This article presents findings from the 2014 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project's worldwide faculty survey that speak to recent claims in the Global International Relations (IR) Debate. The expansion of the 2014 TRIP faculty survey to thirty-two countries, including more than a dozen non-Western IR communities, enables an initial empirical assessment of some key questions raised by advocates and detractors of "Global IR." This contribution describes and analyzes scholars' own perceptions of the IR discipline and adds to the empirical literature on the Global IR Debate. In particular, we address three claims: that IR is a Western/American dominated discipline, that geography is the core dividing line in IR, and that there is a division of labor within IR wherein scholars in the West are responsible for theory production while the non-West supplies data and local expertise for theory testing. We believe that these findings shed light both on how the discipline came to be divided between dominant and marginalized discourses and in which areas this division is most embedded and/or ready to be dismantled.

To what extent is International Relations (IR) a globalized discipline? We investigate the geographic diversity of authorship in seventeen IR journals from Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America, and the United Kingdom. Biographical records were collected for the authors of 2,362 articles published between 2011 and 2015. To interpret the data, we discuss how publishing patterns are driven by author incentives (supply) in tandem with editorial preferences and strategies (demand). Our main findings are twofold. First, global IR is fragmented and provincial. All journals frequently publish works by authors located in their own region—but the size of these local clusters varies. Geographic diversity is highest in what we identify as the “goldilocks zone” of international publishing: English-language journals that are globally visible but not so competitive that North American authors crowd out other contributions. Second, IR is being globalized through researcher mobility. Many scholars have moved to pursue their doctoral education and then publish as expats, returnees, or part of the diaspora. They are joined by academic tourists publishing in regions to which they have no obvious ties. IR journals thus feature more diverse backgrounds than it may seem at first sight, but many of these authors were educated in North America, the United Kingdom, and Europe.

No abstract

Several studies have pointed to an unproductive 'division of labor' in theInternational Relations discipline (IR), notably its publication patterns, in which scholars based in a 'core' publish theory-building work while scholars based in a 'periphery' publish mainly empirical, area-oriented, or theory-testing work. The latter would thus mainly act as 'local informants' feeding empirical material on 'their own' country or region into the theorizing efforts of the 'core'. We investigate this argument empirically using the dataset compiled by the Global Pathways (GP) project that studies the content in both 'core'-and 'periphery'based and edited journals. Overall, our findings corroborate the argument about a core-periphery division of labor. Our main findings are threefold: (1) In terms of theory, we find that 'core' journals publish a larger proportion of theory-developing (and statistical) work and a lower proportion of analytical case studies and descriptive work than do 'periphery' journals. Scholars based in the 'periphery' are rarely published in these more theoretical 'core' journals (accounting for just 5.5% of articles in the journals studied here), but the published articles tend to apply theory. The main division of labor is thus not playing out within 'core' journals, but across the 'core' and 'periphery' worlds of publishing. In the 'periphery' journals, we actually find that scholars tend to publish a significant proportion of work using theory. ( 2) In terms of regional focus, we find that all journals and authors tend to have an empirical 'home bias', i.e. focus their empirical work on the region in which they are based, but that this is stronger for 'periphery'-based journals and authors. This provides some confirmation of an unproductive division of labor where 'core' authors publish works about all regions of the globe, while 'periphery' authors have a stronger regional orientation. (3) Finally, we find evidence that some journals and authors -particularly those based in Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia -tend to be more policy-oriented, but we find no conclusive evidence of a core-periphery gap in this context.