Steffen Hertog, Adrian Arellano, Thomas Hegghammer, Gudrun Østby
Does economic deprivation fuel terrorist recruitment? A large empirical literature has explored this question, but the findings remain contradictory and inconclusive. We argue that this is due to inconsistencies in the way deprivation has been defined and measured. This article identifies these deficiencies and provides a roadmap toward more precise measurement of deprivation and consequently toward a better understanding of its potential impact on the emergence of terrorism. More specifically, we propose a conceptual framework that distinguishes three different dimensions of relative deprivation: individual vs. collective, objective vs. subjective, and synchronic vs. diachronic. Combining them yields eight different mechanisms that could link economic status to terrorist radicalization. Drawing inspiration from fields such as conflict studies, social psychology, and political behavior, we outline some measurement approaches that could capture the mechanisms in a targeted way. The findings have implications for how researchers should collect data and design studies as well as for how policymakers should interpret the statistical results.
{"title":"Fifty Shades of Deprivation: Disaggregating Types of Economic Disadvantage in Studies of Terrorism","authors":"Steffen Hertog, Adrian Arellano, Thomas Hegghammer, Gudrun Østby","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae045","url":null,"abstract":"Does economic deprivation fuel terrorist recruitment? A large empirical literature has explored this question, but the findings remain contradictory and inconclusive. We argue that this is due to inconsistencies in the way deprivation has been defined and measured. This article identifies these deficiencies and provides a roadmap toward more precise measurement of deprivation and consequently toward a better understanding of its potential impact on the emergence of terrorism. More specifically, we propose a conceptual framework that distinguishes three different dimensions of relative deprivation: individual vs. collective, objective vs. subjective, and synchronic vs. diachronic. Combining them yields eight different mechanisms that could link economic status to terrorist radicalization. Drawing inspiration from fields such as conflict studies, social psychology, and political behavior, we outline some measurement approaches that could capture the mechanisms in a targeted way. The findings have implications for how researchers should collect data and design studies as well as for how policymakers should interpret the statistical results.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142597058","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}
The COVID-19 crisis created, and continues to produce, unprecedented challenges globally. Marginalized and racialized families, communities, and nations are experiencing their worst impacts, and in particular, women and girls are the hardest hit. The most pressing concerns raised by COVID-19 include a surge in gender-based violence, a rise in care burden, the feminization of poverty, and growing unemployment, largely in the Global South and conflict-affected regions. Drawing on feminist security studies and intersectionality literature, this forum explores gendered risks in the COVID-19 era, focusing on the security of women and girls from racialized and marginalized backgrounds in both the Global North and South. This forum presents seven short papers providing rich data on a range of case studies that include Yemen, Sri Lanka, Liberia, Canada, India, and Burundi. The contributions draw attention to the multilayered, diverse, intersectional, complex, and contextual gendered risks associated with the pandemic. The through line themes of intersectional identities, patriarchy, conflict, post-conflict, militarization, and marginalization are used to illustrate how gendered risks are (re)constructed during and after the COVID-19 crisis. This forum launched what we hope will offer a new research agenda and support to provide scholarly terrain for future research. This forum section not only provides insights into the vast and complex gendered impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic but also sparks broader thinking about everyday forms of insecurity that women and girls face in global crises.
