The Production of North American and German Democracy Promotion Expertise: A Practice Theoretical Analysis

IF 1.8 1区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Leonie Holthaus, M. Christensen
{"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":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n 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":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekab019","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

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.
北美和德国民主促进专门知识的产生:实践理论分析
在国际关系中,人们经常反思学术知识与各种实践知识之间的复杂关系。在这篇文章中,我们使用民主促进专业知识的例子来补充这些思考。我们在皮埃尔·布迪厄的社会学基础上发展了一种实践-理论方法论,并在实践文学社区中进行了扩展。我们还通过研究北美和德国的认知实践,纳入了一个比较维度。我们的分析表明了学术界和民主促进实践之间知识翻译的重要性,以及漫游专家的声望和资本,他们跨越了原本会分裂行动者的认识边界。漫游专家在不同程度上有助于以实践为导向的学术见解翻译,并识别在民主促进中重要的持续实践中产生的问题。我们表明,问题构建的过程受到将认识实践和证据同质化的惯例的规范,只选择性地关注来自全球南方的解放要求或认识。虽然我们的研究表明,一些认识和要求与西方规范相冲突,但全球南方的认识和要求往往被转化为进一步促进自由民主的论据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Studies Perspectives
International Studies Perspectives INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: International Studies Perspectives (ISP) publishes peer-reviewed articles that bridge the interests of researchers, teachers, and practitioners working within any and all subfields of international studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信