Branding/Logomark minus Citation Combined Shape Icon/Bookmark-empty Icon/Copy Icon/Collection Icon/Close Copy 7 no author result Created with Sketch. Icon/Back Created with Sketch.
Loading Scinapse...
Between the Covers: International Relations in Books
Published on Jan 1, 2013in PS Political Science & Politics 0.90
· DOI :10.1017/S1049096512001291
J. C. Sharman17
Estimated H-index: 17
(Griffith University),
Catherine Weaver7
Estimated H-index: 7
(University of Texas at Austin)
Efforts to systematize our knowledge of international relations (IR) have tended to focus on journal articles while ignoring books. In contrast, we argue that to know IRwe must know IR books. To this end, this article presents the first systematic analysis of such books based on coding 500 IR texts published by leading presses against variables covering methodology, theoretical paradigm, and policy application. We compare the results with those of the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project’s coding of 2,800 journal articles against the same variables, and the 2008 and 2011 TRIP surveys of more than 3,000 IR scholars. The main findings are that books are much less quantitative than articles published in leading journals, are somewhat more representative of the field according to paradigm, and are more engaged with policy concerns. Recent attempts to understand the state of international relations (IR) have sought to debunkmyths propagated by earlier impressionistic reviews through the systematic use of data (Waever 1998). The recent efforts of the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) program mark the most complete achievement of this goal to date.1 Most notably, in addition to an ambitious series of surveys, the TRIP project has illuminated trends in the field based on rigorous coding of 2,807 IR articles published in top journals between 1980 and 2007 (Maliniak et al. 2011).2 However, we maintain that systematically capturing the nature of IR as a field necessitates an analysis of books. Books are a vitalmeans bywhich IR scholars disseminate knowledge, accrue promotion and tenure, and influence audiences both within academia and among policymakers. Thus, this article’s main contention is that to know IR we must know IR books. Then, we can better answer questions about methodological and theoretical trends in the field, aswell as the relationshipwith the policyworld. In the first-ever systematic exercise, to our knowledge,3 we coded 500 books from five leading book presses against the same 28 variables used in the TRIP journal coding system. These variables include methodology, theoretical paradigm, epistemology, policy application, substantive focus, level of analysis, and geographic and temporal scope. These data are supplemented with interview material from meetings with the editors of the same five presses (CambridgeUniversity Press, CornellUniversity Press, Oxford University Press, Princeton University Press, and Routledge).4 We compare the results of our coding against those of TRIP’s journal coding, as well as the result of the 2011 TRIP survey ofmore than 3,700 IR scholars in 20 countries (Maliniak, Peterson, and Tierney 2012). The resulting data reveal several telling differences betweenwhat IR scholars say they are doing, andwhat is beingpublished in books versus journal articles.Here,wepresent only three standout trends and preliminary interpretation of these results in anticipation of inciting a larger debate.These key trends are: 1. Books are far less quantitative in their methodological orientation than journal articles and more closely reflect the selfreported methods of IR scholars. 2. Books are closer to the self-reported paradigmatic orientations of IR scholars than articles, with fewer liberals and more constructivists, but the same surprisingly lowproportion of realists. 3. Books aremore engagedwith policy than articles, but less than would be expected from survey results. We discover that books more closely reflect what IR scholars say they are doing in surveys than do journal articles. This trend is not true for all variables, and at times books and journals converge with each other while diverging collectively from survey results. Overall, however, our analysis reinforces the intuition that it is critical to include an analysis of books in any effort to accurately characterize the state of IR. While prevailing perceptions aboutwhat the field looks likemay drive scholars’ strategic behavior about how they conduct their research, where they try to publish, and how departments and universities evaluate scholars’ research records for promotion and tenure decisions, this corrective may have important implications on the practice and trajectory of IR. J. C. Sharman is a professor and the director of the Centre for Governance and Public Policy at Griffith University, Australia. He can be reached at CatherineE.Weaver is an associate professor at theLyndonB. JohnsonSchool of PublicAffairs,University ofTexasatAustin.She canbe reachedat The Pro fess i on 124 PS • January 2013 doi:10.1017/S1049096512001291
  • Full text
  • References (10)
  • Cited By (6)
Published on Jan 1, 2013
Peter J. Katzenstein34
Estimated H-index: 34
It is always risky to pronounce a verdict of death on ideas, even after an extended period of apparent lifelessness, but I predict that we have seen the last of the "sociologists" in political science. . . . What has happened is that others too have penetrated the characteristically sloppy logic and flabby prose to discover the deeper problems of circularity and vacuousness inherent in the approach.
