Advertisement

End Comment: The Practices of Interdisciplinarity

  • Iver B. Neumann
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series book series (PSIR)

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.

Keywords

International Study Social Theory International Relation Political Theory Academic Discipline 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ardener, E. (1989) ‘Remote Areas: Some Theoretical Considerations’ in E. Ardener, The Voice of Prophecy and Other Essays (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  2. Autesserre, S. (2011) Failing the Congo: International Intervention and Local Violence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, H. and E. Brighi (eds) (2009) Pragmatism in International Relations (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  4. Becker, T. and P.R. Trowler (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, 2nd edn (Buckingham: Open University Press).Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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).Google Scholar
  7. Hacking, I. (2002) Historical Ontology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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).Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Marcus, G.E. (1998) Ethnography Through Thick and Thin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  11. Neumann, I.B. (2002) ‘Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy’, Millennium 32(3): 627–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Neumann, I.B. (2011) At Home with the Diplomats: The Ethnography of A European Foreign Ministry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  13. Pouliot, V. (2010) International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Review of International Studies (RIS) (2010) ‘Forum on Autoethnography and International Relations’, 36(3): 777–818.Google Scholar
  15. Shapiro, M.J. (1988) The Politics of Representation: Writing Practices in Biography, Photography, and Policy Analysis (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
  16. Strathern, M. (2004) Commons and Borderlands: Working Papers on Interdisciplinarity, Accountability, and the Flow of Knowledge (Wantage: Sean Kingston).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iver B. Neumann 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iver B. Neumann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations