Is all ‘I’ IR?
Is all ‘I’ IR?
复制标题
所有“我”都是IR吗？
DOI：
10.1177/0305829815576820
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Sarah Naumes
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sarah Naumes
近年来，国际关系的叙事方法越来越受欢迎。随着叙事在国际关系的其他方法论传统中得到进一步的接受，它也引发了关于一般学术写作和特别是叙事写作应该受到何种限制的问题。叙事方法面临着挑战，问他们是否允许批评的空间，或者如果他们必须变成立场认识论。作者认为叙事方法是有效和必要的，除了在国际关系奖学金中使用的其他方法的稳定。然而，为了使叙事有效地做出贡献，它们必须受到批评。本文提出了作者和读者在参与叙事时都应该问的两个问题：1）叙事是否破坏了政治思想中的一致性概念？它是否揭示了可能被忽视的矛盾？2)叙事是否为那些被排除在政治科学话语之外的人留下了空间？通过问这些问题，谁利用叙事方法的国际关系学者可以打开领域的新的调查线。
Narrative approaches to International Relations have steadily increased in popularity in recent years. As narrative has gained further acceptance among other methodological traditions in International Relations, it has also provoked questions about the sort of restrictions that should be placed on academic writing in general and narrative writing in particular. Narrative approaches have faced challenges that ask whether they allow room for critique or if they necessarily turn into standpoint epistemologies. This author views narrative approaches as both valid and necessary in addition to the stable of other methods utilised in International Relations scholarship. However, in order for narratives to contribute effectively, they must be subject to critique. This article proposes two questions that both authors and readers should ask when engaging with narrative: 1) Does the narrative disrupt notions of congruity in political thought? Does it bring to light contradictions that may otherwise be ignored? 2) Does the narrative make room to incorporate those who have been excluded from political science discourse? Through asking these questions, International Relations scholars who utilise narrative approaches can open the field to novel lines of inquiry.