Interdisciplinarity and the Study of International Relations

  • David Long
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series book series (PSIR)


In this chapter I argue that the study of international relations (IR) is interdisciplinary in three distinct ways, corresponding to three variants of interdisciplinarity that I call multidisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and neodisciplinarity. Identifying the ways in which IR is interdisciplinary highlights the broad and diverse character of our subject, helps to identify and specify the oft-neglected contrast between international relations and international politics, and relocates the academic study of international relations within a wider milieu of international studies (IS).


Political Economy International Study Political Science International Relation International Relation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ashworth, L.M. (2009) ‘Interdisciplinarity and International Relations’, European Political Science, 8(1): 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannon, I. and P. Collier (eds) (2003) Natural Resources and Violent Conflict: Options and Actions (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  3. Becher, T. and P. Trowler (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).Google Scholar
  4. Beier, M. and S. Arnold (2005) ‘Becoming Undisciplined: Toward the Supradisciplinary Study of Security’, International Studies Review, 7(1): 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo Academicus (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  6. Brown, C. (1992) International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf).Google Scholar
  7. Bulick, S. (1982) Structure and Subject Interaction: Towards a Sociology of Knowledge in the Social Sciences (New York: Marcel Dekker).Google Scholar
  8. Buzan, B. (2001) ‘The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR’, Review of International Studies, 27(3): 471–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buzan, B. and R. Little (2000) International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Caporaso, J.A. (1997) ‘Across the Great Divide: Integrating Comparative and International Politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 41(4): 563–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, B.J. (2008) International Political Economy: An Intellectual History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  13. Collier, P. and N. Sambanis (eds) (2005) Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  14. Dogan, M. and R. Pahre (1990) Creative Marginality : Innovation at the Intersections of Social Sciences (Boulder: Westview Press).Google Scholar
  15. Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper).Google Scholar
  16. Editors (1994) ‘Editorial: Forum for Heterodox International Political Economy’, Review of International Political Economy, 1(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eichengreen, B. (1996) Globalizing Capital: A History of the International Monetary System (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  18. Eichengreen, B. (1997) European Monetary Unification: Theory, Practice, and Analysis (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  19. Eichengreen, B. (1998) ‘Dental Hygiene and Nuclear War: How International Relations Looks from Economics’, International Organization, 54(2): 993–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Enders, W. and T. Sandler (2006) The Political Economy of Terrorism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, R. (2007) ‘Interactive Conflict Resolution’ in I.W. Zartmann (ed.) Peacemaking in International Conflicts: Methods and Techniques (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace).Google Scholar
  22. Fujita, M., P. Krugman and A.J. Venables (1999) The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions and International Trade (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  23. Gill, S. and D. Law (1988) The Global Political Economy: Perspectives, Problems, and Policies (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf).Google Scholar
  24. Gilpin, R. (1987) The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  25. Goldstein J.O., M. Kahler, R. Keohane and A-M. Slaughter (2000) ‘Introduction: Legalization and World Politics’, International Organization, 54 (3): 385–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guzzini, S. (1998) Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  27. Hermann, M.G. (1998) ‘One Field, Many Perspectives: Building the Foundations for Dialogue’, International Studies Quarterly, 42(4): 605–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hobden, S. (1998) International Relations and Historical Sociology: Breaking Down Boundaries (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hobson, J.M. (1998) ‘The Historical Sociology of the State and the State of Historical Sociology in International Relations’, Review of International Political Economy, 5(2): 284–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hobson, J.M. (2002) ‘What’s at Stake in “Bringing Historical Sociology Back into International Relations”?’ in S. Hobden and J.M. Hobson (eds) Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  31. Hodgson, G.M. (1994) ‘Some Remarks on “Economic Imperialism” and International Political Economy’, Review of International Political Economy, 1(1): 21–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoffmann, S. (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’ Daedalus, 106(3): 41–60.Google Scholar
  33. Hudson, V.M. (2005) ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hurrell, A. (2001) ‘Keeping Law, History and Political Philosophy within the School’, Review of International Studies, 27(3): 489–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jordan, R., D. Maliniak, A. Oakes, S. Peterson and M. Tierney (2009) One Discipline or Many? TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in Ten Countries (Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary).Google Scholar
