This book identifies and addresses subtle but important questions and issues associated with the configuration of International Relations as a discipline. Starting with a much-needed discussion of manifold implications and issues associated with pluralism, the book raises important questions, such as where does the field of IR stand in terms of epistemological, theoretical, and methodological diversity. The book also carries out a comparative analysis of the present status of post-positivist IR scholarship in the United States and China.Eun discusses these questions through a close reading of the key texts in the field and by undertaking a critical survey of publishing and teaching practices in IR communities. IR scholars will gravitate to this text that fills many gaps in international political theory.

Offers perspectives from both the Anglosphere and Asia, due to the author's dual positionality Includes valuable research about the developing field of IR in China and implications for the field Provides a helpful "state of the discipline" from a scholar uniquely attuned to the ways that ongoing development of institutional structures is causing a shift

Autorentext

Yong-Soo Eun is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Hanyang University and the Editor-in-Chief of the Routledge series, IR Theory and Practice in Asia . His work has been published in journals including Review of International Studies ; PS: Political Science and Politics ; International Studies Perspectives ; and International Political Science Review . He has also written and edited books, including Regionalizing Global Crises . Yong-Soo is broadly interested in IR theory, philosophy of social science, Foreign Policy Analysis, and the international politics of the Asia-Pacific region.

Inhalt

1. A 'Pluralist Turn' in IR?.- 2. Where does IR stand in terms of diversity?.- 3. What is at stake with moving IR toward a pluralistic discipline?.- 4. What kind of pluralism should we pursue and how can it be achieved?.- 5. Conclusion: Pluralism and reflexivity.