Pub Date : 2022-04-19DOI: 10.1177/00208817221092839
Preksha Shree Chhetri
This article analyses broadly the European Union’s (EU) growing geopolitical ambitions in the context of its shifting stance on China. Within the EU, it focuses on the Germany–China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership by noting the current developments and changes in the Germany–China partnership. Here, the discontinuity between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ obstacles in Germany–China trade relations is identified through an analysis of four critical issues: Germany’s Federation of German Industries (BDI) policy paper, Made in China 2025, Germany’s Industrie 4.0 and Germany’s 5G conundrum. Through the above, the article makes the argument that though there are considerable new strains on Germany–China relations and EU–China relations, concrete transformations affecting trade relations have not been observed. The article concludes by noting that the achievement of the new-found geopolitical ambitions of the EU would require a much more concentrated effort by all members rather than mere posturing.
{"title":"Contemporary Transformations in the European Union–Germany–China Relations","authors":"Preksha Shree Chhetri","doi":"10.1177/00208817221092839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817221092839","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses broadly the European Union’s (EU) growing geopolitical ambitions in the context of its shifting stance on China. Within the EU, it focuses on the Germany–China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership by noting the current developments and changes in the Germany–China partnership. Here, the discontinuity between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ obstacles in Germany–China trade relations is identified through an analysis of four critical issues: Germany’s Federation of German Industries (BDI) policy paper, Made in China 2025, Germany’s Industrie 4.0 and Germany’s 5G conundrum. Through the above, the article makes the argument that though there are considerable new strains on Germany–China relations and EU–China relations, concrete transformations affecting trade relations have not been observed. The article concludes by noting that the achievement of the new-found geopolitical ambitions of the EU would require a much more concentrated effort by all members rather than mere posturing.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":"26 1","pages":"212 - 233"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73338535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-14DOI: 10.1177/00208817221091442
Mahesh Ranjan Debata
This research article argues that the China’s intention and contention to maintain stronghold in Xinjiang through different policies from time to time reflects the views of Realist theory of international relations, which gives primacy to ‘national interest’ and ‘national security.’ Furthermore, the article argues that the Chinese emphasis on national security and stability in Xinjiang negates the ‘interests and aspirations’ of minority groups in Xinjiang (especially Uyghurs), which form the basis of constructive approach of international relations. While elaborating Chinese policies of assimilation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang from Mao Zedong to Xi Jinping, this article tries to examine how China’s bid to pursuing a kind of hardcore realism in preserving and protecting its interests in Xinjiang (stringent policies) has been contradicting and disregarding the essence of constructivist perspective (aims, and aspirations interests of Uyghurs).
{"title":"Chinese Assimilationist Policies in Xinjiang: From Mao Zedong to Xi Jinping","authors":"Mahesh Ranjan Debata","doi":"10.1177/00208817221091442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817221091442","url":null,"abstract":"This research article argues that the China’s intention and contention to maintain stronghold in Xinjiang through different policies from time to time reflects the views of Realist theory of international relations, which gives primacy to ‘national interest’ and ‘national security.’ Furthermore, the article argues that the Chinese emphasis on national security and stability in Xinjiang negates the ‘interests and aspirations’ of minority groups in Xinjiang (especially Uyghurs), which form the basis of constructive approach of international relations. While elaborating Chinese policies of assimilation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang from Mao Zedong to Xi Jinping, this article tries to examine how China’s bid to pursuing a kind of hardcore realism in preserving and protecting its interests in Xinjiang (stringent policies) has been contradicting and disregarding the essence of constructivist perspective (aims, and aspirations interests of Uyghurs).","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":"47 1","pages":"199 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82712236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Political science professors frequently use simulations to try to enhance student learning. Beyond their use in experiential learning, prior research suggests that simulations may also improve student civic outcomes and promote political interest and engagement outside of the classroom. This study estimates the impact of political science simulations by examining students’ attitudes and behaviors before and after taking part in a simulation. We study whether participation in classroom and Model United Nations simulations leads to increases in student civic engagement, political efficacy, and appreciation of diverse viewpoints among college students using a comparison group difference-in-difference design. We find significant positive impacts of simulations on measures of civic engagement, which suggests that students who participate in simulations may take immediate and concrete steps to be more involved in social and political groups.
