Resurrecting IR theory

Editors’ introduction to a special section

Datos Bibliográficos

ID6353550
AutoresKyle Grayson (0000-0002-9702-5372), Matt Coward (0000-0003-1336-4017), Martin Coward, Robert L Oprisko (0000-0002-5932-980X), Robert Oprisko
Año2016
Volumen36
Número4
Páginas383-384
Fecha de publicación2016-11-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPolitics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0032-3268 • E-ISSN: 1467-9256
EditorialSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0263395716665333
OpenAlexW2519975939
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas7

As a discipline, international relations (IR) has become increasingly circumspect about the role and explanatory power of theories of international politics (e.g. Mearsheimer and Walt, 2013; Zambernardi, 2015). Research has exposed the particularity of once predominant theories of IR, the processes through which these theories were produced, the practices through which they became accepted, and what was ignored as a result. In so doing, scholars have raised vitally important questions about ‘theory for whom and for what purpose’ (e.g. Cox, 1981; Odoom and Andrews, 2016; Oren, 2003; Shilliam, 2010; Turton, 2015; Vitalis, 2015)? This research has substantively challenged long-held concepts such as meta-theory, grand theory, hypothesis testing, paradigms, great debates, and even modernity. As a consequence, it has been asked whether we are witnessing ‘the end of International Relations theory’ (Dunne et al., 2013

Engineering physics · Political science · Section (typography · Special section · Computer Science · Engineering · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Peacebuilding and International Security · Political Conflict and Governance