scholarly journals Methodological Nationalism in Global Studies and Beyond

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnes Katalin Koos ◽  
Kenneth Keulman
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Global Studies ◽  
Area Studies ◽  
Empirical Inquiry ◽  
Methodological Nationalism ◽  
Diverse Field

Global studies, or the study of globalization, is a diverse field of research, with different disciplinary focuses and with some national versions. Russian Alexander Chumakov constructed it as a philosophical discipline, while in U.S. academia it is considered an empirical inquiry at the intersection of area studies, international studies, and international relations. This paper focuses on American global studies, pointing out the heavy epistemological burden it inherited from the field of knowledge dominated by international relations, which enshrines both methodological and political nationalism. International relations makes claims to be the sole theory originator in this field, but it may be criticized for several methodological and ethical issues (such as unwarranted simplifications that purge empirical contents to the point of unfalsifiability, antiquated epistemic ideals, Western and hegemonic biases, besides methodological nationalism), thus alternate theorizations are highly desirable.

Area Studies, Regional Studies, and International Relations

2002 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Katzenstein
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Regional Studies ◽  
International Studies ◽  
World War ◽  
Area Studies ◽  
Post Modernism ◽  
The Cold War

This paper discusses area, regional, and international relations studies as seen from the vantage point of the United States. Part I situates the issue of regionalism in the current debate about conceptualizing international relations since the end of the Cold War and at the dawn of a new millennium. Against the historical backdrop of a powerful case for area studies made soon after the end of World War II, Part II focuses attention on the crosscurrents that are affecting area studies from three different directions: (1) disciplinary-based, scientific critics who value nomothetic approaches more than contextualization; (2) cultural critiques developed from the perspective of the humanities and, at times, post-modernism; and (3) the growing emphasis on cross-regional studies that seek to blend and incorporate elements from both scientific and humanistic perspectives. Part III concludes with some brief reflections on the relations, in the classroom, between areas, regional and international studies.

Global Studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amentahru Wahlrab
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Fundamental Aspect ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Global Studies ◽  
The Third ◽  
Central Focus ◽  
Enhanced Mobility ◽  
Introductory Textbooks ◽  
The Many ◽  
Essentially Contested Concept

A review of introductory international relations, international studies, and global studies textbooks reveals that each field defines itself differently: one in terms of its central focus on the diplomatic and strategic relations of states, the second more broadly by including transnational transactions of all kinds, and the third focusing on globalization as both an object of analysis and a lens through which to view nearly all phenomena. However, in reading past the definitional chapters there are clear overlaps—most notably with regard to each introductory textbook’s treatment of globalization. Close examination of recently published introductory textbooks and those well into multiple editions reveals that globalization is treated as a fundamental aspect of each of the three fields. While both International Relations (IR) and International Studies (IS) scholars have contributed significantly to further broadening of both IR and IS in order to become increasingly “global,” other scholars have moved to create a new field of study called Global Studies (GS). This new field of GS developed in the 1990s as scholars from multiple disciplines began to study the many dimensions of globalization. While globalization remains an essentially contested concept, most scholars accept as uncontroversial that it refers to the many strings that connect the world such that pulling on one string in one place will make a change somewhere else. Globalization’s central dynamics include interconnectivity, reconfiguration of space and time, and enhanced mobility. GS is the only field that places the contested concept of globalization at the center of its intellectual initiative.

Global Studies Versus International Studies

2018 ◽  
pp. 198-210
Author(s):  
Sara Curran
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Order ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Global Studies ◽  
Systems Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Critical Social Science ◽  
International Systems

The intellectual antecedents of international studies scholarship and the efforts to enclose it within academia bounded the research enterprise closely to a predominantly US-centric, international relations, and international systems perspective on world order. Investments by the US government and leading foundations led to the strengthening of interdisciplinary area studies and international studies curricular programs. These investments coincided with a concomitant turn in the humanities and social sciences toward critical social science and postmodern inquiries. Thus, international studies curricular programs became more expansive and less closely tied to a narrow agenda that had previously and primarily been curated by political scientists. By the early 2000s, this disjuncture between international studies scholarship and pedagogy found a voice that continues to be heard in ongoing debates that define a widely delineated space for global studies to closely align its own scholarship and pedagogy, providing a foundation for a vibrant field of transdisciplinary scholarship.

Traditions of foreign countries studies in modern russian economic expertise

2015 ◽  
pp. 116-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Kuznetsov
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Economy ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Scientific Schools ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Modern Application ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
World Development

The article deals with Russian traditions of studies of foreign countries which have become an intellectual pillar for Russian economic expertise. The modern application of experience of Soviet scientific schools in international studies is shown, especially in the fields of world development forecasts, analysis of Russian foreign economic relations and research of economic policy abroad. The article is based on open sources with publications, reports and presentations about expert and analytical activities of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) and other institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, VNIKI-Institute, MGIMO-University and some other centers. It is explained that results of international studies have become a necessary element for consulting of governmental bodies and businessmen in the epoch of globalization.

scholarly journals Historical materialism and international studies: theorising the politics of struggle in the everyday world

2021 ◽  
pp. 004711782199161
Author(s):  
Cemal Burak Tansel
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Historical Materialism ◽  
Global Capitalism ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Historical Materialist ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Everyday World ◽  
Global War ◽  
Materialist Feminist

This forum brings together critical engagements with Andreas Bieler and Adam David Morton’s Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis to assess the prospects and limits of historical materialism in International Studies. The authors’ call for a ‘necessarily historical materialist moment’ in International Studies is interrogated by scholars working with historical materialist, feminist and decolonial frameworks in and beyond International Relations (IR)/International Political Economy (IPE). This introductory essay situates the book in relation to the wider concerns of historical materialist IR/IPE and outlines how the contributors assess the viability of Bieler and Morton’s historical materialist project.

The Study of International Relations in Great Britain: Further Connections

1986 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 626-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene M. Lyons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
World War I ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Political Experience

Aside from language, students of international relations in the United States and Great Britain have several things in common: parallel developments in the emergence of international relations as a field of study after World War I, and more recent efforts to broaden the field by drawing security issues and changes in the international political economy under the broad umbrella of “international studies.” But a review of four recent books edited by British scholars demonstrates that there is also a “distance” between British and American scholarship. Compared with dominant trends in the United States, the former, though hardly monolithic and producing a rich and varied literature, is still very much attached to historical analysis and the concept of an “international society” that derives from the period in modern history in which Britain played a more prominent role in international politics. Because trends in scholarship do, in fact, reflect national political experience, the need continues for transnational cooperation among scholars in the quest for strong theories in international relations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document