  36. Kaplan, M. (1971) ‘Is International Relations a Discipline?’ excerpted in Arendt Lijphart (ed.) World Politics: The Writings of Theorists and Practitioners, Classical and Modern, 2nd edn (Boston: Allyn and Bacon).Google Scholar
  37. Kaul, I., I. Grunberg and M. Stern (eds) (1999) Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  38. Kelly, J. (2009) ‘What Can Interdisciplinarity Offer to Policy Problems? Understanding the Public Policy of Obesity’, European Political Science, 8(1): 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klein, J.T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice (Detroit: Wayne State University Press).Google Scholar
  40. Klein, J.T. (1996) Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia).Google Scholar
  41. Klein, J.T., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholtz and M. Welti (eds) (2001) Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving Among Science, Technology, and Society (Berlin: Birkhauser).Google Scholar
  42. Lattuca, L. (2001) Creating Interdisciplinarity (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press).Google Scholar
  43. Levitt, S.D. and S.J. Dubner (2005) Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (New York: William Morrow).Google Scholar
  44. Long, D. (2005) ‘C.A.W. Manning and the Discipline of International Relations’, The Round Table, 94(378): 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Long, D. (2010) ‘Social Cosmology and Diplomatics: C.A.W. Manning on International Relations’, paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, 17–20 February, New Orleans, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Manning, C.A.W. (1951) ‘International Relations: An Academic Discipline’ in G.L. Goodwin (ed.) The University Teaching of International Relations (London: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
  47. Manning, C.A.W. (1954) The University Teaching of the Social Sciences: International Relations (Paris: UNESCO).Google Scholar
  48. Manning, C.A.W. (1955) ‘ “Naughty Animal” – A Discipline Chats Back’, International Relations, 1(4): 128–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manning, C.A.W. (1962) The Nature of International Society (London: Bell).Google Scholar
  50. Merelman, R.M. (1979) ‘On the Asking of Relevant Questions: Discussion Notes towards Understanding the Training of Political Psychologists’, Political Psychology, 1(1): 104–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Messer-Davidow, E., D.R. Shumway and D.J. Sylvan (eds) (1993) Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia).Google Scholar
  52. Moran, J. (2002) Interdisciplinarity (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moran, M. (2006) ‘Interdisciplinarity and Political Science’, Politics, 26(2): 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moravcsik, A. (2003) ‘Liberal International Relations Theory: A Scientific Assessment’, in C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  55. Morgenthau, H.J. (1959) ‘The Nature and Limits of a Theory of International Relations’ in W.T.R. Fox (ed.) Theoretical Aspects of International Relations (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).Google Scholar
  56. Repko, A. (2008) Interdisciplinary Research (Los Angeles: Sage).Google Scholar
  57. Riggs, F. (ed.) (1971) International Studies: Present Status and Future Prospects (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science).Google Scholar
  58. Robson, William (ed.) (1972) Man and the Social Sciences (London: Allen and Unwin).Google Scholar
  59. Rosow, S. (2002) ‘Towards an Antidisciplinary Global Studies’, International Studies Perspectives, 4(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ross, F. (2009) ‘Degrees of Disciplinarity in Comparative Politics: Interdisciplinarity, Multidisciplinarity and Borrowing’, European Political Science, 8(1): 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sandler, T. (1980) The Theory and Structures of International Political Economy (Boulder: Westview Press).Google Scholar
  62. Sandler, T. (2001) Economic Concepts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sandler, T. and K. Hartley (1999) The Political Economy of NATO (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmidt, Brian C. (1998) The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press)Google Scholar
  65. Skocpol, T. (ed.) (1984) Vision and Method in Historical Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  66. Stopford, J. and S. Strange (1991) Rival States, Rival Firms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strange, S. (1970) ‘International Economics and International Relations: A Case of Mutual Neglect’, International Affairs, 46(2): 304–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Strange, S. (1995) ‘ISA as a Microcosm’, International Studies Quarterly, 39(3): 289–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974) The Modern World System, I-III (New York: Academic Press).Google Scholar
  70. Warleigh-Lack, A. and M. Cini (2009) ‘Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Politics’ European Political Science, 8(1): 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weaver, C. (2009) ‘IPE’s Split Brain’, New Political Economy, 14(3): 337–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wendt, A. (1992) ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It’, International Organization, 46(2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wight, M. (1960) ‘Why Is There No International Theory?’, International Relations, 2(1): 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Woolley, F.R. (1993) ‘The Feminist Challenge to Neoclassical Economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 17(4): 485–500.Google Scholar
  75. Woolley, F. (2005) ‘The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics’, Feminist Economics, 11(3): 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wright, Q. (1955) The Study of International Relations (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David Long 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Long

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations