SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2018 / Volume: 7 Issue: 2

Would 100 Global Workshops on Theory Building Make A Difference?

Knud Erik Jorgensen
Pages
—
Publication Date
2018-06-13
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The paper rests on the assumption that theoretical knowledge is valuable.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The paper rests on the assumption that theoretical knowledge is valuable.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The paper rests on the assumption that theoretical knowledge is valuable.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The paper rests on the assumption that theoretical knowledge is valuable.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Theory · theory building · hegemony

Abstract

The paper rests on the assumption that theoretical knowledge is valuable.

🔖

Cite This Article

Jorgensen, K. E. (2018). Would 100 Global Workshops on Theory Building Make A Difference?. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Volume: 7 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.335814

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (68)

  1. Alejando, Audrey. “Eurocentrism, Ethnocentrism, and Misery of Position: International Relations in Europe - A problematic oversight.” European Review of International Studies 4, no. 1 (forthcoming 2017).
  2. Alejando, Audrey, Knud Erik Jørgensen, Alexander Reichwein, Felix Rösch, and Helen Turton. Reappraising European IR Theoretical Traditions. London: Palgrave, forthcoming 2017.
  3. Behr, E. Hartmut. “The European Union in the Legacies of Imperial Rule? EU Accession Politics Viewed From A Historical Comparative Perspective.” European Journal of International Relations 13, no. 2 (2007): 239-62.
  4. Bilgin, Pinar. “How to Remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A Complement and a Challenge for the Global Transformation.” International Theory 8, no. 3 (2016): 492–501.
  5. Brown, Chris. Practical Judgement in International Political Theory: Selected Essays. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.
  6. Callahan, William A. "China and the Globalisation of IR Theory: Discussion of 'Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics'.” Journal of Contemporary China 10, no. 26 (2001): 75-88.
  7. Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Palgrave, 1946.
  8. Chacko, Priya. Indian Foreign Policy: The Politics of Postcolonial Identity from 1947 to 2004. Oxon: Routledge, 2013.
  9. Czaputowicz, Jacek, and Anna Wojciuk. The Study of International Relations in Poland. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming 2017.
  10. Dugin, Alexander. “Theory Talk #66: Alexander Dugin on Eurasianism, the Geopolitics of Land and Sea, and a Russian Theory of Multipolarity.” By M. Millerman. Theory Talks, December 7, 2014. Accessed August 2, 2016. http://www.theory-talks.org/2014/12/theory-talk-66.html.
  11. Guzzini, Stefano. The Return of Geopolitics in Europe? Social Mechanisms and Foreign Policy Identity Crises. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  12. Hobson, John M. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760-2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  13. Hopf, Ted. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.
  14. Holsti, K.J. “Exceptionalism in American Foreign Policy: Is It Exceptional?” European Journal of International Relations 17, no. 3 (2010): 381-404.
  15. Hutchings, Kimberly. “Kimberly Hutchings on Quiet as a Research Strategy, the Essence of Critique, and the Narcissism of Minor Differences.” By A.S. Bang Lindegaard and P. Schouten, Theory Talks, October 10, 2016. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://www.theory-talks.org/2016/10/theory-talk-73-kimberly-hutchings.html.
  16. Jørgensen, Knud Erik. “After Hegemony in International Relations.” European Review of International Studies 1, no. 1 (2014): 57-64.
  17. . “Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret.” European Journal of International Relations 6, no. 1 (2000): 9-42.
  18. . “Inter Alia.” International Studies Review (forthcoming 2017).
  19. . International Relations Theory: A New Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.
  20. . “Towards a Six Continents Social Science: International Relations.” Journal of International Relations and Development 6, no. 4 (2004): 330-43.
  21. Jørgensen, Knud Erik, and Reuben Wong. “Social Constructivist Perspectives on China-EU Relations.” In China, the European Union, and International Politics of Global Governance, edited by Jianwei Wang and Weiqing Song, 51-74. London: Palgrave, 2015.
  22. Jupille, Joseph, James A. Caporaso, and Jeffrey T. Checkel. “Integrating Institutions Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union.” Comparative Political Studies 36, no. 1-2 (2003): 7-40.
  23. Katzenstein, Peter J. “‘Walls’ Between ‘Those People’? Contrasting Perspectives on World Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 1 (2010): 11-25.
  24. Keene, Edward. Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order In World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
  25. Keohane, Robert O., and Stanley Hoffmann. “Conclusions: Community Politics and Institutional Change.” In The Dynamics of European Integration, edited by William Wallace, 276-300. London; New York: Pinter Publishers for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1990.
  26. Lake, David A. “The New American Empire?” International Studies Perspectives 9, no. 3 (2008): 281-9.
  27. . “Why “isms” are Evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress.” International Studies Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2011): 465-80.
  28. Langan, Mark. “Budget Support and Africa–European Union Relations: Free Market Reform and Neo-Colonialism?” European Journal of International Relations 21 (2015): 101-21.
  29. Leca, Jean. “La science politique dans le champ intellectuel français.” Revue française de science politique 4 (1982): 653-77.
  30. Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. “Is anybody still a realist?” International Security 24, no. 2 (1999): 5-55.
  31. Lizée, Pierre. A Whole New World: Reinventing International Studies for the Post-Western World. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011.
  32. Long, David. “Who Killed the International Studies Conference?” Review of International Studies 32, no. 4 (2006): 603-22.
  33. Mallavarapu, Siddharth. “Development of International Relations Theory in India: Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories.” International Studies 46, no. 1-2 (2009): 165-83.
  34. Mansour, Imad. “A Global South Perspective on International Relations Theory.” International Studies Perspectives 18 (2016): 2-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekw010.
  35. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing Is Bad For International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 427-57.
  36. Moravcsik, Andrew. ‘‘Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Constructivism and European integration.” Journal of European Public Policy 6, no. 4 (1999): 669-81.
  37. Nau, Henry R. “No Alternative to ‘isms’.” International Studies Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2011): 487-91.
  38. Nau, Henry R., and Deepa M. Ollapally, eds. Worldviews of Aspiring Powers: Domestic Foreign Policy Debates in China, India, Iran, Japan, and Russia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  39. Ollapally, Deepa M., and Rajesh Rajagopalan. “India: Foreign Policy Perspectives of an Ambiguous Power.” In Nau and Ollapally, Worldviews of Aspiring Powers, 73-113.
  40. Pan, Zhongqi. Conceptual Gaps in China-EU Relations: Global Governance, Human Rights and Strategic Partnerships. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012.
  41. Peters, Ingo, and Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar, eds. Globalizing International Relations. London: Palgrave, 2016.
  42. Puchala, Donald J. Theory and History in International Relations. London: Routledge, 2003.
  43. Pye, Lucian W. The Spirit of Chinese Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
  44. Qin, Yaqing. “Relationality and Processual Construction: Bringing Chinese Ideas into International Relations Theory.” Social Sciences in China 30, no. 4 (2009): 5-20.
  45. Qutb, Sayed. Milestones. New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2006.
  46. Rosenau, James N., and Mary Durfee. Thinking Theory Thoroughly: Coherent Approaches to an Incoherent World. Boulder, CO.: Lynne Rienner, 1995.
  47. Ruggie, John G. American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism and Global Governance. KSG Working Paper No. RWP04-006, Harvard University, February 2004. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.517642.
  48. . “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution.” International Organization 46, no. 3 (1992): 561-98.
  49. . “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain—Issues, Actors, and Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 10, no. 4 (2004): 499-531.
  50. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
  51. Scott, David A. “Multipolarity, Multilateralism and Beyond…? EU-China Understandings of the International System.” International Relations 27, no. 1 (2013): 30-51.
  52. Shih, Chih, and Jiwu Yin. “Between Core National Interest and a Harmonious World: Reconciling Self Conceptions in Chinese Foreign Policy.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 6, no. 1 (2013): 59-84.
  53. Shlapentokh, Dmitry. “Dugin’s Eurasianism: A Window on The Minds of the Russian Elite or an Intellectual Ploy?” Studies in East European Thought 59, no. 3 (2007): 215-36.
  54. Trenin, Dmitri. Post-Imperium: A Eurasian Story. Washington DC.: Carnegie, 2011.
  55. Tsygankov, Andrei P. “Self and Other in International Relations Theory: Learning from Russian Civilizational Debates.” International Studies Review 10, no. 4 (2008):762-75.
  56. van Herpen, Marcel H. Putin’s Wars: The Rise of Russia’s New Imperialism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014.
  57. Walt, Stephen. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy 110 (1998): 29-46.
  58. Waltz, Kenneth N. “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory.” Journal of International Affairs 44, no. 1 (1990): 21-37.
  59. Vitalis, Robert. White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015.
  60. Wang, Yiwei. “The Identity Dilemmas of EU Normative Power: Observations from Chinese Traditional Culture.” In Normative Power Europe in a Changing World: A Discussion, edited by A. Gerrits, 67-76. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute of International Relations, 2009.
  61. Wæver, Ole. “Securitization and Desecuritization.” In On Security, edited by Ronnie Lipschutz, 46-86. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
  62. Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security 20, no. 1 (1995): 71-81.
  63. . “Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret.” European Journal of International Relations 6, no. 1 (2000): 9-42.
  64. . “Inter Alia.” International Studies Review (forthcoming 2017).
  65. . “Towards a Six Continents Social Science: International Relations.” Journal of International Relations and Development 6, no. 4 (2004): 330-43.
  66. . “Why “isms” are Evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress.” International Studies Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2011): 465-80.
  67. . “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution.” International Organization 46, no. 3 (1992): 561-98.
  68. . “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain—Issues, Actors, and Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 10, no. 4 (2004): 499-531.