Resurrecting IR theory: Editors’ introduction to a special section
| Published date | 01 November 2016 |
| Author | Martin Coward,Robert Oprisko,Kyle Grayson |
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395716665333 |
| Date | 01 November 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Special Section: Resurrecting IR TheoryGuest Edited by Kyle Grayson (Newcastle University, UK), Martin Coward (The University of Manchester), and Robert Oprisko (Independent Scholar) |
Politics
2016, Vol. 36(4) 383 –384
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0263395716665333
pol.sagepub.com
Resurrecting IR theory:
Editors’ introduction to
a special section
Kyle Grayson
Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Martin Coward
The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Robert Oprisko
Independent Scholar, United States
As a discipline, international relations (IR) has become increasingly circumspect about
the role and explanatory power of theories of international politics (e.g. Mearsheimer
and Walt, 2013; Zambernardi, 2015). Research has exposed the particularity of once
predominant theories of IR, the processes through which these theories were produced,
the practices through which they became accepted, and what was ignored as a result. In
so doing, scholars have raised vitally important questions about ‘theory for whom and
for what purpose’ (e.g. Cox, 1981; Odoom and Andrews, 2016; Oren, 2003; Shilliam,
2010; Turton, 2015; Vitalis, 2015)? This research has substantively challenged long-held
concepts such as meta-theory, grand theory, hypothesis testing, paradigms, great debates,
and even modernity. As a consequence, it has been asked whether we are witnessing ‘the
end of International Relations theory’ (Dunne et al., 2013)?
While the new reflexive impulse in the field of IR theory is to be welcomed, it would
seem alarmist to claim that this development marks its end. Rather, it speaks of new pos-
sibilities and new directions of inquiry for IR theories that are more mature and nuanced.
These will be theories that are clear about the limitations of their knowledge claims and
aware of their contextual particularism. And these will be theories that are attuned to the
way in which theorising as a practice necessarily engages with relations of power, not as
a neutral observer, but as an active participant within the socio-political dynamics under
investigation.
It is with these issues in mind that Politics has assembled this Special Section. We have
curated four articles that we think are indicative of some of the possible directions
contemporary IR theory is taking and the key questions they pose. They cover a diverse
area of topics: global sexuality politics, the role of affective values and emotion, what can
Corresponding author:
Kyle Grayson, Politics Building, Newcastle University, 40-42 Great North Road, Newcastle upon Tyne,
NE1 7RU, UK.
Email: politicsjournal@newcastle.ac.uk
665333POL0010.1177/0263395716665333PoliticsGrayson et al.
research-article2016
Special Section Introduction
To continue reading
Request your trial