Critical and Problem-Solving Perspectives on Decentring EU External Action Studies

IF 1.1 Q2 AREA STUDIES Journal of Contemporary European Research Pub Date : 2023-08-24 DOI:10.30950/jcer.v19i2.1293
Sharon Lecocq, Stephan Keukeleire
{"title":"Critical and Problem-Solving Perspectives on Decentring EU External Action Studies","authors":"Sharon Lecocq, Stephan Keukeleire","doi":"10.30950/jcer.v19i2.1293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"  \nThis article proposes a decentring approach for EU External Action Studies as a debate that is ‘disrupting’ the mainstream in European Studies. It theoretically contributes to the decentring debate in three ways. First, by identifying decentring as a meta-theoretical current of thinking, the article helps define the decentring debate as an area of theorising which can accommodate scholars from various backgrounds and bring them together around a common commitment to overcome Euro- and Western centrism in scholarship (and practice). Second, the article states the wider relevance of taking a decentring approach, which entails normative and instrumental benefits for scholarship, teaching and practice. By doing so, the article underscores the ethical imperative of disrupting a field of study on the one hand, but also the usefulness and even the necessity of disruption as a problem-solving approach to the benefit of a field’s mainstream centre on the other. Third, the article shows how the decentring debate accommodates both critical and problem-solving theorising, and proposes potential theoretical anchors in existing bodies of work. Finally, it discusses the inherent paradox that follows from critical and problem-solving approaches to decentring specifically and disruptive theorising more broadly.","PeriodicalId":44985,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary European Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary European Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v19i2.1293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

  This article proposes a decentring approach for EU External Action Studies as a debate that is ‘disrupting’ the mainstream in European Studies. It theoretically contributes to the decentring debate in three ways. First, by identifying decentring as a meta-theoretical current of thinking, the article helps define the decentring debate as an area of theorising which can accommodate scholars from various backgrounds and bring them together around a common commitment to overcome Euro- and Western centrism in scholarship (and practice). Second, the article states the wider relevance of taking a decentring approach, which entails normative and instrumental benefits for scholarship, teaching and practice. By doing so, the article underscores the ethical imperative of disrupting a field of study on the one hand, but also the usefulness and even the necessity of disruption as a problem-solving approach to the benefit of a field’s mainstream centre on the other. Third, the article shows how the decentring debate accommodates both critical and problem-solving theorising, and proposes potential theoretical anchors in existing bodies of work. Finally, it discusses the inherent paradox that follows from critical and problem-solving approaches to decentring specifically and disruptive theorising more broadly.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧盟外部行动研究分权的关键和问题解决视角
这篇文章为欧盟对外行动研究提出了一种分散的方法,作为一场“颠覆”欧洲研究主流的辩论。从理论上讲,它在三个方面促成了这场不严谨的辩论。首先,通过将去中心化定义为一种元理论思维潮流,本文有助于将去中心主义辩论定义为一个理论领域,它可以容纳来自不同背景的学者,并将他们聚集在一起,共同致力于克服学术(和实践)中的欧洲和西方中心主义。其次,文章阐述了采取分散方法的更广泛相关性,这对学术、教学和实践带来了规范性和工具性的好处。通过这样做,这篇文章一方面强调了破坏一个研究领域的伦理必要性,另一方面也强调了破坏作为一种解决问题的方法的有用性,甚至必要性,以造福于一个领域的主流中心。第三,文章展示了分散的辩论如何兼顾批判性和解决问题的理论,并提出了现有工作中潜在的理论锚。最后,它讨论了从批判性和解决问题的方法到更广泛地去中心化和颠覆性理论的内在悖论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Decolonising EU Trade Relations with the Global Souths? Disrupting and Re-imagining European Studies: towards a More Diverse and Inclusive Discipline Moving from EU-centrisms: Lessons from the Polycrisis for EU studies and Global South Regionalism Rethinking African-European Scientific Cooperation: The Case of the Platform for African-European Studies Unlearning and Relearning Europe: Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Decolonising European Studies Curricula
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1