International relations (IR) in Yugoslavia and post-Yugoslav states

Ejdus, Filip; Kovačević, Marko

doi:10.1057/s41268-021-00236-w

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first explanation put forward by the special issue to explain CEE's relative absence in the 'worlding IR' conversation lies in the local contexts of IR production in the region. This point is most clearly presented in the paper focusing on the history of IR institutionalisation in (post)Yugoslavia (Ejdus and Kovačević 2021). With a field of IR struggling to emancipate itself from other disciplines such as law and political science up to this day, the chronology of IR institutionalisation -or lack thereof -in (post)Yugoslavia follows the timeline and faces similar challenges to those of IR in bigger European countries such as France or Italy (see Friedrichs 2004).…”

Section: Local Factors: the Late Institutionalisation And Low Interna...mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In the last two decades, different transnational factors such as the neo-liberalisation of criteria of research evaluation and the globalisation of 'worlding IR' discourses have led to the expanding homogenisation of IR publishing practices around the world (see Alejandro 2021a). Such processes could also explain the growing diversification of IR areas of inquiry and theoretical frameworks in CEE (Ejdus and Kovačević 2021), as well as the increase of publications in English by scholars from the region (Bátora et al 2012).…”

Section: Local Factors: the Late Institutionalisation And Low Interna...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do international relations scholars not care about Central and Eastern Europe or do they just take the region for granted? A conclusion to the special issue

Alejandro

2021

J Int Relat Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I have very little knowledge of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). I have attended an academic conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 2019, been on a romantic gateway to Zagreb in 2013, shared an office with a specialist of Moldova and Crimea for a year, and my partner is Turkish. As a non-expert outsider, sharing my reading experience about whether the provincialising ambition of the special issue 'worked' for me -that is, whether it successfully decentred my perception or not -makes me somewhat of a reflexive test subject. Another reason why I may have been invited to conclude this special issue relates to my interest in questions of knowledge production and my experience studying the discipline of International Relations (IR). I have researched different questions the special issue addresses. I investigated how to make IR a less parochial/Eurocentric field of study -by probing the conditions of production and internationalisation of the discipline in Brazil and India (Alejandro 2018b). I worked to show that 'European IR' goes beyond what is produced in the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries (Alejandro 2017) -by co-editing a book series that aims to deuniversalise and historicise European transnational traditions in IR Theory (Jørgensen et al. 2017). I explored the conditions for formulating critiques that produce something other than the problems they seek to denounce (Alejandro 2021b). And so, I have tried to write this conclusive essay from this outsider/connoisseur position. 2In this contribution, I review the special issue in light of the broader debates it contributes to. I structure this conclusive article around the two goals set up in the special issue's introduction: 1) investigating how CEE has been used 'in the scholarship of politics and international relations in order to account for the relative silence about CEE in the debates on "worlding IR"', and how knowledge about and from CEE has been used in the discipline more generally; 2) exploring 'what provincializing the discipline from CEE might look like' (Mälksoo 2021b). How can we explain CEE's relative absence in the 'worlding IR' conversation and how has CEE been used in IR instead?This question emerges out of four decades of questioning IR's unequal institutionalisation around the world, which hinders its capacity to produce knowledge capable of explaining the diversity of sociopolitical phenomena in different contexts and potentially contributes to the (re)production of an unfair socio-political order. To engage such issues, IR scholarship started showcasing IR production in different countries/regions in an exercise sometimes referred to as 'mapping the discipline' (Holden 2002; Kristensen 2015). This special issue takes as a starting point the general lack of interest for CEE in this debate.Apart from a few initiatives (see Drulák 2009;Drulák et al. 2009 as well as Thümmler (2014 for the influence of emigres scholars on the global thinking about the international), CEE seemed to have fallen between the cracks of a conversation structured ...

show abstract

Section: Local Factors: the Late Institutionalisation And Low Interna...mentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Local Factors: the Late Institutionalisation And Low Interna...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do international relations scholars not care about Central and Eastern Europe or do they just take the region for granted? A conclusion to the special issue

Alejandro

2021

J Int Relat Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Of Love and Frustration as Post-Yugoslav Women Scholars: Learning and Unlearning the Coloniality of IR in the Context of Global North Academia

Stavrevska

Lazić

Musliu

et al. 2023

International Political Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This collective discussion brings together six women scholars of and from the post-Yugoslav space, who, using personal experiences, analyze the dynamics of knowledge production in international relations (IR), especially regarding the post-Yugoslav space. Working in Global North academia but with lived experiences in the region we study, our research is often subjected to a particular gaze, seeped in assumptions about “ulterior” motives and expectations about writing and representation. Can those expected to be objects of knowledge ever become epistemic subjects? We argue that the rendering of the post-Yugoslav space as conflict-prone and as Europe's liminal semi-periphery in the discipline of IR cannot be decoupled from the rendering of the region and those seen as related to it as unable to produce knowledge that, in mainstream discussions, is seen as valuable and “objective.” The post-Yugoslav region and those seen as related to it being simultaneously postcolonial, postsocialist, and postwar, and characterized by marginalization, complicity, and privilege in global racialized hierarchies at the same time, can make visible specific forms of multiple colonialities, potentially creating space for anti- and/or decolonial alternatives. We further make the case for embracing a radical reflexivity that is active, collaborative, and rooted in feminist epistemologies and political commitments.

show abstract

Upholding Hierarchies of Knowledge Production: Mundane Obstacles to Global International Relations

Vogel,

Džuverović,

Tripathi

et al. 2024

International Studies Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debates about global international relations (IR) have been ongoing for over a decade, yet academic practice in meaningfully cooperating with Global Southern scholars has changed little. Against the backdrop of growing scholarly concerns about global inequality in knowledge production, this forum takes stock of the search for global IR and examines the academic practices and structures that hinder its progress. The contributions highlight numerous obstacles, including structural and material inequalities between researchers and institutions, visible hierarchies in funding, and seemingly mundane issues such as language barriers, stigma, stereotypes, and data ownership. Written by both Global Southern and Global Northern scholars, this forum aims to provide a balanced contribution to the growing debate about what truly global IR scholarship could look like. We argue that the search for global IR is not merely a debate about theoretical and epistemological plurality in the discipline but one with real-world ramifications. Global order at multiple levels is shaped by policies and actions underpinned by various types of data. The data collected, its agents, and the resulting knowledge are foundational components of decision-making in global politics.

show abstract

International relations (IR) in Yugoslavia and post-Yugoslav states

Cited by 3 publications

References 44 publications

Do international relations scholars not care about Central and Eastern Europe or do they just take the region for granted? A conclusion to the special issue

Do international relations scholars not care about Central and Eastern Europe or do they just take the region for granted? A conclusion to the special issue

Of Love and Frustration as Post-Yugoslav Women Scholars: Learning and Unlearning the Coloniality of IR in the Context of Global North Academia

Upholding Hierarchies of Knowledge Production: Mundane Obstacles to Global International Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About