Reflexivity in the Study of Security and Conflict

  • James FitzgeraldEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_96-1

Introduction

This chapter will examine reflexivity, with a focus on three cognate disciplines: international relations, security studies, and peace studies. It opens with an account of how reflexivity has become more visible in – and has actively shaped – the study of security and conflict, following spatial openings in the early 1990s within international relations and security studies in particular. This is followed by a brief exposition of how feminist epistemologies have influenced (and continue to influence) the theory and practice of reflexive inquiry. Finally, the chapter will examine how reflexive analyses have been applied via three prominent “turns” in the aforementioned disciplines, namely, the narrative, vernacular, and local turns.

Definition: Reflexivity and Disciplinarily in International Relations and the Study of Conflict

While many concepts across the social sciences (and beyond) certainly meet W.B. Gallie’s criteria of being “essentially contested” (1956), reflexivity...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ackerly, B. A., Stern, M., & True, J. (Eds.). (2006). Feminist methodologies for international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amoureaux, J. L. (2016). Promise unfulfilled. In J. L. Amoureaux & B. J. Steele (Eds.), Reflexivity and international relations (pp. 23–43). Routledge: Abingdon.Google Scholar
  3. Amoureaux, J. L., & Steele, B. J. (Eds.). (2016). Reflexivity and international relations. Routledge: Abingdon.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, P. (2014). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barbour, R., & Kitzinger, J. (Eds.). (2009). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. London/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Blanchard, E. M. (2003). International relations and the development of feminist security theory. Signs, 28(4), 1289–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bräuchler, B., & Naucke, P. (2017). Peacebuilding and conceptualisations of the local. Social Anthropology, 25(4), 422–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brigg, M., & Bleiker, R. (2010). Autoethnographic international relations: Exploring the self as a source of knowledge. Review of International Studies, 36(3), 779–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dauphinee, E. (2010). The ethics of autoethnography. Review of International Studies, 36(3), 799–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dauphinee, E. (2013). The politics of exile. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doty, R. L. (2010). Autoethnography–making human connections. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 1047–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doyle, M. W. (1983). Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs, part 2. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12, 323–353.Google Scholar
  15. Eagleton-Pierce, M. (2011). Advancing a reflexive international relations. Millennium, 39(3), 805–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edkins, J. (2013). Novel writing in international relations: Openings for a creative practice. Security Dialogue, 44(4), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erickson, P., Klein, J. L., Daston, L., Lemov, R., Sturm, T., & Gordin, M. D. (2013). How reason almost lost its mind: The strange career of cold war rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(2), 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fitzgerald, J. (2014). Between the lines: ‘Al Qaeda’, ‘Islamic Extremism’ and the authorship of critique. Dissertation held at Dublin City University. http://doras.dcu.ie/20238/1/James_Fitzgerald_PhD_Dissertation_Hard_Bound_Final.pdf
  20. Fitzgerald, J. (2015). Why me? An autoethnographic account of the bizarre logic of counterterrorism. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8(1), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fitzgerald, J. (2017). Confronting the terrorist/refugee narrative, Europe Now. https://www.europenowjournal.org/2017/01/31/confronting-the-terroristrefugee-narrative/
  22. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Art as an essentially contested concept. The Philosophical Quarterly, 6(23), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. George, J., & Campbell, D. (1990). Patterns of dissent and the celebration of difference: Critical social theory and international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamati-Attaya, I. (2013). Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s “reflexive turn” – And beyond. European Journal of International Relations, 19(4), 669–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison, L., & Callan, T. (2013). Key research concepts in politics and international relations. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirblinger, A. T., & Simons, C. (2015). The good, the bad, and the powerful: Representations of the “local” in peacebuilding. Security Dialogue, 46(5), 422–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hirsh, E., Olson, G. A., & Harding, S. (1995). Starting from marginalized lives: A conversation with Sandra Harding. JAC, 15, 193–225.Google Scholar
  29. Howarth, D. (2013). Poststructuralism and after: Structure, subjectivity and power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, R. (2014). Confessions of a terrorist: A novel. London: Zed Books Ltd..Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, R., & Hall, G. (2016). Talking about terrorism: A study of vernacular discourse. Politics, 36(3), 292–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jarvis, L., & Lister, M. (2013). Vernacular securities and their study: A qualitative analysis and research agenda. International Relations, 27(2), 158–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Julian, R., Bliesemann de Guevara, B., & Redhead, R. (2019). From expert to experiential knowledge: Exploring the inclusion of local experiences in understanding violence in conflict. Peacebuilding, 7(2), 210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kabranian-Melkonian, S. (2015). Ethical concerns with refugee research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25(7), 714–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Leonardsson, H., & Rudd, G. (2015). The ‘local turn’ in peacebuilding: A literature review of effective and emancipatory local peacebuilding. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 825–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Löfflmann, G., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2018). Vernacular imaginaries of European border security among citizens: From walls to information management. European Journal of International Security, 3(3), 382–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mac Ginty, R., & Richmond, O. P. (2013). The local turn in peace building: A critical agenda for peace. Third World Quarterly, 34(5), 763–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mackenzie, C., McDowell, C., & Pittaway, E. (2007). Beyond “do no harm”: The challenge of constructing ethical relationships in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Millar, G. (2018). Decentring the intervention experts: Ethnographic peace research and policy engagement. Cooperation and Conflict, 53(2), 259–276.Google Scholar
  43. Neufeld, M. (1993). Interpretation and the “science” of international relations. Review of International Studies, 19(1), 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oxford English Dictionary. (2019). https://www.oed.com/
  45. Paffenholz, T. (2015). Unpacking the local turn in peacebuilding: A critical assessment towards an agenda for future research. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 857–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Randazzo, E. (2016). The paradoxes of the ‘everyday’: Scrutinising the local turn in peace building. Third World Quarterly, 37(8), 1351–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reid, E. (2018). How the personal became political: The feminist movement of the 1970s. Australian Feminist Studies, 33(95), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rupesinghe, K. (Ed.). (1995). Conflict transformation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  49. Salter, M. B., & Mutlu, C. E. (Eds.). (2013). Research methods in critical security studies: An introduction. Routledge: Abingdon.Google Scholar
  50. Schroeder, U. C. (2018). Introduction: Decentring the study of international interventions. Cooperation and Conflict, 53(2), 139–153.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and beyond. In S. Smith et al. (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond (pp. 1–44). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (Eds.). (1996). International theory: Positivism and beyond. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist theory and international relations in a postmodern era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Tickner, J. A. (2006). Feminism meets international relations: Some methodological issues. In B. A. Ackerly et al. (Eds.), Feminist methodologies for international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Vaughan-Williams, N., & Stevens, D. (2016). Vernacular theories of everyday (in) security: The disruptive potential of non-elite knowledge. Security Dialogue, 47(1), 40–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Waever, O. (1996). The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate. In International theory: Positivism and beyond (pp. 149–185). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law and GovernmentDublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sandra Pogodda

There are no affiliations available