2019
DOI: 10.1177/1755088219879177
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A pragmatic methodology for studying international practices

Abstract: Practice turn marks an important advancement in International Relations theorizing. In challenging abstract meta-theoretical debates, practice theorizing in International Relations aims to get close to the lifeworld(s) of the actual practitioners of politics. Scholars from different positions such as constructivism, critical theory, and post-structuralism have critically interrogated the analytical framework of practices in international politics. Building upon these works, we are concerned with a question of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It did not uncover a hegemonial elite control behind that instrument – otherwise, the Baroque Orders targeting only societally high-standing people may have been a better candidate for evolutionary selection. By focusing on the function of the diplomatic system, the epistemological problem of identifying relevant ‘practitioners’ and their untransparent intents was likewise avoided (Sundaram and Thakur, 2021). The state award’s high ‘diffusion potential’ was also not based on inexplicable ‘notions of efficiency or justice or progress’ (Strang and Meyer, 1993: 497); nor was it about a ‘fitness for survival’ denoting a tautological adaptation to its environment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It did not uncover a hegemonial elite control behind that instrument – otherwise, the Baroque Orders targeting only societally high-standing people may have been a better candidate for evolutionary selection. By focusing on the function of the diplomatic system, the epistemological problem of identifying relevant ‘practitioners’ and their untransparent intents was likewise avoided (Sundaram and Thakur, 2021). The state award’s high ‘diffusion potential’ was also not based on inexplicable ‘notions of efficiency or justice or progress’ (Strang and Meyer, 1993: 497); nor was it about a ‘fitness for survival’ denoting a tautological adaptation to its environment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, pragmatists call for us to bracket the 'truthfulness' of knowledge claims in lieu of praxis. Instead of aiming for accuracy in our representations, what we should do instead is to problematise and revalorise the practice of science as a vocation, with the end-goal of contributing to a more democratic society (Abraham and Abramson, 2015;Miettinen et al, 2009;S Sundaram and Thakur, 2019). I argue that these responses give rise to two interrelated problems.…”
Section: Openingmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…4 Whether as epistemology, ontology, or transcending such dualistic separations between theories of knowledge and theories of action in the first place, the thinking of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910), John Dewey (1859–1952), and George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) as key authors for its Classical and Richard Rorty (1931–2007) for its Neopragmatist version have been advanced frequently and, representing a rather diverse pluralistic approach, in different ways in the study of world politics. More specifically, sharing a commitment to the importance of action, interaction, and practice, pragmatist thinking has been invoked to challenge positivism and move beyond in epistemological and methodological terms (Abraham and Abramson, 2017; Bauer and Brighi, 2009; Cochran, 2002; Franke and Weber, 2012; Friedrichs and Kratochwil, 2009; Grimmel and Hellmann, 2019; Kratochwil, 2007; Ralston, 2013; Rytövuori-Apunen, 2005; Schmidt, 2014; Sil and Katzenstein, 2010; Sundaram and Thakur, 2019; Zaiotti, 2013). In ontological terms, Pragmatism has been advanced to explain action beyond the dualism stemming from the logic of consequentialism versus logic of appropriateness in IR (Franke and Roos, 2010; Hellmann, 2009; Hofferberth and Weber, 2015; Jackson, 2009; Pratt, 2016; Schmidt, 2014).…”
Section: Reconsidering Global Governance From a Pragmatist Perspectivementioning
confidence: 99%