What’s the point of being a discipline? Four disciplinary strategies and the future of International Relations
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
What’s the point of being a discipline? Four disciplinary strategies and the future of International Relations. / Corry, Olaf.
I: Cooperation and Conflict, Bind 57, Nr. 3, 2022, s. 290-310.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - What’s the point of being a discipline?
T2 - Four disciplinary strategies and the future of International Relations
AU - Corry, Olaf
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - While disciplinary identities are among the most fraught subjects in academia, much less attention has been given to what disciplinarity actually entails and what risks different disciplinary strategies involve. This article sets out a theory of disciplinarity that recognises not only their coercive but also their redeeming features, particularly in view of the coexistince of multiple competing disciplines and powerful transdisciplinary movements (such as rationalism). On this basis it identifies four disciplinary strategies and each is assessed in relation to the future of IR: (1) remaining a subdiscipline of Political Science (‘stay put’), (2) becoming an interdisciplinary field (‘reach out’), (3) dissolving into transdisciplinarity or abolishing IR (‘burn down’), or (4) establishing IR as a discipline in its own right (‘break out’). Rejecting the false choice of disciplinary constraint versus epistemic freedom, this framework allows IR and other subfields to more consciously consider a range of disciplinary strategies and to entertain the risks and affordances they each offer. The article concludes that a future independent discipline focused on the implications of ‘the international’ not just for politics but all fields – including disciplinarity – would make for a broader, more diverse IR, ultimately also better able to engage other disciplines.
AB - While disciplinary identities are among the most fraught subjects in academia, much less attention has been given to what disciplinarity actually entails and what risks different disciplinary strategies involve. This article sets out a theory of disciplinarity that recognises not only their coercive but also their redeeming features, particularly in view of the coexistince of multiple competing disciplines and powerful transdisciplinary movements (such as rationalism). On this basis it identifies four disciplinary strategies and each is assessed in relation to the future of IR: (1) remaining a subdiscipline of Political Science (‘stay put’), (2) becoming an interdisciplinary field (‘reach out’), (3) dissolving into transdisciplinarity or abolishing IR (‘burn down’), or (4) establishing IR as a discipline in its own right (‘break out’). Rejecting the false choice of disciplinary constraint versus epistemic freedom, this framework allows IR and other subfields to more consciously consider a range of disciplinary strategies and to entertain the risks and affordances they each offer. The article concludes that a future independent discipline focused on the implications of ‘the international’ not just for politics but all fields – including disciplinarity – would make for a broader, more diverse IR, ultimately also better able to engage other disciplines.
KW - disciplines
KW - epistemes
KW - International Relations
KW - multiplicity
KW - politics
KW - theory
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85133323240&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/00108367221098492
DO - 10.1177/00108367221098492
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85133323240
VL - 57
SP - 290
EP - 310
JO - Cooperation and Conflict
JF - Cooperation and Conflict
SN - 0010-8367
IS - 3
ER -
ID: 339267983