{"title":"Postcards from the Pandemic: Women, Intersectionality, and Gendered Risks in the Global COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Luna K C, Megan MacKenzie","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae041.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae041.1","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 crisis created, and continues to produce, unprecedented challenges globally. Marginalized and racialized families, communities, and nations are experiencing their worst impacts, and in particular, women and girls are the hardest hit. The most pressing concerns raised by COVID-19 include a surge in gender-based violence, a rise in care burden, the feminization of poverty, and growing unemployment, largely in the Global South and conflict-affected regions. Drawing on feminist security studies and intersectionality literature, this forum explores gendered risks in the COVID-19 era, focusing on the security of women and girls from racialized and marginalized backgrounds in both the Global North and South. This forum presents seven short papers providing rich data on a range of case studies that include Yemen, Sri Lanka, Liberia, Canada, India, and Burundi. The contributions draw attention to the multilayered, diverse, intersectional, complex, and contextual gendered risks associated with the pandemic. The through line themes of intersectional identities, patriarchy, conflict, post-conflict, militarization, and marginalization are used to illustrate how gendered risks are (re)constructed during and after the COVID-19 crisis. This forum launched what we hope will offer a new research agenda and support to provide scholarly terrain for future research. This forum section not only provides insights into the vast and complex gendered impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic but also sparks broader thinking about everyday forms of insecurity that women and girls face in global crises.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"237 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142490932","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}
The article argues that International Relations, and especially those approaches that are informed by the epistemological and methodological premises of reflexivity, would benefit from a more diversified range of comparative methodologies other than those deriving from the work of J.S. Mill and more recent developments within the neopositivist canon. While discussions of methodology in International Relations have become open to a diversity of approaches in recent years, scholars have often been less prone to formulate explicit methodological guidance, especially in the form of practical guidance for alternative comparative research designs. Building on but further developing existing work on reflexivity and methodology, the article thus aims to open up methodological possibilities for reflexive IR by delineating three comparative strategies: defamiliarizing discursive comparison, contrapuntal comparison, and vernacular comparison. Each of the strategies is explained with reference to its theoretical and methodological background in existing scholarship, two key stages for its practical application, as well as examples. The article concludes by highlighting the importance and urgency of methodological innovation in IR––especially when it comes to approaches inspired by reflexivity.
{"title":"Reimagining Comparisons in International Relations through Reflexivity","authors":"Daniela Lai","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae043","url":null,"abstract":"The article argues that International Relations, and especially those approaches that are informed by the epistemological and methodological premises of reflexivity, would benefit from a more diversified range of comparative methodologies other than those deriving from the work of J.S. Mill and more recent developments within the neopositivist canon. While discussions of methodology in International Relations have become open to a diversity of approaches in recent years, scholars have often been less prone to formulate explicit methodological guidance, especially in the form of practical guidance for alternative comparative research designs. Building on but further developing existing work on reflexivity and methodology, the article thus aims to open up methodological possibilities for reflexive IR by delineating three comparative strategies: defamiliarizing discursive comparison, contrapuntal comparison, and vernacular comparison. Each of the strategies is explained with reference to its theoretical and methodological background in existing scholarship, two key stages for its practical application, as well as examples. The article concludes by highlighting the importance and urgency of methodological innovation in IR––especially when it comes to approaches inspired by reflexivity.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142488737","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}
This analytical essay highlights the importance of status orders in the study of status and prestige in world politics. Drawing on recent research in the field, I argue that understanding the particular social structures that regulate the status dynamics within social collectives is crucial to understanding how actors seek and receive status in world politics. I review the literature on status in IR and introduce the concept of status orders as context-specific and local social structures that determine what is considered prestigious within a particular group, community, or club. Using examples from war-making, nuclear weapons, and diplomatic practice, I argue that the fact that status dynamics is often produced locally and not globally forces us to focus less on “universal” aspirations for status, and more on where that actor sought status from and eventually according to which yardstick that actor experienced a change in status.
{"title":"Status Orders: Toward a Local Understanding of Status Dynamics in World Politics","authors":"Pål Røren","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae044","url":null,"abstract":"This analytical essay highlights the importance of status orders in the study of status and prestige in world politics. Drawing on recent research in the field, I argue that understanding the particular social structures that regulate the status dynamics within social collectives is crucial to understanding how actors seek and receive status in world politics. I review the literature on status in IR and introduce the concept of status orders as context-specific and local social structures that determine what is considered prestigious within a particular group, community, or club. Using examples from war-making, nuclear weapons, and diplomatic practice, I argue that the fact that status dynamics is often produced locally and not globally forces us to focus less on “universal” aspirations for status, and more on where that actor sought status from and eventually according to which yardstick that actor experienced a change in status.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142905027","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 a world of accelerated movements, this article examines how infrastructures matter in international relations. We first show that the International Relations (IR) discipline has relegated infrastructures to the background of their studies and treated them as passive tools despite their forcible role in the establishment of the modern state system. By adopting a sociological definition of “the international,” this article emphasizes the centrality of materials and mobilities in thinking about the international and calls for a novel infrastructural lens in the IR discipline. We argue that infrastructures provide crucial mechanisms for forging the distinctions between units that constitute the international as a separate realm. We outline how infrastructures continuously transform this realm through re-scaling and re-ordering spaces, polities, and people. In the meantime, infrastructures are at the heart of social processes, which generate knowledge practices that constitute the international. They inscribe themselves in discourses, produce meaning, and shape identities, and they are thus part of the ideational underpinning of the international. We conclude by advocating a shift in the analytical weight of materials in IR, premised on an interdisciplinary dialogue, and suggest a theoretical and methodological recalibration of the discipline’s treatment of infrastructures.
{"title":"Infrastructures and International Relations: A Critical Reflection on Materials and Mobilities","authors":"Jutta Bakonyi, May Darwich","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae046","url":null,"abstract":"In a world of accelerated movements, this article examines how infrastructures matter in international relations. We first show that the International Relations (IR) discipline has relegated infrastructures to the background of their studies and treated them as passive tools despite their forcible role in the establishment of the modern state system. By adopting a sociological definition of “the international,” this article emphasizes the centrality of materials and mobilities in thinking about the international and calls for a novel infrastructural lens in the IR discipline. We argue that infrastructures provide crucial mechanisms for forging the distinctions between units that constitute the international as a separate realm. We outline how infrastructures continuously transform this realm through re-scaling and re-ordering spaces, polities, and people. In the meantime, infrastructures are at the heart of social processes, which generate knowledge practices that constitute the international. They inscribe themselves in discourses, produce meaning, and shape identities, and they are thus part of the ideational underpinning of the international. We conclude by advocating a shift in the analytical weight of materials in IR, premised on an interdisciplinary dialogue, and suggest a theoretical and methodological recalibration of the discipline’s treatment of infrastructures.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"234 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142487515","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}
Women increasingly feature in nuclear diplomacy, both as participants and as subject matter. Research institutes report a steady increase in women's representation in large multilateral disarmament forums. Diplomats emphasize the importance of women in statements and working papers. The recent conversation on women in nuclear diplomacy forms part of a wider discourse on women in the nuclear weapons field. This article studies portrayals of women in the discourse. It identifies three narratives as prominent themes: women are missing, women are change-makers and women are victims. The narratives can generate support for political projects for gender equality and nuclear disarmament. However, they also create an ideal image of women as peaceful that bears negative connotations for perceptions of women's political agency. The article makes three contributions to feminist literature in International Relations. First, it brings the debate on the value of strategic essentialism to the nuclear case. Second, it proposes a new research agenda on women in the nuclear field to complexify the image of women as peaceful. Lastly, the article identifies tensions between feminisms in the nuclear field and suggests viewing these tensions as an indication that feminism is an ongoing conversation shaped by contention and solidarity. The practical significance of the article concerns the way in which the use of narratives about women can reinforce gender stereotypes. Practitioners might want to consider this implication when drawing on the narratives in their advocacy for women's inclusion and nuclear disarmament.
{"title":"More Women, Fewer Nukes?","authors":"Jana Wattenberg","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae020","url":null,"abstract":"Women increasingly feature in nuclear diplomacy, both as participants and as subject matter. Research institutes report a steady increase in women's representation in large multilateral disarmament forums. Diplomats emphasize the importance of women in statements and working papers. The recent conversation on women in nuclear diplomacy forms part of a wider discourse on women in the nuclear weapons field. This article studies portrayals of women in the discourse. It identifies three narratives as prominent themes: women are missing, women are change-makers and women are victims. The narratives can generate support for political projects for gender equality and nuclear disarmament. However, they also create an ideal image of women as peaceful that bears negative connotations for perceptions of women's political agency. The article makes three contributions to feminist literature in International Relations. First, it brings the debate on the value of strategic essentialism to the nuclear case. Second, it proposes a new research agenda on women in the nuclear field to complexify the image of women as peaceful. Lastly, the article identifies tensions between feminisms in the nuclear field and suggests viewing these tensions as an indication that feminism is an ongoing conversation shaped by contention and solidarity. The practical significance of the article concerns the way in which the use of narratives about women can reinforce gender stereotypes. Practitioners might want to consider this implication when drawing on the narratives in their advocacy for women's inclusion and nuclear disarmament.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142383726","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}
Why do states arm? And why do they, sometimes, do so together with other states? International relations and security studies scholars have long explored the causes that propel states to arm. However, the extant literature has yet to provide a coherent theoretical framework to explain arms production and collaboration. Drawing from work in eclectic theorizing, this article contributes a systematizing, integrative perspective. States arm, and sometimes arm together with other states, for a variety of reasons, often with very diverse theoretical roots and origins; frequently, causes mix, mingle, and intertwine. Two case studies serve as building blocks for our eclectic theory, illustrating and buttressing our framework. A study of Brazil’s KC-390 military transport aircraft demonstrates the value of eclectic theorizing in explaining arms production. European (fragmented) collaboration to develop a sixth-generation fighter aircraft documents the benefits of applying an eclectic theory of arms collaboration augmented with a “domain of application” approach. That is, explanations rooted in particular theoretical traditions apply and play out strengths in specific domains, and may thus complement one another to generate comprehensive explanations. Among numerous other promising domain differentiations, we distinguish here between “high-end” and “low-end” arming. Our findings have important policy implications. If states’ arming, alone or with others, is multicausal, then no single policy alone will suffice to channel, control, limit, or reduce the proliferation of weapons.
{"title":"Why States Arm and Why, Sometimes, They Do So Together","authors":"Jonata Anicetti, Ulrich Krotz","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae031","url":null,"abstract":"Why do states arm? And why do they, sometimes, do so together with other states? International relations and security studies scholars have long explored the causes that propel states to arm. However, the extant literature has yet to provide a coherent theoretical framework to explain arms production and collaboration. Drawing from work in eclectic theorizing, this article contributes a systematizing, integrative perspective. States arm, and sometimes arm together with other states, for a variety of reasons, often with very diverse theoretical roots and origins; frequently, causes mix, mingle, and intertwine. Two case studies serve as building blocks for our eclectic theory, illustrating and buttressing our framework. A study of Brazil’s KC-390 military transport aircraft demonstrates the value of eclectic theorizing in explaining arms production. European (fragmented) collaboration to develop a sixth-generation fighter aircraft documents the benefits of applying an eclectic theory of arms collaboration augmented with a “domain of application” approach. That is, explanations rooted in particular theoretical traditions apply and play out strengths in specific domains, and may thus complement one another to generate comprehensive explanations. Among numerous other promising domain differentiations, we distinguish here between “high-end” and “low-end” arming. Our findings have important policy implications. If states’ arming, alone or with others, is multicausal, then no single policy alone will suffice to channel, control, limit, or reduce the proliferation of weapons.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142329192","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}
This Presidential Special Issue brings together a diverse array of scholars and perspectives to address contemporary challenges to the world—and to international studies. Drawing together contributions from the Sapphire Series and the 2023 International Studies Association Annual Meeting, contributors grapple with uncertainty, complexity, and the imperative of inclusivity in the field and beyond.
{"title":"Introduction to the Presidential Special Issue","authors":"Erica Chenoweth, Swati Parashar","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae032","url":null,"abstract":"This Presidential Special Issue brings together a diverse array of scholars and perspectives to address contemporary challenges to the world—and to international studies. Drawing together contributions from the Sapphire Series and the 2023 International Studies Association Annual Meeting, contributors grapple with uncertainty, complexity, and the imperative of inclusivity in the field and beyond.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142306428","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}
This article addresses growing calls for a fifth debate on international relations’ (IR) “race amnesia.” The central argument is two-fold. First, contrary to conventional wisdom, racial justice was not omitted in “orthodox” scholarship—in particular Morgenthau’s realism. On the contrary, classical realists repeatedly critiqued the lack of racial justice throughout their careers. Second, racial justice was not only a concern for Morgenthau but also integral to his conception of the national interest, particularly in the Vietnam War. To Morgenthau, the national interest failed in Vietnam because the United States failed to define its purpose at home. Fundamental to its purpose was the question of racial justice. Morgenthau’s conception of the national interest has an enduring impact on contemporary realist scholarship. This scholarship engages with issues that are relevant to postcolonial IR, such as the pursuit of primacy in the War on Terror, the backlash in the form of Trumpism, and the Black Lives Matter protests. Morgenthau’s work provides the intellectual roots that sustain these arguments. For a fifth debate on race in IR to materialize, it is thus this neglected dimension in Morgenthau’s writing that postcolonial scholarship needs to engage with.
{"title":"Toward IR’s “Fifth Debate”: Racial Justice and the National Interest in Classical Realism","authors":"Haro Karkour, Felix Rösch","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae030","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses growing calls for a fifth debate on international relations’ (IR) “race amnesia.” The central argument is two-fold. First, contrary to conventional wisdom, racial justice was not omitted in “orthodox” scholarship—in particular Morgenthau’s realism. On the contrary, classical realists repeatedly critiqued the lack of racial justice throughout their careers. Second, racial justice was not only a concern for Morgenthau but also integral to his conception of the national interest, particularly in the Vietnam War. To Morgenthau, the national interest failed in Vietnam because the United States failed to define its purpose at home. Fundamental to its purpose was the question of racial justice. Morgenthau’s conception of the national interest has an enduring impact on contemporary realist scholarship. This scholarship engages with issues that are relevant to postcolonial IR, such as the pursuit of primacy in the War on Terror, the backlash in the form of Trumpism, and the Black Lives Matter protests. Morgenthau’s work provides the intellectual roots that sustain these arguments. For a fifth debate on race in IR to materialize, it is thus this neglected dimension in Morgenthau’s writing that postcolonial scholarship needs to engage with.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141185132","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 this analytical essay, we situate truth commissions as relevant sites for International Relations (IR) research, in particular on professional communities and knowledge hierarchies. With an empirical focus on report-making, we argue that there is a need to rethink and revise established professional community concepts. While these concepts stress professional communities’ detachment from mundane pressures, we suggest a “pressure lens” to better grasp the key dynamics of expert knowledge production. Based on in-depth interpretive research on three truth commissions—in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and Tunisia—we set out to identify key dynamics in the report-making of truth commissions that contribute to the gap between high expectations and sobering realities regarding truth commissions as “victim-centred” policy instruments. Understanding the dynamics at play requires us to pay attention to unequal pressures—such as time and funding pressures, powerholder interference, and demands voiced by victims and survivors—that bear on the work of experts and professionals who produce truth commission reports. We argue that these pressures and, crucially, the ways in which they tend to play out under conditions of coloniality, are expressions of global hierarchies that shape professional report-making work.
{"title":"Global Hierarchies and Unequal Pressures in the Report-Making of Truth Commissions","authors":"Anne Menzel, Mariam Salehi","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae022","url":null,"abstract":"In this analytical essay, we situate truth commissions as relevant sites for International Relations (IR) research, in particular on professional communities and knowledge hierarchies. With an empirical focus on report-making, we argue that there is a need to rethink and revise established professional community concepts. While these concepts stress professional communities’ detachment from mundane pressures, we suggest a “pressure lens” to better grasp the key dynamics of expert knowledge production. Based on in-depth interpretive research on three truth commissions—in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and Tunisia—we set out to identify key dynamics in the report-making of truth commissions that contribute to the gap between high expectations and sobering realities regarding truth commissions as “victim-centred” policy instruments. Understanding the dynamics at play requires us to pay attention to unequal pressures—such as time and funding pressures, powerholder interference, and demands voiced by victims and survivors—that bear on the work of experts and professionals who produce truth commission reports. We argue that these pressures and, crucially, the ways in which they tend to play out under conditions of coloniality, are expressions of global hierarchies that shape professional report-making work.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141079335","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：