Over the last decades, critical scholarship in International Relations (IR) has grown, highlighting the Eurocentric, positivist, and hegemonic knowledge-making practices. These critiques have not only highlighted the shortcomings of IR practice but also established their own standpoints, frameworks, and approaches in the discipline, such as Global IR, pluriverse, relationality, and others. While central in imagining alternate IR and its practices, the critiques have ignored the methodological concerns and questions surrounding scholarship, particularly how to do non-Western research in IR and through what means? To address this, this study turns to Comparative Political Theory (CPT), a subfield of political theory, to reflect on questions of methodology and methods in IR. This research proposes espousing the comparative label from CPT and thinking about IR through CPT’s method of ‘dialogue’ and ‘three-step hermeneutics’. ‘Dialogue’ and ‘three-step hermeneutics’ offers critical tools for pursuing non-Western scholarship in IR, emphasising practices of empathetic listening and interpretation led by immersion within the field. By foregrounding methods and methodological discussions in IR, this research aims to reconcile the demands of intelligibility, policy, and practice of non-Western approaches within the discipline.
AcharyaA. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12171
2.
AcharyaA.BuzanB. (2007). Why is there no non-western international relations theory? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcm012
3.
AcharyaA.BuzanB. (2017). Why is there no non-western international relations theory? Ten years on. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 17(3), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcx006
4.
AckerlyB. A.SternM.TrueJ. (Eds.), (2006). In: Feminist methodologies for international relations: Cambridge University Press.
5.
AlejandroA. (2021). Reflexive discourse analysis: A methodology for the practice of reflexivity. European Journal of International Relations, 27(1), 150–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120969789
6.
AlejandroA.KnottE. (2022). How to pay attention to the words we use: The reflexive review as a method for linguistic reflexivity. International Studies Review, 24(3), 025. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac025
7.
AradauC.HuysmansJ. (2013). Critical methods in international relations: The politics of techniques devices and acts. European Journal of International Relations, 20(3), 596–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066112474479
8.
AradauC.HuysmanJ. (2019). Assembling credibility: Knowledge, method and critique in times of ‘Post-Truth. Security Dialogue, 50(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010618788996
9.
BeachD.KaasJ. G. (2020). The great divides: Incommensurability, the impossibility of mixed-methodology, and what to Do about it. International Studies Review, 22(2), 214–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa016
10.
BennettA. (2015). Found in translation: Combining discourse analysis with computer assisted content analysis. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(3), 984–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815581535
BlaneyD. L.TicknerA. B. (2017). Worlding, ontological politics and the possibility of a decolonial IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 45(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817702446
ChakrabartyD. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton University Press.
15.
CornutJ. (2015). The practice turn in international relations theory. In Oxford research encyclopedia of international studies.Oxford University Press.
16.
CuevaA. R., et al. (2024). A Decolonial Feminist Politics of Fieldwork: Centering Community, Reflexivity, and Loving Accountability. International Studies Review, 26(1), viae003. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae003
EcklJ. (2008). Responsible scholarship after leaving the veranda: Normative issues faced by field Researchers—And armchair scientists. International Political Sociology, 2(3), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2008.00044.x
20.
EubenR. (2006). Journeys to the other shore: Muslim and Western travelers in search of knowledge. Princeton University Press.
21.
EubenR. (1999). Enemy in the mirror: Islamic fundamentalism and the limits of modern rationalism. Princeton University Press.
22.
FinnemoreM.SikkinkK. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789
23.
GodrejF. (2009). Towards a cosmopolitan political thought: The hermeneutics of interpreting the other. Polity, 41(2), 135–165. https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2008.28
24.
HolthausL. (2025). Pierre bourdieu, colonial experiences, and methodological reflexivity in international relations. International Political Sociology, 19(2), olaf013. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olaf013
25.
HowardP. (2010). Triangulating debates within the field: Teaching international relations research methodology. International Studies Perspectives, 11(4), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2010.00413.x
JacksonP. T. (2015). Must international studies be a science?Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(3), 942–965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815579307
JacksonP. T. (2016). The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics (2nd ed.). Routledge.
30.
