Bridging the Theorist-Practitioner Gap in IR: What are the Risks and Benefits?

Abstract

The practice international relations is routinely characterized as binary, which derive from two domains, either a scientific domain, which aims to seek factual knowledge, or a political/practical domain that seeks political action. Each operates on its own praxis and eidos and forms the fundamental differentiation between the domains that has governed the working ethics of international relations professionals for the better part of 70 years. Although these norms are still in place, the specialization of IR has begun to shift this traditional practice as a growing demand for more mid-level and level-specific research, gravitating around a world with increasing uncertainties is fuelling policy research demand. The extra demand has begun to pull scholars into the field of politics and political action. How does this affect identity and our interactions? What impact does this have on bridging the theorist-practitioner gap? And where does this leave IR pedagogy? This paper shall address these questions claiming that the gap should be bridged, but with the caveat of caution.