International Relations in the US Academy
International Relations in the US Academy
复制标题
美国学院国际关系
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00653.x
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
M. Tierney
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Daniel Maliniak;Amy C. Oakes;S. Peterson;M. Tierney
我们使用两个新的数据源来描述自 1980 年以来国际关系 (IR) 学科的趋势——该领域 12 种领先期刊上发表的每篇文章的数据库以及对美国学院和大学国际关系教师的三项调查——我们探讨了美国国际关系研究的理论、方法论和认识论多样性的程度，以及国际关系学术与美国政策制定界之间的关系。首先，我们发现理论多样性相当大且不断增加。尽管美国学者相信并教导他们的学生，主要范式——现实主义、自由主义、马克思主义和建构主义——定义和划分了该学科，但大多数同行评审的研究并没有从这些理论传统之一提出理论论证。此外，没有证据表明现实主义及其对国家间权力关系的关注主导了或者自 1980 年以来一直主导着文学。其次，尽管使用定性方法作为主要方法的国际关系学者数量是其三倍，但目前在顶级期刊上发表的文章中使用定量工具的数量比任何其他方法论方法都要多。第三，该领域几乎不存在认识论多样性：美国国际关系学者都对实证主义有着强烈且不断增长的承诺。最后，美国国际关系学者对政策相关工作价值的看法与他们所做的实际研究之间存在脱节：顶级期刊上很少有文章提供明确的政策建议，但学者们相信他们的工作对政策制定者来说既是规范性的又是有用的。
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 and increasing theoretical diversity. Although US scholars believe and teach their students that the major paradigms—realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism—define and divide the discipline, most peer-reviewed research does not advance a theoretical argument from one of these theoretical traditions. There is no evidence, moreover, that realism and its focus on power relations among states dominate, or since 1980 ever has dominated, the literature. Second, although three times as many IR scholars report using qualitative methods as their primary approach, more articles published in the top journals currently employ quantitative tools than any other methodological approach. Third, there exists little epistemological diversity in the field: American IR scholars share a strong and growing commitment to positivism. Finally, there is a disjuncture between what American scholars of IR think about the value of producing policy-relevant work and the actual research they generate: few articles in top journals offer explicit policy advice, but scholars believe that their work is both prescriptive and useful to policymakers.