| ID | 162636 |
| Title Proper | How and how not to develop IR theory |
| Other Title Information | lessons from core and periphery |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Buzan, Barry |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | This article starts from the fact that there is a substantial gap in terms of International Relations (IR) theory production between the West and the rest. Its aim is to investigate how that gap might be closed, and for this purpose, the article takes a broad view of what counts as theory. Its method is comparative history: to observe how IR theory has developed not just in the West, which is well-studied, but also in the periphery, which is not. The idea is to identify what material conditions and motivations in both locations were associated with the emergence of theoretical thinking about IR, and how and why theoretical differentiations emerged, particularly within the West. It also looks at conditions and circumstances that seem to work against the successful production of IR theory. The article concludes with a brief consideration of IR theory development in China on the basis of the lessons drawn from the history of IR theory development. |
| `In' analytical Note |
Chinese Journal of International Politics Vol.11, No.4; Winter 2018: p.391–414 |
| Journal Source | Chinese Journal of International Politics Vol: 11 No 4 |
| Key Words | International Relations ; IR Theor |