Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations

European Journal of International Relations

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 627-646

  Tickner, Arlene B ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES   (Colombia)

Author keywords

core periphery relations; domination; International Relations theory; knowledge production; the discipline of International Relations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883648599     PISSN: 13540661     EISSN: 14603713     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1354066113494323     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abend G.Styles of sociological thought: Sociologies, epistemologies, and the Mexican and US quests for truth.Sociological Theory. 2006;24 (1): 1-41.
2. Non-Western International Relations Theory. Acharya ABuzan B, ed. London: Routledge; 2010:.
3. Agnew J.Know-where: Geographies of knowledge of world politics.International Political Sociology. 2007;1 (2): 138-148.
4. Asher T,Guilhot NWorld Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides. Paris: International Social Science Council, Unesco; 2010:341-343.
5. Aydinli E,Matthews J.Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary International Relations.International Studies Perspectives. 2000;1 (3): 289-303.
6. Basalla G.The spread of Western science.Science. 1967;156:611-622.
7. Behera NC.Meta narratives and subaltern voices: Role of the Ford Foundation in South Asia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association (ISA); 2004Montreal, Canada; 2004.
8. Behera NCNon-Western International Relations Theory. Acharya ABuzan B, ed. London: Routledge; 2010:92-116.
9. Biersteker TJInternational Relations Scholarship around the World. Tickner ABWæver O, ed. London: Routledge; 2009:308-327.
10. Bilgin P.Thinking past 'Western' IR.Third World Quarterly. 2008;29 (1): 5-23.
11. Bilgin PThinking International Relations Differently. Tickner ABBlaney DL, ed. London: Routledge; 2012:27-47.
12. Blaney DL,Inayatullah NThe Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Reus-Smit CSnidal D, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008:663-674.
13. Bourdieu PHomo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1988:.
14. Cardoso FH.The consumption of dependency theory in the United States.Latin American Research Review. 1977;12 (2): 7-24.
15. Cardoso FH,Faletto EDependencia y desarrollo en América Latina. Ensayo de interpretación sociológica. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores; 1978:.
16. Cheah P.Universal areas: Asian studies in a world in motion. Paper presented at the 'Place, Locality and Globalization' conference, Center for Global International and Regional Studies; 2000University of California, Santa Cruz; 2000.
17. Chen C-C.The absence of non-Western IR theory in Asia reconsidered.International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 2011;11 (1): 1-23.
18. Cox WS,Nossal KRInternational Relations Scholarship around the World. Tickner ABWæver O, ed. London: Routledge; 2009:287-307.
19. International Relations - Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought. Crawford RMAJarvis DS, ed. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 2001:.
20. Friedrichs J,Wæver OInternational Relations Scholarship around the World. Tickner ABWæver O, ed. London: Routledge; 2009:261-286.
21. Gingras Y,Mosbah-Natanson SWorld Social Science Report 2010. Knowledge Divides. Paris: International Social Science Council, Unesco; 2010:149-153.
22. GuzziniS (2007) Theorising International Relations: Lessons from Europe's periphery. DIIS Working Paper, No. 2007/30.
23. Guzini S.Theorizing International Relations.European Journal of International Relations. 2013;19 (3):.
24. Hamati-Ataya I.The 'problem of values' and International Relations scholarship: From applied reflexivity to reflexivism.International Studies Perspectives. 2011;13 (2): 259-287.
25. Hagmann J,Biersteker TJ.Beyond the published discipline: Towards a critical pedagogy of international studies.European Journal of International Relations. 2012;:.
26. Hanafi S.University systems in the Arab East: Publish globally and perish locally versus publish locally and perish globally.Current Sociology. 2011;59 (3): 291-309.
27. Haraway DCyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge; 1991:.
28. Harding SSciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2008:.
29. Hoffmann S.An American social science: International Relations.Daedalus. 1977;106 (3): 41-60.
30. Inayatullah N,Blaney DLInternational Relations and the Problem of Difference. New York: Routledge; 2004:.
