我们的工作是国际关系:关于排斥、谈判和违反纪律界限的接触

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Jamie J. Hagen, Anupama M Ranawana
{"title":"我们的工作是国际关系:关于排斥、谈判和违反纪律界限的接触","authors":"Jamie J. Hagen, Anupama M Ranawana","doi":"10.1177/03043754231182760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With this forum we aim to contribute to the debate within International Relations (IR) scholarship about the space that has opened up since the inter-paradigmatic debate 30 years ago and the challenges still experienced by those of us coming from the “margin” yet committed to the “globalization” of the discipline. That is to say, to building a pluriverse of IR. In the first contribution Anupama Ranawana begins by considering the practical difficulties for Southern research and knowledge creation in IR, detailing a snapshot of how current funding structures continue to relegate academics and researchers in the Global South to a relationship of dependency on their counterparts in the Global North. The next two contributions to the discussion reflect on how these problematic bounds of the disciple are then embodied by those of us working in more marginal spaces in IR. First, Ahmed Rizky Mardhatilla Umar writes of the policing of IR within the Indonesian University which continues to leave most critical work as outside of IR. Another point of embodied experience in what for many continues to be marginal or even outside of the discipline is considered by Jamie J. Hagen and Alex Edney-Browne who write about queer IR and specifically the experience of being a part of a community of LGBTQA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and allies) in IR scholars. In conclusion Roland Bleiker reflects and evaluates “the potential and limits of International Relations as an academic discipline” even as the discipline continues to call for greater diversity. As such, each contributor speaks separately to a jointly articulated provocation regarding what counts and is centered as “real” International Relations scholarship, based on their own encounters with being told explicitly (i.e., through rejections, lack of institutional support) or implicitly (i.e., through what we are taught) that our work is not International Relations.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Our Work is International Relations: On Exclusion, Negotiation, and Engagement Against Disciplinary Boundaries\",\"authors\":\"Jamie J. Hagen, Anupama M Ranawana\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03043754231182760\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With this forum we aim to contribute to the debate within International Relations (IR) scholarship about the space that has opened up since the inter-paradigmatic debate 30 years ago and the challenges still experienced by those of us coming from the “margin” yet committed to the “globalization” of the discipline. That is to say, to building a pluriverse of IR. In the first contribution Anupama Ranawana begins by considering the practical difficulties for Southern research and knowledge creation in IR, detailing a snapshot of how current funding structures continue to relegate academics and researchers in the Global South to a relationship of dependency on their counterparts in the Global North. The next two contributions to the discussion reflect on how these problematic bounds of the disciple are then embodied by those of us working in more marginal spaces in IR. First, Ahmed Rizky Mardhatilla Umar writes of the policing of IR within the Indonesian University which continues to leave most critical work as outside of IR. Another point of embodied experience in what for many continues to be marginal or even outside of the discipline is considered by Jamie J. Hagen and Alex Edney-Browne who write about queer IR and specifically the experience of being a part of a community of LGBTQA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and allies) in IR scholars. In conclusion Roland Bleiker reflects and evaluates “the potential and limits of International Relations as an academic discipline” even as the discipline continues to call for greater diversity. As such, each contributor speaks separately to a jointly articulated provocation regarding what counts and is centered as “real” International Relations scholarship, based on their own encounters with being told explicitly (i.e., through rejections, lack of institutional support) or implicitly (i.e., through what we are taught) that our work is not International Relations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alternatives\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alternatives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754231182760\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternatives","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754231182760","RegionNum":3,"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: 0

摘要

通过这个论坛,我们的目标是为国际关系(IR)学术界的辩论做出贡献,讨论自30年前的范式间辩论以来所开辟的空间,以及我们这些来自“边缘”但致力于学科“全球化”的人仍然面临的挑战。也就是说,建立一个多元的IR。在第一篇文章中,Anupama Ranawana首先考虑了南方研究和IR知识创造的实际困难,详细描述了当前的资助结构如何继续将全球南方的学者和研究人员降级为对全球北方同行的依赖关系。接下来对讨论的两个贡献反映了弟子的这些有问题的界限是如何被我们这些在IR中更边缘空间工作的人所体现的。首先,Ahmed Rizky Mardhatilla Umar写到了印尼大学内部对IR的监管,这继续将最关键的工作留在IR之外。杰米·J·哈根(Jamie J.Hagen)和亚历克斯·埃德尼·布朗(Alex Edney Browne)认为,对许多人来说,这是一种边缘化甚至不在学科范围内的体验,他们写的是酷儿IR,特别是IR学者中作为LGBTQA(女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别者、酷儿和盟友)群体一部分的体验。总之,Roland Bleiker反映并评估了“国际关系作为一门学术学科的潜力和局限性”,尽管该学科继续呼吁更大的多样性。因此,每一位撰稿人都会单独谈论一种共同表达的挑衅,即什么才是“真正的”国际关系学术,什么才是核心,这是基于他们自己被明确告知(即通过拒绝、缺乏机构支持)或隐含告知(即通过我们所学到的)我们的工作不是国际关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Our Work is International Relations: On Exclusion, Negotiation, and Engagement Against Disciplinary Boundaries
With this forum we aim to contribute to the debate within International Relations (IR) scholarship about the space that has opened up since the inter-paradigmatic debate 30 years ago and the challenges still experienced by those of us coming from the “margin” yet committed to the “globalization” of the discipline. That is to say, to building a pluriverse of IR. In the first contribution Anupama Ranawana begins by considering the practical difficulties for Southern research and knowledge creation in IR, detailing a snapshot of how current funding structures continue to relegate academics and researchers in the Global South to a relationship of dependency on their counterparts in the Global North. The next two contributions to the discussion reflect on how these problematic bounds of the disciple are then embodied by those of us working in more marginal spaces in IR. First, Ahmed Rizky Mardhatilla Umar writes of the policing of IR within the Indonesian University which continues to leave most critical work as outside of IR. Another point of embodied experience in what for many continues to be marginal or even outside of the discipline is considered by Jamie J. Hagen and Alex Edney-Browne who write about queer IR and specifically the experience of being a part of a community of LGBTQA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and allies) in IR scholars. In conclusion Roland Bleiker reflects and evaluates “the potential and limits of International Relations as an academic discipline” even as the discipline continues to call for greater diversity. As such, each contributor speaks separately to a jointly articulated provocation regarding what counts and is centered as “real” International Relations scholarship, based on their own encounters with being told explicitly (i.e., through rejections, lack of institutional support) or implicitly (i.e., through what we are taught) that our work is not International Relations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Alternatives
Alternatives INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: A peer-reviewed journal, Alternatives explores the possibilities of new forms of political practice and identity under increasingly global conditions. Specifically, the editors focus on the changing relationships between local political practices and identities and emerging forms of global economy, culture, and polity. Published in association with the Center for the Study of Developing Societies (India).
×
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