{"title":"Political and International Affairs Simulations and College Students’ Civic Development","authors":"Kelly Siegel-Stechler, G. Gee","doi":"10.1093/isp/ekac001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekac001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Political science professors frequently use simulations to try to enhance student learning. Beyond their use in experiential learning, prior research suggests that simulations may also improve student civic outcomes and promote political interest and engagement outside of the classroom. This study estimates the impact of political science simulations by examining students’ attitudes and behaviors before and after taking part in a simulation. We study whether participation in classroom and Model United Nations simulations leads to increases in student civic engagement, political efficacy, and appreciation of diverse viewpoints among college students using a comparison group difference-in-difference design. We find significant positive impacts of simulations on measures of civic engagement, which suggests that students who participate in simulations may take immediate and concrete steps to be more involved in social and political groups.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49252724","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/00208817221102050
Ivo Ganchev
This article begins by re-opening the Third Great Debate which established division lines between mainstream (realist/liberal/constructivist) and Critical (neo-Marxist/neo-Gramscian) theories of International Relations based on their different assumptions about the nature of the international system: anarchy and hierarchy, respectively. The first half of the article argues that adopting common definitions of these concepts makes the anarchy–hierarchy debate theoretically irresolvable and further demonstrates that mainstream and Critical theories do not share an understanding of these terms neither between, nor within, their own traditions. The second half of this article challenges and aims to correct the interpretation of three key political thinkers, Halford J. Mackinder, W. E. B. DuBois and Norman Angell as appropriated within the inter-paradigm debates of International Relations. It argues that the respective associations of these thinkers with early realism, critical theories and early liberalism are intellectually misguiding because their works exhibit a common understanding of the ‘international’ across macro- and micro-dimensions, which is uncharacteristic of ‘-isms’. This shows that popular interpretations of pre-1919 works through post-1919 paradigms can obscure more than they reveal. These findings do not seek to present new ideas but to produce a reflexive critique of IR which illuminates some, perhaps unintended, counter-productive systemic effects that inter-paradigm divisions can have on the discipline.
{"title":"A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory","authors":"Ivo Ganchev","doi":"10.1177/00208817221102050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817221102050","url":null,"abstract":"This article begins by re-opening the Third Great Debate which established division lines between mainstream (realist/liberal/constructivist) and Critical (neo-Marxist/neo-Gramscian) theories of International Relations based on their different assumptions about the nature of the international system: anarchy and hierarchy, respectively. The first half of the article argues that adopting common definitions of these concepts makes the anarchy–hierarchy debate theoretically irresolvable and further demonstrates that mainstream and Critical theories do not share an understanding of these terms neither between, nor within, their own traditions. The second half of this article challenges and aims to correct the interpretation of three key political thinkers, Halford J. Mackinder, W. E. B. DuBois and Norman Angell as appropriated within the inter-paradigm debates of International Relations. It argues that the respective associations of these thinkers with early realism, critical theories and early liberalism are intellectually misguiding because their works exhibit a common understanding of the ‘international’ across macro- and micro-dimensions, which is uncharacteristic of ‘-isms’. This shows that popular interpretations of pre-1919 works through post-1919 paradigms can obscure more than they reveal. These findings do not seek to present new ideas but to produce a reflexive critique of IR which illuminates some, perhaps unintended, counter-productive systemic effects that inter-paradigm divisions can have on the discipline.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":"13 1","pages":"119 - 143"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80931640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Currently, there exist several academic and legal questions on which common perception is not established among states. One of them concerns the interpretation of ‘general principles of law’ mentioned in Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Variance in the interpretation of ‘general principles of law’ manifests itself mainly in controversies over whether they are principles of domestic law or international law and over the implication of ‘civilized nations’ that qualifies ‘general principles of law’. The article aims at analysing such divergent views surrounding ‘general principles of law’ and voicing the authors’ view on the matter. By examining the principles in comparison with international conventions and custom, and in terms of wordings employed in the relevant provisions, the article attempts to demonstrate that they must be viewed as principles shared by national law systems of certain states. It also argues that in view of the essential characteristics of international law, and in terms of the meaning of the term ‘civilized nations’, ‘general principles of law’ cannot be deemed a universal source of international law, and in particular, that since the phrase ‘civilized nations’ was not intended to include all states in the world, it is necessary to amend the relevant wording.
{"title":"Reassessment of the ‘General Principles of Law’ Referred to in Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute","authors":"Hyeonju Son, Son-Gyong Jong, Won-U Kang, Myong-Il Ri, Yun-Chol Ko, Hui-Chol Pak","doi":"10.1177/00208817221100912","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817221100912","url":null,"abstract":"Currently, there exist several academic and legal questions on which common perception is not established among states. One of them concerns the interpretation of ‘general principles of law’ mentioned in Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Variance in the interpretation of ‘general principles of law’ manifests itself mainly in controversies over whether they are principles of domestic law or international law and over the implication of ‘civilized nations’ that qualifies ‘general principles of law’. The article aims at analysing such divergent views surrounding ‘general principles of law’ and voicing the authors’ view on the matter. By examining the principles in comparison with international conventions and custom, and in terms of wordings employed in the relevant provisions, the article attempts to demonstrate that they must be viewed as principles shared by national law systems of certain states. It also argues that in view of the essential characteristics of international law, and in terms of the meaning of the term ‘civilized nations’, ‘general principles of law’ cannot be deemed a universal source of international law, and in particular, that since the phrase ‘civilized nations’ was not intended to include all states in the world, it is necessary to amend the relevant wording.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":"17 1","pages":"144 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88495091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/00208817221101222
A. Ullah, Muhammad Azizuddin
Protests in Hong Kong over plans to allow extradition from Hong Kong to mainland China is going on since mid-2019. These reforms are seen as a threat to Hong Kongers’ freedom. The protesters expanded their demands for democratic reform and opposition to Beijing’s introduction to a new national security law. Following the continued protests, the UK government invited over five million Hong Kong residents to relocate to the country. The purpose of this article is to delve into why the UK welcomes Hong Kong residents to apply for citizenship. During the economic impact of COVID-19 and Brexit on the UK, this invitation raises questions about its intention. Since the Brexit referendum, immigration has plummeted, perhaps resulting in a labour shortage. This study has significant policy implications for Hong Kong, China and the UK.
{"title":"Colonial Hangover and ‘Invited’ Migration: Hong Kongers to the UK","authors":"A. Ullah, Muhammad Azizuddin","doi":"10.1177/00208817221101222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817221101222","url":null,"abstract":"Protests in Hong Kong over plans to allow extradition from Hong Kong to mainland China is going on since mid-2019. These reforms are seen as a threat to Hong Kongers’ freedom. The protesters expanded their demands for democratic reform and opposition to Beijing’s introduction to a new national security law. Following the continued protests, the UK government invited over five million Hong Kong residents to relocate to the country. The purpose of this article is to delve into why the UK welcomes Hong Kong residents to apply for citizenship. During the economic impact of COVID-19 and Brexit on the UK, this invitation raises questions about its intention. Since the Brexit referendum, immigration has plummeted, perhaps resulting in a labour shortage. This study has significant policy implications for Hong Kong, China and the UK.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":"35 1","pages":"180 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90859851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/00208817221092840
Preetha Mitra
This article examines Germany’s response to the European migrant crisis of 2015–2016 by analysing immigration and identity debates in Germany and their impact on German politics. The refugee crisis sharply divided the European Union and raised questions relating to immigration, humanitarian assistance and the duties towards those fleeing war and persecution. In such a scenario, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to admit more than a million refugees had deep ramifications not only for German politics but also European and international politics at large. After the initial wave of support subsided, xenophobic and right-wing factions emerged, and public opinion began to turn against Merkel. The emergence of such sentiments is at odds with Germany’s complicated relationship with nationalism and right-wing politics in the post-war era. It is this juxtaposition that the article aims to analyse; whether the response to the refugee crisis proves that Germany is on the path to becoming a more inclusive society despite the presence of deep-rooted xenophobic elements. In order to do so, this article has focused on the complex relationship between party politics, immigration trends and identity debates in Germany and its impact on contemporary German politics as a whole.
{"title":"Germany in Transition? An Appraisal of Immigration Trends and Identity Debates in the Context of the 2015–2016 Refugee Crisis","authors":"Preetha Mitra","doi":"10.1177/00208817221092840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817221092840","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines Germany’s response to the European migrant crisis of 2015–2016 by analysing immigration and identity debates in Germany and their impact on German politics. The refugee crisis sharply divided the European Union and raised questions relating to immigration, humanitarian assistance and the duties towards those fleeing war and persecution. In such a scenario, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to admit more than a million refugees had deep ramifications not only for German politics but also European and international politics at large. After the initial wave of support subsided, xenophobic and right-wing factions emerged, and public opinion began to turn against Merkel. The emergence of such sentiments is at odds with Germany’s complicated relationship with nationalism and right-wing politics in the post-war era. It is this juxtaposition that the article aims to analyse; whether the response to the refugee crisis proves that Germany is on the path to becoming a more inclusive society despite the presence of deep-rooted xenophobic elements. In order to do so, this article has focused on the complex relationship between party politics, immigration trends and identity debates in Germany and its impact on contemporary German politics as a whole.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":"3 1","pages":"163 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74334476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Several recently published international relations and criminal justice writings, textbooks, and supplements focus on using science fiction and fantasy texts to teach social science theories. This article investigates how science fiction and fantasy examples affect student learning compared to documentary films. We use mixed methods to conduct two studies on the use of science fiction and fantasy in political science and criminal justice classrooms. In the first study, we divide up a large lecture class, comparing how examples from the HBO series Game of Thrones versus documentary films affect student learning about the United Nations and peacekeeping. Our second study uses a combination of interviews and surveys to assess how students apply various criminological theories to the 1997 film Gattaca versus a documentary. Our research reveals that science fiction and fantasy examples neither help nor harm student learning. However, incorporating examples from fictional worlds may alienate some students, affecting their enjoyment of class and perception of preparedness. Most importantly, we find that the use of fictional examples creates an interpretive barrier in the classroom. Thus, we recommend judicious use of science fiction and fantasy examples. When fictional examples are used, we encourage student preparation and extensive debriefing.
{"title":"Targaryen Thought Experiments: Do Science Fiction and Fantasy Examples Aid or Obfuscate Student Learning?","authors":"Adam C Irish, Nicole Sherman, Levi Watts","doi":"10.1093/isp/ekab016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekab016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Several recently published international relations and criminal justice writings, textbooks, and supplements focus on using science fiction and fantasy texts to teach social science theories. This article investigates how science fiction and fantasy examples affect student learning compared to documentary films. We use mixed methods to conduct two studies on the use of science fiction and fantasy in political science and criminal justice classrooms. In the first study, we divide up a large lecture class, comparing how examples from the HBO series Game of Thrones versus documentary films affect student learning about the United Nations and peacekeeping. Our second study uses a combination of interviews and surveys to assess how students apply various criminological theories to the 1997 film Gattaca versus a documentary. Our research reveals that science fiction and fantasy examples neither help nor harm student learning. However, incorporating examples from fictional worlds may alienate some students, affecting their enjoyment of class and perception of preparedness. Most importantly, we find that the use of fictional examples creates an interpretive barrier in the classroom. Thus, we recommend judicious use of science fiction and fantasy examples. When fictional examples are used, we encourage student preparation and extensive debriefing.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44983773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although educators increasingly appreciate the pedagogical benefits of active learning techniques including simulations, many still see implementing them in their own classroom as a daunting task. The formidable time investment required often deters instructors from designing new simulations, and many find published simulations to be an imperfect fit. This article seeks to reduce the barriers to entry for instructors who are interested in designing personalized simulations yet hesitant in the face of real-world constraints. It does so by introducing a flexible framework for diplomatic simulations (DiploSim) that is firmly rooted in the design principles of drama, immersion, and reflection yet also easily customizable to fit instructors’ preferred thematic content, negotiating format, schedule, and class size. By combining research and role play within a straightforward and pedagogically sound structure, DiploSim offers instructors a useful gateway into the world of simulations.
{"title":"DiploSim: A Flexible Framework for Diplomatic Simulations in International Relations","authors":"R. Maass","doi":"10.1093/isp/ekab020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekab020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Although educators increasingly appreciate the pedagogical benefits of active learning techniques including simulations, many still see implementing them in their own classroom as a daunting task. The formidable time investment required often deters instructors from designing new simulations, and many find published simulations to be an imperfect fit. This article seeks to reduce the barriers to entry for instructors who are interested in designing personalized simulations yet hesitant in the face of real-world constraints. It does so by introducing a flexible framework for diplomatic simulations (DiploSim) that is firmly rooted in the design principles of drama, immersion, and reflection yet also easily customizable to fit instructors’ preferred thematic content, negotiating format, schedule, and class size. By combining research and role play within a straightforward and pedagogically sound structure, DiploSim offers instructors a useful gateway into the world of simulations.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43775119","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In international relations, there is regular reflection about the complex relations between academic and various kinds of practical knowledge. In this article, we add to these reflections using the example of democracy promotion expertise. We develop a practice–theoretical methodology based on the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and extensions of it in the communities of practice literature. We also include a comparative dimension by studying epistemic practices in North America and Germany. Our analysis shows the importance of knowledge translating between academia and democracy promotion practice and the prestige and capital of roaming experts who cross epistemic boundaries that otherwise divide actors. To varying degrees, roaming experts contribute to practice-oriented translations of academic insights and the identification of problems stemming from ongoing practice that are important in democracy promotion. We show that processes of problem construction are regulated by conventions that homogenize epistemic practices and evidence, with only selective attention paid to emancipatory demands or epistemes from the Global South. While our research shows some epistemes and demands conflict with Western norms, Global South epistemes and demands are most often turned into arguments for further liberal democracy promotion.
{"title":"The Production of North American and German Democracy Promotion Expertise: A Practice Theoretical Analysis","authors":"Leonie Holthaus, M. Christensen","doi":"10.1093/isp/ekab019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekab019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In international relations, there is regular reflection about the complex relations between academic and various kinds of practical knowledge. In this article, we add to these reflections using the example of democracy promotion expertise. We develop a practice–theoretical methodology based on the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and extensions of it in the communities of practice literature. We also include a comparative dimension by studying epistemic practices in North America and Germany. Our analysis shows the importance of knowledge translating between academia and democracy promotion practice and the prestige and capital of roaming experts who cross epistemic boundaries that otherwise divide actors. To varying degrees, roaming experts contribute to practice-oriented translations of academic insights and the identification of problems stemming from ongoing practice that are important in democracy promotion. We show that processes of problem construction are regulated by conventions that homogenize epistemic practices and evidence, with only selective attention paid to emancipatory demands or epistemes from the Global South. While our research shows some epistemes and demands conflict with Western norms, Global South epistemes and demands are most often turned into arguments for further liberal democracy promotion.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47297048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：