| Summary/Abstract |
Have the major international relations paradigms declined as much as has been asserted? Some scholars view paradigmatic theory and theory in general as on the decline as hypothesis-testing now apparently dominates published research. Such scholars argue that professionalization provides disincentives to theorize. This article demonstrates that these arguments are based on perceptions rather than on the data, on speculation about what professionalization incentivizes and how that influences research production. This article examines several datasets to consider these assertions. The article addresses what is being published, how scholars see themselves and the field, and what is being cited. Because scholars are publishing more articles compared to in the 1980s, the changes that some scholars have observed about the decline of certain approaches and the rise of others are relative and not absolute. A closer examination of the data reveals that what is perceived to be the normal pattern of theoretical output was an outlier in the mid-1990s and that pure theory development has always been a niche enterprise. To explain the trends, rather than stressing the impact of professionalization of the discipline, the article proposes an alternative process that focuses less on structure and more on agency. Social movements aimed to increase the publication of diverse theories and methodologies may have simply been effective: new journals are publishing more and more diverse articles, fostering a wider range of work. The article concludes by exploring the implications of the patterns of theory development in published IR research.
|