Interpretive Scholarship in Contemporary International Relations

• Authors: Xymena Kurowska

Abstracts

EN

Interpretive International Relations (IR) has become a robust and diverse research programme, consolidating across various subfields of the discipline. However, this is a recent phenomenon. While early classical realists and English School scholars clearly drew on interpretive thought, these contributions did not coalesce into a welldefined and specifically interpretive research agenda. The ‘interpretive turn’ in social sciences and humanities in the 1970s and epistemological pluralisation of political science and IR in the 1990s slowly made space for interpretive theory and research. This paper reconstructs, first, what makes interpretive IR distinct, and, second, what it means to engage in interpretive inquiry in this field, conceptually and substantively. It discusses in particular the implications of the monist ontological position that interpretivists tend to occupy and the conditions of knowledge production within the hermeneutical circle. These reject the possibility of transcending the context and bring to bear the researcher’s involvement in knowledge production as inevitable but generative. The paper also explicates the still poorly understood concept of ‘intersubjectivity’ as being defining for the interpretivist sensibility and one which directly contests positivist ideals. Interpretive IR scholarship serves as a veritable showcase for interpretive research practice, and points to the growing significance and volume of such scholarship.

Keywords

EN

interpretivism; International Relations; intersubjectivity; contextualism; reflexive methodology

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Jagielloński
• Journal: Teoria Polityki
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 4
• Pages: 93-107

Dates

published

2020

Contributors

author

Xymena Kurowska

• https://orcid.org/0000000201827638

References

• Bevir, M., Hall, I. (2020). “The English School and the Classical Approach: Between Modernism and Interpretivism”. Journal of International Political Theory, first view.
• Bevir, M., Phillips, R. (eds.). (2019). Decentring European Governance. London–New York: Routledge.
• Bevir, M., Rhodes, R.A.W. (eds.). (2016). Routledge Handbook of Interpretive Political Science. London–New York: Routledge.
• Bliesemann de Guevara, B. (ed.). (2016). Myth and Narrative in International Politics: Interpretive Approaches to the Study of International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bliesemann de Guevara, B., Kuhn, F.P. (2015). “On Afghan Footbaths and Sacred Cows in Kosovo: Urban Legends of Intervention”. Peacebuilding, 3(1), pp. 17–35.
• Burawoy, M. (1998). “The Extended Case Method”. Sociological Theory, 16(1), pp. 4–33.
• Buzan, B., Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ciuta, F. (2007). “Narratives of Security: Strategy and Identity in the European Context”. In: R. Mole (ed.). Discursive Constructions of Identity in European Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 190–207.
• Ciuta, F. (2009). “Security and the Problem of Context: A Hermeneutical Critique of Securitisation Theory”. Review of International Studies, 35(2), pp. 301–326.
• Cohn, C. (2006). “Motives and Methods: Using Multi-sited Ethnography to Study US National Security Discourses”. In: B. Ackerly, M. Stern, J. True (eds.). Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–107.
• Cox, R. (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”. Millennium, 10(2), pp. 126–155.
• Epstein, Ch. (2012). “Stop Telling Us How to Behave: Socialization or Infantilization?”. International Studies Perspectives, 13, pp. 135–145.
• Fierke, K.M. (1998). Changing Games, Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Security. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
• Fierke, K.M. (2001). “Critical Methodology and Constructivism”. In: K.M. Fierke, K.E. Jørgensen (eds.). Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 115–135.
• Fierke, K.M., Wiener, A. (1999). “Constructing Institutional Interests: EU and NATO Enlargement”. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(5), pp. 721–742.
• Finnemore, M., Sikkink, K. (1998). “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change”. International Organization, 52, pp. 887–917.
• Fujii, L.A. (2010). “Shades of Truth and Lies: Interpreting Testimonies of War and Violence”. Journal of Peace Research, 47(2), pp. 231–241.
• Fujii, L.A. (2011). Killing Neighbors: Webs of Violence in Rwanda. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Fujii, L.A. (2018). Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and Method. London: Sheed & Ward.
• Gascoigne, N. (2008). Richard Rorty: Liberalism, Irony, and the End of Philosophy. Cambridge: Polity.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
• Hellmann, G. (2009). “Pragmatism and International Relations”. International Studies Review, 11(3), pp. 638–641.
• Hesse, M. (1978). “Theory and Value in the Social Sciences”. In: C. Hookway, P. Pettit (eds.). Action and Interpretation: Studies in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–16.
• Hollis, M., Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, P.T. (2011). The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York–London: Routledge.
• Kondo, D.K. (1986). “Dissolution and Reconstitution of Self: Implications for Anthropological Epistemology”. Cultural Anthropology, 1(1), pp. 74–88.
• Kratochwil, F. (1989). Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kratochwil, F. (2008). “Constructivism: What It Is (Not) and How It Matters”. In: D. della Porta, M. Keating (eds.). Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80–98.
• Kurowska, X. (2014). “Practicality by Judgement: Transnational Interpreters of Local Ownership in the Polish-Ukrainian Border Reform Encounter”. Journal of International Relations and Development, 17(4), pp. 545–565.
• Kurowska, X. (2018). “EU Foreign Policy.” In: H. Heinelt, S. Munch (eds.). Handbook of European Policies: Interpretive Approaches to the EU. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 273–287.
• Kurowska, X. (2019a). The Politics of Cyber Norms: Beyond Norm Construction towards Strategic Narrative Contestation. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.
• Kurowska, X. (2019b). “When Home Is Part of the Field: Experiencing Uncanniness of Home in Field Conversations”. In: B. Steele, H. Gould, O. Kessler (eds.). Tactical Constructivism: Expressing Method in International Relations. London–New York: Routledge, pp. 105–116.
• Kurowska, X. (2019c). “When One Door Closes, Another One Opens? The Ways and Byways of Denied Access, or a Central European Liberal in Fieldwork Failure”. Journal of Narrative Politics, 5(2), pp. 71–85.
• Kurowska, X., Bliesseman de Guevara, B. (2020). “Interpretive Approaches in Political Science and International Relations”. In: L. Curini, R. Franzese (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science & International Relations. London: Sage, pp. 1221–1240.
• Kurowska, X., Tallis, B.C. (2013). “Chiasmatic Crossings: A Reflexive Revisit of a Research Encounter in European Security”. Security Dialogue, 44(1), pp. 73–89.
• Laffey, M., Weldes, J. (1997). “Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations”. European Journal of International Relations, 3(2), pp. 193–237.
• Lynch, C. (1999). Beyond Appeasement: Interpreting Interwar Peace Movements in World Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Lynch, C. (2008). “Reflexivity in Research on Civil Society: Constructivist Perspectives”. International Studies Review, 10(4), pp. 708–721.
• Lynch, C. (2014). Interpreting International Politics. New York: Routledge.
• Lynch, C. (2019). “The Moral Aporia of Race in International Relations”. International Relations, 33(2), pp. 267–285.
• Manners, I. (2002). “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?”. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), pp. 235–258.
• Nagel, T. (1989). The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Neufeld, M. (1993). “Interpretation and the ‘Science’ of International Relations”. Review of International Studies, 19, pp. 39–61.
• Onuf, N. (2013). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. 2nd ed. London–New York: Routledge.
• Oren, I. (1995). “The Subjectivity of the ‘Democratic’ Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of Imperial Germany”. International Security, 20(2), pp. 147–184.
• Oren, I. (2003). Our Enemies & US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Rabinow, P., Sullivan, W.M. (eds.) (1987). Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look. Berkeley: California University Press.
• Schaffer, F.C. (2016). Elucidating Social Science Concepts: An Interpretivist Guide. New York: Routledge.
• Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). “Judging Quality: Evaluative Criteria and Epistemic Communities”. In: D. Yanow, P. Schwartz-Shea (eds.). Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk, NY–London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 89–114.
• Schwartz-Shea, P., Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. New York–London: Routledge.
• Soss, J. (2006). “Talking Our Way to Meaningful Explanations”. In: D. Yanow, P. Schwartz-Shea (eds.). Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk, NY–London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 127–150.
• Taylor, Ch. (1971). “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man”. Review of Metaphysics, 25(1), pp. 3–51.
• Wedeen, L. (2010). “Reflections on Ethnographic Work in Political Science”. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, pp. 255–272.
• Wiener, A. (2009). “Enacting Meaning-in-Use: Qualitative Research on Norms and International Relations”. Review of International Studies, 35(1), pp. 175–193.
• Wiener, A. (2014). Theory of Contestation. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Wiener, A. (2015). “In the Eye of the Beholder: A Sociology of Knowledge Perspective on Norm Transfer”. Journal of European Integration, 37(2), pp. 11–228.
• Wolfers, A. (1952). “‘National Security’ as an Ambiguous Symbol”. Political Science Quarterly, 67(4), pp. 481–502.
• Yanow, D. (2006). “Thinking Interpretively Philosophical Presuppositions and the Human Sciences”. In: D. Yanow, P. Schwartz-Shea (eds.). Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk, NY–London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 5–26.
• Yanow, D., Schwartz-Shea, P. (eds.). (2006). Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk, NY–London: M.E. Sharp.

Identifiers

DOI

10.4467/25440845TP.19.018.11784

Biblioteka Nauki

1195285