of A European Foreign Ministry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Pouliot, V. (2010) International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Review of International Studies (RIS) (2010) ‘Forum on Autoethnography and International Relations’, 36(3): 777–818.
Shapiro, M.J. (1988) The Politics of Representation: Writing Practices in Biography, Photography, and Policy Analysis (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press).
Strathern, M. (2004) Commons and Borderlands: Working Papers on Interdisciplinarity, Accountability, and the Flow of Knowledge (Wantage: Sean Kingston).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2011 Iver B. Neumann
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Neumann, I.B. (2011). End Comment: The Practices of Interdisciplinarity. In: Aalto, P., Harle, V., Moisio, S. (eds) International Studies. Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230342934_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230342934_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32829-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-34293-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)