It is now more than three decades since various post-positivist approaches were introduced into the discipline of International Relations (IR) by scholars launching ‘massive attacks’ on positivism. However, many continue to express concern about the ‘marginalization’ of post-positivist scholarship within IR, while others discuss how and why ‘theoretical proliferation’ has come about in the field, convinced that IR is ‘a plural, and pluralist, field.’ Neither group, however, offers the empirical evidence needed to sustain its argument. To provide such evidence, this article undertakes an empirical investigation of the extent to which post- positivist research is practised in contemporary IR, examining publishing and teaching practices in American IR, and the rapidly emerging Chinese IR community. The findings of this investigation will be useful in broadening the debate about theoretical diversity in the discipline.
AcharyaAmitavBuzanBarry (eds) (2010) Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
ArcherMargaretBhaskarRoyCollierAndrewLawsonTonyNorrieAlan (eds) (1998) Critical Realism: Essential Readings. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BhaskarRoy (1978) A Realist Theory of Science. Brighton: Harvester Press.
4.
BierstekerThomas J (2009) The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for ‘American’ International Relations. In TicknerArlene BWæverOle, (eds) International Relations Scholarship Around the World. London: Routledge, 308–327.
5.
BrecherMichaelHarveyFrank (eds) (2002) Millennial Reflections on International Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
6.
ChenChing-Chang (2011) The Absence of Non-Western IR Theory in Asia Reconsidered. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific11(1): 1–23.
7.
DevetakRichard (2014) A Rival Enlightenment? Critical international theory in historical mode. International Theory6(3): 417–422.
8.
DunneTimHansenLeneWightColin (2013) The End of International Relations Theory?European Journal of International Relations19(3): 405–425.
9.
FergusonYale H (2015) Diversity in IR Theory: Pluralism as an opportunity for understanding global politics. International Studies Perspectives16(1): 3–12.
10.
GuzziniStefano (2013) The Ends of International Relations Theory: Stages of reflexivity and modes of theorizing. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 521–541.
11.
GuzziniStefanoLeanderA (eds) (2006) Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and his Critics. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
HagmannJonasBierstekerThomas J (2014) Beyond the Published Discipline: Toward a critical pedagogy of international studies. European Journal of International Relations20(2): 291–315.
13.
Hamati-AtayaInanna (2013) Reflectivity, Reflexivity, Reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’– and beyond. European Journal of International Relations19(4): 669–694.
14.
Hamati-AtayaInanna (2014) Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, and the Knowledge In-between: The subject in/of ‘strong reflexivity. Review of International Studies40(1): 153–175.
15.
HollisMartinSmithSteve (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
IkenberryG John (2009) Liberalism in a realist world: international relations as an American scholarly tradition. International Studies46(1): 203–219.
17.
JacksonPatrick (2011) The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London: Routledge.
18.
JacksonPatrick (2015) Fear of Relativism. International Studies Perspectives16(1): 13–22.
19.
JosephJonathanWightColin (eds) (2010) Scientific Realism and International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
20.
KeohaneRobert O (1988) International Institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly32(4): 379–396.
21.
KratochwilFriedrich (2003) The Monologue of ‘Science.’International Studies Review5(1): 124–128.
22.
KristensenPeter M (2015) Revisiting the “American Social Science”: Mapping the geography of International Relations. International Studies Perspectives16(3): 246–269.
23.
KuhnThomas (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
KurkiMilja (2008) Causation in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
KurkiMiljaWightColin (2013) International Relations and Social Science. In DunneTimKurkiMiljaSmithSteve (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 14–35.
26.
LakeDavid (2011) Why ‘Isms’ are Evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly55(2): 465–480.
27.
LakeDavid (2013) Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 567–587.
28.
LapidYosef (1989) The Third Debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly33(3): 235–254.
29.
LapidYosef (2003) Through Dialogue to Engaged Pluralism: The unfinished business of the third debate. International Studies Review5(1): 128–131.
30.
LebowRichard Ned (2011) Philosophy and International Relations. International Affairs87(5): 1219–1228.
31.
LipsonMichaelDanielMaliniakAmyOakesSusanPetersonMichealTierney (2007) Divided Discipline? Comparing views of U.S. and Canadian IR scholars. International Journal62(2): 327–343.
32.
LynchCecelia (2008) Reflexivity in Research on Civil Society: Constructivist perspectives. International Studies Review10(4): 708–721.
33.
DanielMaliniakOakesAmyPetersonSusanTierneyMichael J (2011) International Relations in the US Academy. International Studies Quarterly55(2): 437–464.
34.
MatthewsElizabeth GCallawayRhonda L (2015) Where Have All the Theories Gone? Teaching theory in introductory courses in International Relations. International Studies Perspectives16(2): 190–209.
35.
MeadLawrence M (2010) Scholasticism in Political Science. Perspectives on Politics8(2): 453–464.
36.
MearsheimerJohn JWaltStephen M (2013) Leaving Theory Behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for IR. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 427–457.
37.
MonteiroNunoRubyKeven G (2009) IR and the False Promise of Philosophical Foundations. International Theory1(1): 15–48.
38.
PatomäkiHeikki (2002) After International Relations: Critical Realism and the (Re) Construction of World Politics. London: Routledge.
39.
QinYaqing (2007) Why is There no Chinese International Relations Theory?International Relations of the Asia-Pacific7(3): 313–340.
40.
QinYaqing (2011) Development of International Relations Theory in China: Progress through debates. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific11(2): 231–257.
41.
RenggerNicholas (2015) Pluralism in International Relations Theory: Three questions. International Studies Perspectives16(1): 32–39.
42.
Reus-SmitChristian (2013) Beyond Metatheory?European Journal of International Relations19(3): 589–608.
43.
ShambaughDavid (2011) International Relations Studies in China: History, trends, and prospects. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific11(3): 339–372.
44.
SmithSteve (2002) Alternative and Critical Perspectives. In BrecherMichaelHarveyFrank P (eds) Millennial Reflections on International Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 195–208.
45.
SmithSteveBoothKenZalewskiMarysia (eds) (1996) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
SongXinning (2001) Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics. Journal of Contemporary China10(26): 61–74.
47.
TicknerJ Ann (2011) Dealing with Difference: Problems and possibilities for dialogue in International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies39(3): 607–618.
48.
TicknerArlene B (2013) Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations19(3): 627–646.
49.
TicknerArlene BWæverOle (eds) (2009) International Relations Scholarship Around the World. London: Routledge.
50.
Van der ReeGerard (2013) The Politics of Scientific Representation in International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies42(1): 24–44.
51.
WæverOle (1996) The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate. In SmithSteveBoothKenZalewskiMarysia (eds) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 149–185.
52.
WangQingxin KBlythMark (2013) Constructivism and the Study of International Political Economy in China. Review of International Political Economy20(6): 1276–1299.
53.
WendtAlexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
WightColin (2002) Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations. In CarlsnaesWalterRisseThomasSimmonsBeth A (eds) Handbook of International Relations. London: SAGE, 23–51.
55.
WightColin (2013) The Dualistic Grounding of Monism: Science, pluralism and typological truncation. Millennium: Journal of International Studies41(2): 326–345.
56.
XuetongYan (2011) Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
57.
ZhangFeng (2012) The Tsinghua Approach’ and the Inception of Chinese Theories of International Relations. Chinese Journal of International Politics5(1): 73–102.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
