Mainstream scholars of IR favor policy-relevant research, that is the agenda to influence government policymakers by offering policy recommendations. In this article, I offer a different perspective by presenting alternative arguments about social scientists’ responsibility to influence. By drawing on themes of public sociology and critical sociology, security studies and public policy, I argue that the core of this responsibility is to seek to influence policy via engagement with the public rather than with policymakers.
AoiC.de ConingC.ThakurR. (2007). Conclusion: Can unintended consequences be prevented, contained and managed. In AoiC.de ConingC.ThakurR. (Eds.), Unintended consequences of peacekeeping operations (pp. 268–79). United Nations University Press.
2.
BohmanJ. (2002). How to make a social science practical: Pragmatism, critical social science and multiperspectival theory. Millennium, 31(3), 499–524.
3.
BrownC. (2013). The Poverty of grand theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 483–97.
4.
BrowningC. S.McDonaldM. (2013). The Future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security. European Journal of International Relations, 19(2), 235–55.
5.
BurawoyM. (2005). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28.
6.
BurawoyM. (2017). Third-wave sociology and the end of pure science. In NicholsLawrence T. (Ed.), Public sociology—The Contemporary debate (pp. 317–35). Routledge.
CoxR. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126–55.
9.
DahlR. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse University Press.
10.
DeLeonP. (1992). The democratization of the policy sciences. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 125–29.
11.
DeschM. C. (2019). Cult of the irrelevant: The Waning influence of social science on national security. Princeton University Press (Kindle).
12.
DevetakR. (2005). Critical theory. In BurchillS.LinklaterA.DevetakR.DonnellyJ.NardinT.PatersonM.Reus-SmitC.TrueJ. (Eds.), Theories of international relations (pp. 162–86). Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
DryzekJ. S. (1989). Policy sciences of democracy. Polity, 22(1), 97–118.
14.
DryzekJ. S.TorgersonD. (1993). Democracy and the policy sciences: A progress report. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 127–37.
15.
EikenberryK. W. (2013). Reassessing the all-volunteer force. The Washington Quarterly, 36(1), 7–24.
FischerF. (2007). Policy analysis in critical perspective: The epistemics of discursive practices. Critical Policy Analysis, 1(1), 97–109.
19.
ForesterJ. (1995). Response: Toward a critical sociology of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 28(4), 385–96.
20.
GelpiC.FeaverP. D.ReiflerJ. (2009). Paying the human costs of war: American public opinion and casualties in military conflicts. Princeton University Press.
21.
GoldbergA.van den BergA. (2009). What do public sociologists do? A Critique of Burawoy. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 765–802.
22.
HabermasJ. (1999). Moral consciousness and communicative action. MIT Press.
HobsonC. (2011). Towards a critical theory of democratic peace. Review of International Studies, 37(4), 1903–22.
25.
HolmwoodJ. (2007). Sociology as public discourse and professional practice: A Critique of Michael Burawoy. Sociological Theory, 25(1), 46–66.
26.
HowarthD.GriggsS. (2012). Poststructuralist policy analysis: Discourse, hegemony and critical explanation. In FischerF.GottweisH. (Eds.), The Argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 305–342). Duke University Press (Kindle).
27.
Ish-ShalomP. (2006). Theory as a hermeneutical mechanism: The Democratic-peace thesis and the politics of democratization. European Journal of International Relations, 12(4), 565–98.
28.
JonesR. W. (1999). Security, strategy, and critical theory. Lynne Rienner.
29.
KaufmannC. (2004). Threat inflation and the failure of the marketplace of ideas: The Selling of the Iraq war. International Security, 29(1), 5–48.
30.
KupermanA. J. (2015). Obama’s Libya debacle: How a well-meaning intervention ended in failure. Foreign Affairs, 94(2), 66–77.
31.
LaschC. (1995). Journalism, publicity, and the lost art of argument. Mediation Studies Journal, 9(1), 81–95.
32.
LasswellH. D. (1951). The Policy orientation. In LernerD.LasswellH. D. (Eds.), The Policy sciences, (pp. 3–15). Stanford University Press.
33.
LevyY. (2013). How military recruitment affects collective action and its outcomes. International Studies Quarterly, 57(1), 28–40.
34.
LindblomC. E. (1986). Who needs what social research for policymaking?Knowledge, 7(4), 345–366.
35.
McLaughlinN.KowalchukL.TurcotteK. (2017). Why sociology does not need to be saved: Analytic reflections on public sociologies. In NicholsL. T. (Ed.), Public sociology—The contemporary debate (pp. 289–316). Routledge.
StarrP. (2010). Dodging a bullet: Democracy’s gains in modern war. In KierE.KrebsR. R. (Eds.), In war’s wake: International conflict and the fate of liberal democracy (pp. 50–66). Cambridge University Press.
41.
StoneD. (2006). Public policy analysis and think tanks. In FischerF.MillerG. J.SidneyM. S. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis theory, politics, and methods (pp. 149–157). CRC Press.
42.
TittleC. R. (2004). The Arrogance of public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1639–1643.
43.
TorgersonD. (2007). Policy discourse as dialogue: Emergent publics and the reflexive turn. Critical Policy Studies, 1(1), 1–17.
VennessonP. (2011). War without the people. In StrachanH.ScheipersS. (Eds.), The Changing character of war (pp. 241–258). Random House. Oxford University Press.