JencoL. K. (2007). What does heaven ever say? A methods-centered approach to cross-cultural engagement. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 741–755. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055407070463
31.
JencoL. K.IdrisM.ThomasM. C. (2019). Comparison, connectivity, and disconnection. In The Oxford handbook of comparative political theory, xiv–37. Oxford University Press.
32.
KeohaneR. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589
33.
KurkiM. (2008). Causation in international relations: Reclaiming causal analysis (1st ed.) Cambridge University Press.
34.
LacatusC.SchadeD.YuanJ. Y. (2015). Quo vadis IR: Method, methodology and innovation. Millennium, 43(3), 767–778.
35.
LaiD.RoccuR. (2019). Case study research and critical IR: The case for the extended case methodology. International Relations, 33(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117818818243
36.
LakeD. (2013). Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 567–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494330
37.
LapidY. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457
38.
LebowR. N. (2022). The quest for knowledge in international relations: How do we know? (1st ed.) Cambridge University Press.
MutluC. E. (2015). How not to disappear completely: Pedagogical potential of research methods in international relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(3), 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815584414
OrwinC. (2023). Two cheers for deparochialization. In Liberal education and citizenship in a free society, edited by Justin Buckley Dyer and Constantine christos vassiliou (pp. 31–49). University of Missouri Press.
46.
OwenD. (2002). Re-Orienting international relations: On pragmatism, pluralism and practical reasoning. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 653–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310030201
47.
PanikkarR. (1988). What is comparative philosophy comparing? In LarsonG. J.DeutschE. (Eds.), Interpreting across boundaries: New essays in comparative philosophy (pp. 116–136). Princeton University Press.
48.
ParekhB. (2000). Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. Macmillan.
RenggerN.Thirkell-WhiteB. (2007). Still critical after all these years? The past, present and future of critical theory in international relations. Review of International Studies, 33(S1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210507007371
52.
SabaratnamM. (2015). Staging a battle, losing the wars? International studies, ‘Science’ and the neoliberalisation of the university. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(3), 975–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815578768
53.
SethS. (2013). Postcolonial theory and the critique of international relations. In Postcolonial theory and international relations (pp. 15–31). Routledge.
54.
ShilliamR. (2011). The perilous but unavoidable terrain of non-West. In ShilliamRobbie (Ed.), International Relations and non-Western thought: Imperialism, colonialism, and investigations of global modernity (pp. 12–26). London: Routledge.
55.
SilR. (2009). Simplifying pragmatism: From social theory to problem-driven eclecticism. International Studies Review, 11(3), 648–652.
56.
Sylvester. (2002). Feminist international relations: An unfinished journey. Cambridge University Press.
57.
SylvesterC. (1994). Empathetic cooperation: A feminist method for IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23(2), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298940230021301
58.
Tickner. (2005). What is your research program? Some feminist answers to international relations methodological questions. International Studies Quarterly, 49(1), 1–21.
59.
TicknerJ. A. (1997). You just don’t understand: Troubled engagements between feminists and IR theorists. International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00060
60.
TrownsellT.BeheraN. C.ShaniG. (2022). Introduction to the special issue: Pluriversal relationality. Review of International Studies, 48(5), 787–800. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210522000389
61.
TrownsellT. A.TicknerA. B.QuerejazuA.ReddekopJ.ShaniG.ShimizuK.BeheraN. C.ArianA. (2021). Differing about difference: Relational IR from around the world. International Studies Perspectives, 22(1), 25–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekaa008
62.
TuckerK. (2018). Unraveling coloniality in international relations: Knowledge, relationality, and strategies for engagement. International Political Sociology, 12(3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/oly005
63.
TullyJ. (2020). Deparochializing political theory and beyond: A dialogue approach to comparative political thought. In WilliamsM. S. (Ed.), Deparochializing political theory (pp. 25–59). Cambridge University Press.
VrastiW. (2008). The strange case of ethnography and international relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37(2), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829808097641
66.
WendtA. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
67.
WilliamsM. S. (2020). Introduction: The practice of deparochializing political theory. In WilliamsM. S. (Ed.), Deparochializing political theory (pp. 1–24): Cambridge University Press.
