International Relations in China and Europe: the Case for Interregional Dialogue in a Hegemonic Discipline
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
International Relations in China and Europe: the Case for Interregional Dialogue in a Hegemonic Discipline. / Kristensen, Peter Marcus.
In: Pacific Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1, 2015, p. 161-187.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - International Relations in China and Europe:
T2 - the Case for Interregional Dialogue in a Hegemonic Discipline
AU - Kristensen, Peter Marcus
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - The international relations (IR) discipline is known as an ‘American Social Science’ dominated by scholars and theories from the US core. This paper compares IR in two noncore settings, China and Europe. It shows that there is a growing institutional and intellectual integration into global Anglophone, mostly American, IR in both Europe and China. Both Chinese and European IR communities have established top Anglophone journals like the European Journal of International Relations and the Chinese Journal of International Politics to spearhead their integration into mainstream Anglophone IR and carve out a space for regional thinking. Yet, the analysis of their publication and citation patterns shows that IR outside the American core communicates through a hub-and-spokes system where there is always a connection to the American core but rarely very strong linkages to other peripheral regions. The two journals studied thus function as outlets for ‘local’ and American scholars, rely on ‘local’ and American sources, and there is very little integration and exchange between Chinese and European IR. Chinese and European IR would benefit from such a dialogue, especially regarding ‘schools’ of IR at the margins of an ‘American social science’.
AB - The international relations (IR) discipline is known as an ‘American Social Science’ dominated by scholars and theories from the US core. This paper compares IR in two noncore settings, China and Europe. It shows that there is a growing institutional and intellectual integration into global Anglophone, mostly American, IR in both Europe and China. Both Chinese and European IR communities have established top Anglophone journals like the European Journal of International Relations and the Chinese Journal of International Politics to spearhead their integration into mainstream Anglophone IR and carve out a space for regional thinking. Yet, the analysis of their publication and citation patterns shows that IR outside the American core communicates through a hub-and-spokes system where there is always a connection to the American core but rarely very strong linkages to other peripheral regions. The two journals studied thus function as outlets for ‘local’ and American scholars, rely on ‘local’ and American sources, and there is very little integration and exchange between Chinese and European IR. Chinese and European IR would benefit from such a dialogue, especially regarding ‘schools’ of IR at the margins of an ‘American social science’.
KW - Faculty of Social Sciences
KW - international relations discipline
KW - hegemony
KW - Chinese amd Europeam schools of IR
KW - Sino-European dialogue
KW - sociology of science
U2 - 10.1080/09512748.2014.948568
DO - 10.1080/09512748.2014.948568
M3 - Journal article
VL - 28
SP - 161
EP - 187
JO - Pacific Review
JF - Pacific Review
SN - 0951-2748
IS - 2
M1 - 1
ER -
ID: 50038571