374 Citations
Published on Jan 1, 1993
Samuel P. Huntington50
Estimated H-index: 50
808 Citations
Published on Mar 16, 2008
Benjamin J. Cohen25
Estimated H-index: 25
List of Illustrations ix Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii Introduction 1 CHAPTER ONE: The American School 16 CHAPTER TWO: The British School 44 CHAPTER THREE: A Really Big Question 66 CHAPTER FOUR: The Control Gap 95 CHAPTER FIVE: The Mystery of the State 118 CHAPTER SIX: What Have We Learned? 142 CHAPTER SEVEN: New Bridges? 169 References 179 Index 199
138 Citations
Li Zhang1
Estimated H-index: 1
(Mississippi State University)
By examining citations in international relations journal articles published between 2000 and 2005, this study reveals that international relations scholars more heavily rely on books rather than on journals. Less than 2% of the citations are from electronic resources. Materials in foreign languages are utilized insignificantly, with English language citations dominating the research literature. The analysis of subject scatter details the main disciplines that are associated with international r...
21 Citations Source Cite
Published on Apr 1, 2011in PS Political Science & Politics 0.90
James C. Garand24
Estimated H-index: 24
(Louisiana State University),
Micheal W. Giles16
Estimated H-index: 16
(Emory University)
Previous research has documented how political scientists evaluate and rank scholarly journals, but the evaluation and ranking of scholarly book publishers has drawn less attention. In this article, we use data from a survey of 603 American political scientists to generate a ranking of scholarly publishers in political science. We used open-ended questions to ask respondents to identify those scholarly publishers (1) to which they would submit “a very strong book manuscript” in their area of exp...
15 Citations Source Cite
Published on Oct 1, 1998in International Organization 4.52
Ole Wæver1
Estimated H-index: 1
The international relations (IR) discipline is dominated by the American research community. Data about publication patterns in leading journals document this situation as well as a variance in theoretical orientations. IR is conducted differently in different places. The main patterns are explained through a sociology of science model that emphasizes the different nineteenth-century histories of the state, the early format of social science, and the institutionalized delineation among the diffe...
290 Citations Source Cite
Published on Dec 13, 2007in Review of International Political Economy 2.53
Frederick John Ravenhill6
Estimated H-index: 6
(Australian National University)
ABSTRACT In a recent article in RIPE, Benjamin J. Cohen suggests that a deep divide exists between two schools of IPE: the American and the British. While, at a certain level of generality, obvious differences do exist between how international relations generally, and IPE more specifically, are studied in the US and the UK, various dimensions of Cohen's argument are problematic, and may inadvertently hinder his professed desire to build bridges across the Atlantic. In particular, Cohen's approa...
30 Citations Source Cite
Published on Jun 1, 1999in PS Political Science & Politics 0.90
Larry P. Goodson1
Estimated H-index: 1
(American University in Cairo),
Bradford Dillman7
Estimated H-index: 7
(Koç University),
Anil Hira1
Estimated H-index: 1
(Tulane University)
Numerous studies in political science have rated and evaluated various elements of importance to the discipline, including graduate programs, journal quality, and even the contribution of individuals within the discipline itself. We could not discover, however, any study evaluating the quality of academic book publishers in political science. Yet, as we have witnessed in tenure and promotion cases, in hiring decisions, in departmental gossip, and at APSA meetings and other professional gathering...
