Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflexivity in the Study of Security and Conflict

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackerly, B. A., Stern, M., & True, J. (Eds.). (2006). Feminist methodologies for international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Amoureaux, J. L., & Steele, B. J. (Eds.). (2016). Reflexivity and international relations. Routledge: Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, P. (2014). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R., & Kitzinger, J. (Eds.). (2009). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. London/New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, E. M. (2003). International relations and the development of feminist security theory. Signs, 28(4), 1289–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bräuchler, B., & Naucke, P. (2017). Peacebuilding and conceptualisations of the local. Social Anthropology, 25(4), 422–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigg, M., & Bleiker, R. (2010). Autoethnographic international relations: Exploring the self as a source of knowledge. Review of International Studies, 36(3), 779–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauphinee, E. (2010). The ethics of autoethnography. Review of International Studies, 36(3), 799–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauphinee, E. (2013). The politics of exile. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doty, R. L. (2010). Autoethnography–making human connections. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 1047–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. (1983). Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs, part 2. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12, 323–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagleton-Pierce, M. (2011). Advancing a reflexive international relations. Millennium, 39(3), 805–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edkins, J. (2013). Novel writing in international relations: Openings for a creative practice. Security Dialogue, 44(4), 281–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Fitzgerald, J. (2015). Why me? An autoethnographic account of the bizarre logic of counterterrorism. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8(1), 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (2017). Confronting the terrorist/refugee narrative, Europe Now. https://www.europenowjournal.org/2017/01/31/confronting-the-terroristrefugee-narrative/

  • Gallie, W. B. (1956). Art as an essentially contested concept. The Philosophical Quarterly, 6(23), 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamati-Attaya, I. (2013). Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s “reflexive turn” – And beyond. European Journal of International Relations, 19(4), 669–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L., & Callan, T. (2013). Key research concepts in politics and international relations. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, E., Olson, G. A., & Harding, S. (1995). Starting from marginalized lives: A conversation with Sandra Harding. JAC, 15, 193–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D. (2013). Poststructuralism and after: Structure, subjectivity and power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R. (2014). Confessions of a terrorist: A novel. London: Zed Books Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R., & Hall, G. (2016). Talking about terrorism: A study of vernacular discourse. Politics, 36(3), 292–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, L., & Lister, M. (2013). Vernacular securities and their study: A qualitative analysis and research agenda. International Relations, 27(2), 158–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabranian-Melkonian, S. (2015). Ethical concerns with refugee research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25(7), 714–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2018). Decentring the intervention experts: Ethnographic peace research and policy engagement. Cooperation and Conflict, 53(2), 259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neufeld, M. (1993). Interpretation and the “science” of international relations. Review of International Studies, 19(1), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford English Dictionary. (2019). https://www.oed.com/

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randazzo, E. (2016). The paradoxes of the ‘everyday’: Scrutinising the local turn in peace building. Third World Quarterly, 37(8), 1351–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E. (2018). How the personal became political: The feminist movement of the 1970s. Australian Feminist Studies, 33(95), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupesinghe, K. (Ed.). (1995). Conflict transformation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, M. B., & Mutlu, C. E. (Eds.). (2013). Research methods in critical security studies: An introduction. Routledge: Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, U. C. (2018). Introduction: Decentring the study of international interventions. Cooperation and Conflict, 53(2), 139–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (Eds.). (1996). International theory: Positivism and beyond. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist theory and international relations in a postmodern era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    James Fitzgerald

Authors
  1. James Fitzgerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Fitzgerald .

Section Editor information

  1. No affiliation provided

    Sandra Pogodda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Fitzgerald, J. (2020). Reflexivity in the Study of Security and Conflict. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_96-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_96-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11795-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11795-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Political Science and International StudiesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation