Graeme Davies, Jessica De Alba-Ulloa, Faten Ghosn, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, Marianne Kneuer, Helen Milner, Etel Solingen
Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic influence on mortality and public health and generated much speculation on potential impacts on international politics. Fast-moving crises such as the COVID pandemic and 2008 financial crises entail many challenges for scholarship; events evolve rapidly, our prior knowledge base is limited, it is unclear whether existing theories or analogies apply, and new research findings emerge quickly but also erratically. Researchers face demands to engage with policy and general audiences when normal standards of scholarship may be difficult to apply. Crises can also have a dramatic impact on how we conduct research and interact with other scholars. The forum introduction outlines how crises pose challenges for scholarship and policy and the value of approaching crises such as COVID-19 in comparative perspective. Milner highlights the important differences between the immediately observable short-term impact of crises and the more difficult to evaluate long-run impacts. Kneuer examines how crises can impact political change, detailing how COVID countermeasures can serve as a pretext for autocratization and the safeguards afforded by institutions. Solingen examines the impact of serial crises on global value chains and the difficulties in tracing impacts when crises are compounded. De Alba-Ulloa documents how scholars in the Global South and North face similar challenges during the COVID pandemic, but differences in resources to mitigate can exacerbate inequalities. Davies highlights the difficulties in studying public opinion during COVID and need for behavioral data to understand global health emergencies. Ghosn examines dilemmas in interacting with severely affected communities during crises and offers advice on better practices.
{"title":"Forum: Challenges to Scholarship and Policy During Crises","authors":"Graeme Davies, Jessica De Alba-Ulloa, Faten Ghosn, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, Marianne Kneuer, Helen Milner, Etel Solingen","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad017","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic influence on mortality and public health and generated much speculation on potential impacts on international politics. Fast-moving crises such as the COVID pandemic and 2008 financial crises entail many challenges for scholarship; events evolve rapidly, our prior knowledge base is limited, it is unclear whether existing theories or analogies apply, and new research findings emerge quickly but also erratically. Researchers face demands to engage with policy and general audiences when normal standards of scholarship may be difficult to apply. Crises can also have a dramatic impact on how we conduct research and interact with other scholars. The forum introduction outlines how crises pose challenges for scholarship and policy and the value of approaching crises such as COVID-19 in comparative perspective. Milner highlights the important differences between the immediately observable short-term impact of crises and the more difficult to evaluate long-run impacts. Kneuer examines how crises can impact political change, detailing how COVID countermeasures can serve as a pretext for autocratization and the safeguards afforded by institutions. Solingen examines the impact of serial crises on global value chains and the difficulties in tracing impacts when crises are compounded. De Alba-Ulloa documents how scholars in the Global South and North face similar challenges during the COVID pandemic, but differences in resources to mitigate can exacerbate inequalities. Davies highlights the difficulties in studying public opinion during COVID and need for behavioral data to understand global health emergencies. Ghosn examines dilemmas in interacting with severely affected communities during crises and offers advice on better practices.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135718354","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}
{"title":"Redefining Development: The Extraordinary Genesis of the Sustainable Development Goals","authors":"C. Stevens","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89576120","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}
Because of the novel explanations it generates for states’ security- and identity-related behavior, the concept of ontological security has been used increasingly in the International Relations (IR) literature in recent years. However, the abundance of interpretations of the concept means that it is often used in conflicting ways. To counter the risk of conceptual stretching and provide the foundation for a common research agenda, this article constructs a typology of ontological security mechanisms. Two dimensions of ontological insecurity are highlighted: the sources and the causes of anxiety. We argue that the source of anxiety can be reflexive, relational, or systemic, while the cause of anxiety can be either shame or discontinuity. These two dimensions produce six mechanisms of ontological insecurity that reflect how the concept is used in the contemporary ontological security literature in IR. By specifying these mechanisms, we argue that the typology offers IR scholars the ability to produce even more nuanced and fine-grained explanations of state behavior driven by ontological insecurity. Finally, to demonstrate the utility of this typology, the article provides an illustrative case study of Russia's engagement in the conflict in Syria in 2015–2017.
{"title":"A Typology of Ontological Insecurity Mechanisms: Russia's Military Engagement in Syria","authors":"Hugo von Essen, August Danielson","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Because of the novel explanations it generates for states’ security- and identity-related behavior, the concept of ontological security has been used increasingly in the International Relations (IR) literature in recent years. However, the abundance of interpretations of the concept means that it is often used in conflicting ways. To counter the risk of conceptual stretching and provide the foundation for a common research agenda, this article constructs a typology of ontological security mechanisms. Two dimensions of ontological insecurity are highlighted: the sources and the causes of anxiety. We argue that the source of anxiety can be reflexive, relational, or systemic, while the cause of anxiety can be either shame or discontinuity. These two dimensions produce six mechanisms of ontological insecurity that reflect how the concept is used in the contemporary ontological security literature in IR. By specifying these mechanisms, we argue that the typology offers IR scholars the ability to produce even more nuanced and fine-grained explanations of state behavior driven by ontological insecurity. Finally, to demonstrate the utility of this typology, the article provides an illustrative case study of Russia's engagement in the conflict in Syria in 2015–2017.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86441152","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}
Discourses and practices reproducing a world where a plurality of distinct civilizations clash or dialogue, rise or fall, color multiple facets of global politics today. How should we interpret this unexpected surge in civilizational politics, especially notable in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, China, and Russia? This paper argues that the growing turn to civilizations or, better, civilizationism should be understood as a counter-hegemonic ideological reaction to the globalization of the liberal international order. It theorizes the deepening and widening of the liberal international order in the aftermath of the Cold War as enabled by powerful constitutive ideological forces, which congeal into a distinctively modern, informal, universal standard of civilization. This liberal civilizational standard can be experienced by a particular category of non (fully) liberal actors within and beyond the West as ideologically entrapping them—through processes of socialization or stigmatization—in a state of symbolic disempowerment. The paper shows how civilizationism provides an ideological path for resisting and contesting the liberal standard of civilization by articulating a distinct and valued (essentialized) sense of collective belonging, and an alternative (generally illiberal) normative system and (broadly multipolar) vision of international order. Along with theorizing and exploring in original ways the drivers of civilizational politics in the current historical juncture, the paper makes two further contributions. It highlights and unpacks the key role of ideological dynamics in the making and contestation of international orders in general and the liberal one in particular. It suggests and shows why civilizations are best approached as ideological constructs rather than cultures, identities, or discourses.
{"title":"Civilizationism and the Ideological Contestation of the Liberal International Order","authors":"Gregorio Bettiza, D. Bolton, David G. Lewis","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Discourses and practices reproducing a world where a plurality of distinct civilizations clash or dialogue, rise or fall, color multiple facets of global politics today. How should we interpret this unexpected surge in civilizational politics, especially notable in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, China, and Russia? This paper argues that the growing turn to civilizations or, better, civilizationism should be understood as a counter-hegemonic ideological reaction to the globalization of the liberal international order. It theorizes the deepening and widening of the liberal international order in the aftermath of the Cold War as enabled by powerful constitutive ideological forces, which congeal into a distinctively modern, informal, universal standard of civilization. This liberal civilizational standard can be experienced by a particular category of non (fully) liberal actors within and beyond the West as ideologically entrapping them—through processes of socialization or stigmatization—in a state of symbolic disempowerment. The paper shows how civilizationism provides an ideological path for resisting and contesting the liberal standard of civilization by articulating a distinct and valued (essentialized) sense of collective belonging, and an alternative (generally illiberal) normative system and (broadly multipolar) vision of international order. Along with theorizing and exploring in original ways the drivers of civilizational politics in the current historical juncture, the paper makes two further contributions. It highlights and unpacks the key role of ideological dynamics in the making and contestation of international orders in general and the liberal one in particular. It suggests and shows why civilizations are best approached as ideological constructs rather than cultures, identities, or discourses.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79867594","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 presents a conceptual framework for analyzing the strength of ceasefires in intra-state conflict. The framework is based on the perspectives of ceasefire practitioners. The practitioners view the essence of ceasefire design as the reduction and management of risk, which ranges in severity from violations to complete breakdown of the ceasefire agreement. The framework identifies three determinants of ceasefire risk: the design's objective quality, being the extent to which the ceasefire arrangements reduce and manage risk; the design's subjective quality, being the parties’ satisfaction with these arrangements; and the will of the parties to end the conflict through negotiations. Each dimension is negatively associated with risk, such that strong objective quality, strong subjective quality, and strong political will reduce the level of risk. We explore the effects of these dimensions and the relationship between them. We discuss two exceptions to the standard thesis that objectively strong design leads to subjectively strong design and ceasefire durability: “spurious agreements,” which are signed by the parties under duress with no intention of honoring them, and preliminary ceasefires, which the parties generally prefer to be objectively weak. We illustrate the conceptual framework through case studies of ceasefires in Sudan and South Sudan.
{"title":"Reducing and Managing Risk: The Dimensions of Strong Ceasefires in Intra-State Conflict","authors":"Laurie Nathan, Ajay Sethi","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac065","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents a conceptual framework for analyzing the strength of ceasefires in intra-state conflict. The framework is based on the perspectives of ceasefire practitioners. The practitioners view the essence of ceasefire design as the reduction and management of risk, which ranges in severity from violations to complete breakdown of the ceasefire agreement. The framework identifies three determinants of ceasefire risk: the design's objective quality, being the extent to which the ceasefire arrangements reduce and manage risk; the design's subjective quality, being the parties’ satisfaction with these arrangements; and the will of the parties to end the conflict through negotiations. Each dimension is negatively associated with risk, such that strong objective quality, strong subjective quality, and strong political will reduce the level of risk. We explore the effects of these dimensions and the relationship between them. We discuss two exceptions to the standard thesis that objectively strong design leads to subjectively strong design and ceasefire durability: “spurious agreements,” which are signed by the parties under duress with no intention of honoring them, and preliminary ceasefires, which the parties generally prefer to be objectively weak. We illustrate the conceptual framework through case studies of ceasefires in Sudan and South Sudan.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165426","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 study of intra-state violence has been a main focus of scholars since the end of the Cold War, and in recent years particular attention has been paid to the consequences of civil wars on future political, social, and economic development. Yet, understanding the consequences of political violence requires a clear working definition of what we mean when we say that someone was “exposed to” or was “a victim of” violence. Researchers use disparate measures ranging from living in a country that is categorized as a civil war case, despite living hundreds of miles away from areas of conflict, to being displaced and losing most of one’s family members in attacks. In this essay, we offer conceptual clarification for various forms of victimization and indirect forms of exposure, present examples of works using these different measurement strategies, and examine how different measures affect findings using a sample of articles. We conclude with recommendations about indicators researchers can choose from and suggest that future research should probe further into the use of subjective measures of exposure.
{"title":"Exposure to Violence as Explanatory Variable: Meaning, Measurement, and Theoretical Implications of Different Indicators","authors":"Şule Yaylacı, Christopher G Price","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac066","url":null,"abstract":"The study of intra-state violence has been a main focus of scholars since the end of the Cold War, and in recent years particular attention has been paid to the consequences of civil wars on future political, social, and economic development. Yet, understanding the consequences of political violence requires a clear working definition of what we mean when we say that someone was “exposed to” or was “a victim of” violence. Researchers use disparate measures ranging from living in a country that is categorized as a civil war case, despite living hundreds of miles away from areas of conflict, to being displaced and losing most of one’s family members in attacks. In this essay, we offer conceptual clarification for various forms of victimization and indirect forms of exposure, present examples of works using these different measurement strategies, and examine how different measures affect findings using a sample of articles. We conclude with recommendations about indicators researchers can choose from and suggest that future research should probe further into the use of subjective measures of exposure.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165712","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}
Columba Achilleos-Sarll, Jennifer Thomson, Toni Haastrup, Karoline Färber, Carol Cohn, Paul Kirby
Almost a decade after Sweden first declared that it would follow a feminist foreign policy (FFP), a further eleven countries from across Europe, North and South America, and North and West Africa have adopted, or have signaled an interest in potentially adopting, an FFP in the future. These developments have been accompanied by a growing body of feminist scholarship. Although still in its infancy, this literature can generally be divided between more normative accounts and those that are empirically focused, with particular attention paid to the FFPs of Sweden and Canada. Yet, few studies compare FFPs’ uptake across different countries and regions, examine its connections to longer histories of ideas around women and gender, or unpack the policy intersections FFP (tentatively) engages. Contributing to these different areas, Part I provides an overview of the history of FFP, interrogates FFP in the context of Foreign Policy Analysis, and explores what FFP can achieve in the current (liberal) global system. Part II turns to consider policy intersections in relation to the climate crisis, migration, militarism, and bodies. Thinking through its origins, policy intersections, and potential future(s), the contributors to this Forum explore FFP's multiple and contested future(s). Ultimately, the Forum takes stock of this feminist turn in foreign policy at a critical point in its development and considers what future possibilities it may hold.
{"title":"The Past, Present, and Future(s) of Feminist Foreign Policy","authors":"Columba Achilleos-Sarll, Jennifer Thomson, Toni Haastrup, Karoline Färber, Carol Cohn, Paul Kirby","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac068","url":null,"abstract":"Almost a decade after Sweden first declared that it would follow a feminist foreign policy (FFP), a further eleven countries from across Europe, North and South America, and North and West Africa have adopted, or have signaled an interest in potentially adopting, an FFP in the future. These developments have been accompanied by a growing body of feminist scholarship. Although still in its infancy, this literature can generally be divided between more normative accounts and those that are empirically focused, with particular attention paid to the FFPs of Sweden and Canada. Yet, few studies compare FFPs’ uptake across different countries and regions, examine its connections to longer histories of ideas around women and gender, or unpack the policy intersections FFP (tentatively) engages. Contributing to these different areas, Part I provides an overview of the history of FFP, interrogates FFP in the context of Foreign Policy Analysis, and explores what FFP can achieve in the current (liberal) global system. Part II turns to consider policy intersections in relation to the climate crisis, migration, militarism, and bodies. Thinking through its origins, policy intersections, and potential future(s), the contributors to this Forum explore FFP's multiple and contested future(s). Ultimately, the Forum takes stock of this feminist turn in foreign policy at a critical point in its development and considers what future possibilities it may hold.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165713","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 article, we address the question of how policy orientation shapes academic research from a sociological perspective. Policy orientation involves the mobilization of scientific resources and the “mobilization of the world.” Our analysis is based on Bourdieusian field theory and focuses on democracy promotion research (DPR). It shows that DPR is a heterogeneous academic field characterized by the field-specific demand for policy orientation. (Western) Scholars and, particularly, scholar-practitioners occupy central positions, and field-specific practices of policy orientation include stocktaking, evaluation, problem identification, and critical intervention. While we derive these insights from analysis of DPR, our findings are useful for the study of policy orientation in similar academic fields. For the reflexive and systematic analysis of how policy orientation shapes, for example, development studies and human rights research, we suggest a focus on interrelations between academic fields, field-specific struggles, and relationships with the respective policy fields.
{"title":"Practices of Policy Orientation: A Study of the Heterogeneous Field of Democracy Promotion Research","authors":"Leonie Holthaus, Jonas Wolff","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac062","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we address the question of how policy orientation shapes academic research from a sociological perspective. Policy orientation involves the mobilization of scientific resources and the “mobilization of the world.” Our analysis is based on Bourdieusian field theory and focuses on democracy promotion research (DPR). It shows that DPR is a heterogeneous academic field characterized by the field-specific demand for policy orientation. (Western) Scholars and, particularly, scholar-practitioners occupy central positions, and field-specific practices of policy orientation include stocktaking, evaluation, problem identification, and critical intervention. While we derive these insights from analysis of DPR, our findings are useful for the study of policy orientation in similar academic fields. For the reflexive and systematic analysis of how policy orientation shapes, for example, development studies and human rights research, we suggest a focus on interrelations between academic fields, field-specific struggles, and relationships with the respective policy fields.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165714","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}
Databases constitute key research tools in sanctions scholarship. Over the past few years, we have witnessed a proliferation of sanctions databases: while only a single dataset was available until 2009, this number had increased to five by 2020; thus, the choice has more than doubled in less than a decade. This essay assesses the evolution observed. It reviews the five major datasets, comparing some of their basic choices, and evaluates them along two dimensions: the extent to which they capture targeted sanctions and the degree to which they brought innovations to the subfield. We find that targeted sanctions are not adequately reflected in databases, which remain state-centric in their approach. We conclude that the crafting of new databases does not entail an incremental refinement in which each iteration renders its predecessors obsolete. Rather, the evolution observed has resulted in a diverse set of options with different emphases. We nevertheless observe that a trend toward innovation has yielded to one toward consolidation, more focused on enlarging the empirical testing ground than in innovating. We conclude by discussing implications for the development of sanctions scholarship.
{"title":"The Evolution of Databases in the Age of Targeted Sanctions","authors":"Clara Portela, Andrea Charron","doi":"10.1093/isr/viac061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac061","url":null,"abstract":"Databases constitute key research tools in sanctions scholarship. Over the past few years, we have witnessed a proliferation of sanctions databases: while only a single dataset was available until 2009, this number had increased to five by 2020; thus, the choice has more than doubled in less than a decade. This essay assesses the evolution observed. It reviews the five major datasets, comparing some of their basic choices, and evaluates them along two dimensions: the extent to which they capture targeted sanctions and the degree to which they brought innovations to the subfield. We find that targeted sanctions are not adequately reflected in databases, which remain state-centric in their approach. We conclude that the crafting of new databases does not entail an incremental refinement in which each iteration renders its predecessors obsolete. Rather, the evolution observed has resulted in a diverse set of options with different emphases. We nevertheless observe that a trend toward innovation has yielded to one toward consolidation, more focused on enlarging the empirical testing ground than in innovating. We conclude by discussing implications for the development of sanctions scholarship.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165715","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：