28 Citations Source Cite
Published on Jun 1, 2011in International Studies Quarterly 2.15
Daniel Maliniak8
Estimated H-index: 8
(University of California, San Diego),
Amy Oakes5
Estimated H-index: 5
(College of William & Mary)
+ 1 AuthorsMichael J. Tierney15
Estimated H-index: 15
(College of William & Mary)
Using two new data sources to describe trends in the international relations (IR) discipline since 1980—a database of every article published in the 12 leading journals in the field and three surveys of IR faculty at US colleges and universities—we explore the extent of theoretical, methodological, and epistemological diversity in the American study of IR and the relationship between IR scholarship and the policy-making community in the United States. We find, first, that there is considerable a...
63 Citations Source Cite
Published on Jan 1, 1979
Kenneth N. Waltz24
Estimated H-index: 24
5,212 Citations
Cited By6
Published on Apr 1, 2013in Australian Journal of International Affairs 0.95
Lee Morgenbesser4
Estimated H-index: 4
This article analyses the results of the most recent and largest cross-national survey on the international relations discipline. Completed by scholars in 20 countries, the survey covered the areas of teaching, research, foreign policy, the profession, and the relationship between policy and academia. From an Australian perspective, the key findings include the strong link between what academics teach and research; the narrowing epistemological gap between the USA and Australia; the curious pess...
4 Citations Source Cite
Published on Oct 1, 2013in Review of International Political Economy 2.53
J. C. Sharman17
Estimated H-index: 17
(Griffith University),
Catherine Weaver7
Estimated H-index: 7
(University of Texas at Austin)
On the occasion of the Review of International Political Economy 's 20th anniversary, this paper systematically assesses RIPE 's claim to represent an alternative to the 'mainstream' study of international political economy (IPE) with several new sources of evidence. The first is the IPE component of a 20-country survey of international relations (IR) faculty, the second a database of books in the field. The third, and most important, is derived from coding 326 RIPE articles published 2000-10 to...
3 Citations Source Cite
Published on Jun 15, 2012in Annual Review of Political Science 3.64
Alastair Iain Johnston22
Estimated H-index: 22
(Harvard University)
Transatlantic international relations (IR) theory has more or less neglected the international relations of East Asia. This relative neglect has come in different forms: excluding East Asian cases from analysis, including East Asian cases but miscoding or misunderstanding them, or including them but missing the fact that they do not confirm the main findings of the study. A review of the East Asia–related literature on three important clusters of theorizing—structural theories of conflict, insti...
38 Citations Source Cite
Published on Jan 1, 2017
Jacek Czaputowicz2
Estimated H-index: 2
(University of Warsaw),
Anna Wojciuk2
Estimated H-index: 2
(University of Warsaw)
This chapter presents International Relations as a scholarly discipline and its developmental models in different states. It analyzes the historical development of the field, institutional setups, disciplinary power, as well as the theoretical and methodological preferences in the discipline in the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Nordic states. It identifies distinctive IR models in continental Europe, i.e., “self-reliant,” “resigned marginalization,” and “multi-level ...
Source Cite
Published on Jan 1, 2017
Jacek Czaputowicz2
Estimated H-index: 2
(University of Warsaw),
Anna Wojciuk2
Estimated H-index: 2
(University of Warsaw)
This chapter systematically analyzes publications and Ph.D. dissertations with regard to their content, topics, methodology, theoretical approaches, author’s gender, and geographical region of focus. It consists of a quantitative part (analysis of 935 articles published in top academic journals between 2007 and 2012, and 339 doctoral dissertations defended between 2001 and 2012) and a qualitative part (where all the texts which were identified as containing theoretical and methodological referen...
Source Cite
Published on May 3, 2018in International Studies Quarterly 2.15
Peter Marcus Kristensen12
Estimated H-index: 12
(University of Copenhagen)
1 Citations Source Cite
View next paperGoverning the Third Pillar: institutional development and external relations in justice and home affairs before and after September 11th