This article provides a reply to the other contributions to this special section of Security Dialogue on The Evolution of International Security Studies. Our response cuts across the special section as a whole, focusing on the following questions: What does it mean to take a critical stance towards the history of international security studies? Does micro-sociology provide the way forward? How do the main analytical distinctions laid out in The Evolution of International Security Studies work? And, what are the challenges and suggestions for a more thorough study of traditionalism?
Baylis, John & John Garnett , eds, 1991. Makers of Nuclear Strategy . London: Pinter.
2.
Biersteker, Thomas J., 2010. ‘Interrelationships Between Theory and Practice in International Security Studies’, Security Dialogue41(6): 599-606.
3.
Bilgin, Pinar, 2010. ‘The "Western-Centrism" of Security Studies: "Blind Spot" or Constitutive Practice?’, Security Dialogue41(6): 615-622.
4.
Buzan, Barry & Lene Hansen, 2009. The Evolution of International Security Studies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Hansen, Lene, 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.
6.
Miller, Steven E., 2010. ‘The Hegemonic Illusion? Traditional Strategic Studies In Context’, Security Dialogue41(6): 639-648.
7.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr & Sean M. Lynn-Jones, 1988. ‘International Security Studies: A Report of a Conference on the State of the Field’ , International Security12(4): 5-27.
8.
Russett, Bruce & Taylor Arnold, 2010. ‘Who Talks, and Who’s Listening? Networks of International Security Studies’, Security Dialogue41(6): 589-598.
9.
Shah, Nisha, 2010. ‘Security Must Be Defended - Or, the Survival of Security’, Security Dialogue41(6): 631-638.