31. Jackson PTConduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London: Routledge; 2011:.
32. Jones BGDecolonizing International Relations. Jones BG, ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 2006:1-19.
33. Keim W.Social sciences internationally: The problem of marginalisation and its consequences for the discipline of sociology.African Sociological Review. 2008;12 (2): 22-48.
34. Keim W.Counterhegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology.International Sociology. 2011;26 (1): 123-145.
35. Latour BScience in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987:.
36. Latour BWe Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1993:.
37. Latour BPandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999:.
38. Losego P,Arvanitis R.Science in non-hegemonic countries.Revue d'Anthropologie de Connaissances. 2008;2 (3): 343-350.
39. Makdisi KInternational Relations Scholarship around the World. Tickner ABWæver O, ed. London: Routledge; 2009:180-190.
40. Maliniak D,Peterson S,Tierney MJ.TRIP around the world: Teaching, research, and policy views of International Relations faculty in 20 countries.The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, The College of William and Mary. 2012;:.
41. Mignolo WCultures of Globalization. Jameson FMiyoshi M, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1998:32-53.
42. Mouton JWorld Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides. Paris: International Social Science Council, Unesco; 2010:63-67.
43. Nayak M,Selbin EDecentering International Relations. London and New York: Zed Press; 2010:.
44. Nossal KRInternational Relations: Still an American Social Science?. Crawford RMAJarvis DS, ed. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 2001:167-186.
45. Parmar IFoundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power. New York: Columbia University Press; 2012:.
46. Raj KRelocating Modern Science: Circulation and the Construction of Knowledge in South Asia and Europe, 1650-1900. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2007:.
47. Said EWThe World, the Text, and the Critic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1983:.
48. Saurin JDecolonizing International Relations. Jones BG, ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 2006:23-42.
49. Shani G.Toward a post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and critical International Relations theory.International Studies Review. 2008;10 (4): 722-734.
50. International Relations and Non-Western Thought. Shilliam R, ed. London: Routledge; 2011:.
51. Smith S.The discipline of International Relations: Still an American social science?.British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 2000;2 (3): 374-402.
52. Tadjbakhsh SNon-Western International Relations Theory. Acharya ABuzan B, ed. London: Routledge; 2010:174-196.
53. Tan SSInternational Relations Scholarship around the World. Tickner ABWæver O, ed. London: Routledge; 2009:120-133.
54. Tickner ABInternational Relations Scholarship around the World. Tickner ABWæver O, ed. London: Routledge; 2009:32-52.
55. Thinking International Relations Differently. Tickner ABBlaney DL, ed. London: Routledge; 2012a:.
56. Tickner AB,Blaney DLThinking International Relations Differently. Tickner ABBlaney DL, ed. London: Routledge; 2012b:1-24.
57. Claiming the International. Tickner ABBlaney DL, ed. London: Routledge; 2013:.
58. International Relations Scholarship around the World. Tickner ABWæver O, ed. London: Routledge; 2009a:.
59. Tickner AB,Wæver OInternational Relations Scholarship around the World. Tickner ABWæver O, ed. London: Routledge; 2009b:328-341.
60. World Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides. Paris: International Social Science Council, Unesco; 2010:.
61. Wade CDMundialización de la ciencia y cultura nacional. Lafuente AElena AOrtega ML, ed. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid-Doce Calles; 1993:605-617.
62. Wæver O.The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations.International Organization. 1998;52 (4): 687-727.
63. Wæver OIR Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Dunne TKurki MSmith S, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007:288-308.
64. Wæver OThinking International Relations Differently. Tickner ABBlaney DL, ed. London: Routledge; 2012:48-71.
65. Wæver O,Tickner ABInternational Relations Scholarship around the World. Tickner ABWæver O, ed. London: Routledge; 2009:1-31.
66. Waltz KNTheory of International Politics. New York: Random House; 1979:.