Dizzying Developments in International Relations

The world is characterized by massive upheavals, such as new and brutal wars, revolutions, refugees, and democratic backsliding. In addition, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence gain ground and influence how we relate to each other.

At the same time, the field of International Relations (IR) is in constant flux, both due to the changes in the world and disagreements and debates about what constitutes good research.

It's said that 'research is built stone by stone,' but it's rarely that linear. It can be complex ­– and dizzying. And occasionally, it can be useful for the research field itself to become the subject of study.

Isn't this somewhat self-centred? Yes, certainly. But it's still important, according to the researchers behind a new study.

Annoying

In 2019, Paul Beaumont, senior research fellow at NUPI, and Jaakko Heiskanen from Queen Mary University of London participated in the international research conference The International Studies Association (ISA). It was here that they both attended a panel that debated the causes and the consequences of the numerous "turns" that have spun the field of IR in recent years.

A "turn" is a metaphor for the development of new theory within a field. While most researchers would acknowledge that many of these turns have proven insightful, the frequency with which IR hails new turns is considered annoying by some researchers. At research conferences, there have been whispers and murmurs in the hallways about another colleague being too hasty in trying to turn the field in a new direction. Meanwhile, some established researchers who do not embrace these new trends within the field think they have experienced rejections of research articles because they "belong to an outdated turn."

"Following the panel, Jaakko and I spent the rest of the evening discussing why all these turns were spreading in IR. In the end, we agreed that we could speculate as much as we wanted, but it would be best to proceed empirically," says Beaumont.

Several years of mapping and analyzing IR’s turns has now resulted in the peer-reviewed article "Reflex to turn: the rise of turn-talk in International Relations" published in the level 2 journal European Journal of International Relations.

• Read the whole article here

"In this article, we examine why the field of IR cannot seem to stop or slow down the pace of all these new turns. There are so many turns that several leading researchers have complained they get dizzy from trying to keep up," says Beaumont.

What is Theory?

Since Beaumont and Heiskanen's article is about the development of new theory, it's important to understand what this term actually refers to. In social sciences, one cannot study an entire society, so theories – or assumptions – about how things are connected, are necessary.

All theories will shed a light on different aspects of how society functions, and a theory will always emphasize something while excluding something else.

It’s challenging for outsiders to understand the distinctions within the various theories. Much of the reason for this is that researchers do not have to choose one direction and follow it slavishly, but many will instead develop a new or modified theoretical approach.

• Read more: NUPI team to take over as editors of the prestigious journal Cooperation and Conflict

Like all social sciences, IR is built on theories, and theory fetishism is not uncommon. The NUPI researcher believes however that IR benefits from reflecting on its own use of theories. 

"It's important that researchers take a step back and look at the entire field from a bird's-eye perspective to get an overview of everything we do. In other words, instead of explaining the world, like we usually do, this study tries to explain how and why researchers explain the world the way they do," Beaumont says.

Rebellion After the Cold War

For a turn to be counted in Beaumont and Heiskanen's research, it must have been explicitly mentioned as such in a peer-reviewed article or book. This approach enabled them to identify more than 60 turns within IR over the course of the last decade.

Other researchers have also studied these turns, but according to Beaumont, they missed the onset of turning by nearly a decade: "They identify the beginning of IR’s turn to turning  as beginning in the 2000s, but in our research, we trace the emergence of turning to the late 1980s.'"

Taking account of this lost decade allowed the two researchers divide the turns into two major waves. The first one spans from 1980 to 2000, and the second one from 2000 to the present. The reason for this division requires a brief history lesson in the study of International Relations and the different methodological approaches of positivism and post-positivism.

Positivism can be considered the mainstream, the dominant methodological approach to studying International Relations. This approach is most prevalent among researchers in the United States, and it is common to use hypothesis testing, a method that closely resembles the one used in the natural sciences. At least according to post-positivists, positivist research in international politics is well suited to problem solving in aid of the the status quo. In contrast, post-positivists embrace alternative methods, challenge the status quo, and this make them well-suited to becoming agents of change – both of the field of study and in the practice of international politics.

As the Cold War neared its end, the first major turn in the field occurred. The dominant approach to the study of International Relations, the positivists and its leading theories, had failed to predict this massive upheaval in world politics. It was a big disappointment for many and threatened the credibility of IR. "Are there not alternative ways to research so that we can better explain and understand such significant and important events?" the dissenters asked.

It was through the opening created by the failure of the mainstream to make sense of the end of the Cold War that post-positivist approaches took off within IR, leading to an explosion of new turns.

"The thing is, it never stopped exploding," Beaumont adds.

Since the 2000s, the substance and form of turns shifted. Whereas the first wave of turns in the 1990s framed themselves as turning against positivism, the second wave of turns saw researchers who have embraced post-positivism begin to turn away from each other. Of the over 60 turns in IR that Beaumont and Heiskanen have identified through their research, 40 of them have occurred after the year 2000.

According to Beaumont, this non-stop turning may come with a high price.  "As insightful as any individual turn may be, the sheer frequency of turns within IR risks generating what some scholars have explicitly worried is a depoliticizing effect: In other words, how can you change the status quo when everyone is constantly turning?" asks Beaumont.

Why do turns happen?

Taking on the task of turning a field is not for those with low academic self-esteem. Perhaps there are so many turns in the study of international politics because the field is filled with confident individuals who are more than willing to take on such "responsibility"? Or is it about something else?

According to Beaumont and Heiskanen, it's about several things – and self-promotion and academic capital is certainly mentioned as one of the reasons. However, this is not the whole story.

In their article, Heiskanen and Beaumont suggest that one major reason IR seems unable to slow down or stop this explosion of turns is a methodological commitment that has emerged with post-positivism’s rise, namely reflexivity. In short, reflexivity means that researchers question the choices and assumptions they have made in terms of theory, methodology and method, and reflect on their own position in relation to the object of study.

"When this way of researching became widespread and institutionalized, it became a kind of machine that produced an endless stream of turns. If you constantly question all your assumptions, it leads to more theorizing," explains Beaumont.

But it's not just about the research methodology running wild. It's also about the increasing demand for originality in a competitive field where getting cited can be crucial for one's career. This can put pressure on researchers to overstate the novelty of their research and thus hail a turn too hastily . Indeed, successfully claiming your research has turned IR, can make your research career. In this way, Beaumont suggests "turns reflects some bad habits in academia, exaggerating one's own contribution to the field at the expense of what others have done in the past."

Hence, within inner academic circles, news of a new turn can prompt eye-rolling and insinuations of cynicism regarding the turner’s motivations. "This may be unfair in most cases, but there may be a grain of  truth to it as well," according to Beaumont.

However, the strongest critique is not about turning in itself, it’s about the effect of the total number of turns. In short, it creates theoretical fragmentation that undermines the dialogue between researchers and their ability to come together. This is particularly problematic if one is committed to transforming the status quo, however defined.

But it's not all negative. Some scholars would suggest that frequent turns reflect the steady development of the field. Some argue that it drives research in IR forward and strengthens it.

"It can make it easier for like-minded researchers to come together. It can also lead to a new approach to the field gaining traction and reaching new audiences. Many of the turns we have studied have led to exceptionally good research. We don't want the field to stop renewing itself, but we hope that IR researchers can become more reflexive around the consequences of all their turning and if they get the urge to turn, perhaps take a step back and consider alternatives" Beaumont encourages.