Reflexivity in Research on Civil Society: Constructivist Perspectives

Lynch, Cecelia

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.00827.x

Cited by 32 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These differences are also "reflected" in the fact that the terms "reflective" or "reflexive" are used to qualify a wide variety of "things," which adds a confusion as to what a "reflexive ontology" is supposed to look like or what distinguishes the ontological concerns of "reflexive scholarship" from those of other academic For example: 'reflective' (Hoffman 1987;Keohane 1988;Adler and Haas 1992;Linklater 1992); 2 'self-reflective' (Hoffman 1987;Hopf 1998;Steele 2007c;Ackerly and True 2008); 'reflexive' (Neufeld 1993(Neufeld , 1995Cutler 1999;Guzzini 2000Guzzini , 2005Rasmussen 2001;Fierke 2002;Tickner 2006;Pouliot 2007;Steele 2007aSteele , 2007bSteele , 2007cTickner and Tsygankov 2008;Hamati-Ataya 2010, 2011a; 'reflexivity' (Lapid 1989;Neufeld 1993Neufeld , 1995Hopf 1998;Cutler 1999;Guzzini 2000Guzzini , 2005Guillaume 2002;Fierke 2002;Widmaier 2004;Hendershot 2004;Tickner 2005;Pouliot 2007;Steele 2007aSteele , 2007bSteele , 2007cAckerly and True 2008;Lynch 2008;Tickner and Tsygankov 2008; Hamati-...…”

Section: "Reflexivity" What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 social sciences, that IR audiences are not necessarily familiar with. While Frankfurt School scholarship will likely inform the accounts of Critical IR Theorists (Hoffman 1987, Linklater 1992, Neufeld 1993, Feminist, Constructivists and other post-Positivist IR scholars freely refer to Frankfurt-style hermeneutics (Tickner 2005, Lynch 2008), or to the works of Pierre Bourdieu (Pouliot 2007, Eagleton-Pierce 2009, Hamati-Ataya 2010, Leander 2002, Anthony Giddens (Steele 2007a(Steele , 2007b(Steele , 2007c, Ulrich Beck (Rasmussen 2001), or Roy Bhaskar (Patomäki and Wight 2000). And one can also find combinations of two or more of these traditions within the same IR texts dealing with reflexivity (e.g., Guzzini 2000Guzzini , 2005.…”

Section: "Reflexivity" What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is manifested in two different utterances. The first is the notion of 'ethical reflexivity' (Lynch 2008), and the second that of 'emancipatory theory' (Neufeld 1995). In both views, the problem is to provide not only a conceptual link between reflexivity as an epistemic stance and the adherence to For an example of how reflexivity can be used as a methodology to study the relationship between conceptions of facts/values and socio-political/academic agendas, see Hamati-Ataya (2011a).…”

Section: From Knowledge To Emancipationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Hamati-Ataya

2012

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of "reflexivity" has been so intimately tied to the critique of Positivism and Empiricism inIR that the emergence of post-Positivism has naturally produced the anticipation of a "reflexive turn"in IR theory. Three decades after the launch of the post-positivist critique, however, reflexive IR hasfailed to impose itself as either a clear or serious contender to mainstream scholarship. Reasons for thisfailure include the proliferation of different understandings of "reflexivity" in IR theory that entailsignificantly different projects and concerns for IR scholarship; the equation of "reflexive theory" with"critical" and "emancipatory theory" and the consequent confusion of ethical/normative issues withstrictly epistemic/theoretical ones; and the refusal to consider reflexive IR as a "research programme"concerned with empirical knowledge, not just meta-explanation. The development of reflexivity in IR theory as a sustainable cognitive and praxeological effort is nonetheless possible-and still needed.This paper suggests what taking the "reflexive turn" would really entail for IR Introduction: In his 1989 article on the 'Third Debate' in International Relations (IR), Yosef Lapid (1989:249-50) noted, after Mervyn Frost (1986:11), that '[f]or many years the international relations discipline ha[d] had the dubious honour of being among the least self-reflexive of the Western social sciences.' This diagnosis was shared by many scholars who thought it necessary to start reflecting on the epistemic and theoretical premises that subtended the discipline's predominant narratives on world politics. The critique of Positivist (American) IR scholarship has therefore naturally produced the anticipation of a 'reflexive turn' (Neufeld 1991) in IR, and in the early 1990s the view ! 1 was that 'the prospects for the development of theoretically reflexive international relations theory [were] real and significant, while the need for such theory [was] urgent' (Neufeld 1991:2). With the emergence and development of a sustained and coherent metatheoretical critique of Positivist IR, "reflexivity" has, indeed, gained a substantive

show abstract

Section: "Reflexivity" What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: "Reflexivity" What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: From Knowledge To Emancipationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Hamati-Ataya

2012

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples from many developing countries in which there is a strong overlap between the government and academia support these fears but there are steps that can be taken to avoid these pitfalls (Lynch, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible Diplomacy: Scholars as Key Players in Track II Diplomacy

Feigenblatt¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe field of traditional diplomacy has changed very little since the Congress of Vienna in the 19 th century. Globalization, non-traditional security threats, and a changing global landscape require a more flexible diplomacy that includes a wider range of stakeholders such as NGOs, community leaders, and most importantly scholars/academics. Objective The academic freedom enjoyed by scholars allows them to explore policy questions from a scientific perspective Materials and methods the present study follows the grounded theory approach to model development while adopting a largely constructivist paradigm in terms of the nature of diplomacy Result the academic freedom enjoyed by scholars allows them to explore policy questions from a scientific perspective. Thus, scholars have the freedom to explore controversial topics in an environment of respect and professionalism. Discussion Scholars have historically served as the conscience of their generation and also as the keepers and creators of civilization and therefore it is only natural for them to play important roles in public policy Conclusions The integration of the scholarly community into the diplomatic corps of developing countries can reduce the intrinsic asymmetry between the expertise and skills of the ministries of foreign Introducción El campo de la diplomacia tradicional ha cambiado muy poco desde el Congreso de Viena en el siglo XIX. La globalización, las amenazas a la seguridad no tradicionales y un panorama global cambiante requieren una diplomacia más flexible que incluya una gama más amplia de partes interesadas, como ONG, líderes comunitarios y, lo más importante, académicos. Objetivo La libertad académica que disfrutan los académicos les permite explorar cuestiones de política desde una perspectiva científica. Materiales y métodos El presente estudio sigue el enfoque de la teoría fundamentada para el desarrollo de modelos al tiempo que adopta un paradigma en gran parte constructivista en términos de la naturaleza de la diplomacia. Resultados los académicos les permiten explorar cuestiones de política desde una perspectiva científica. Por lo tanto, los 1 Artículo original desarrollado del proyecto "Diplomacia y análisis político" periodo 2017-2019 2 , Ph.D en ciencias políticas, Catholic University of New Spain, Estados Unidos ofeigenblatt@ucne.com

show abstract

“…International Relations (IR) scholarship finds itself today in a situation that is reminiscent of the one in which Max Weber (2004[1918/1919]) found the German academy a century ago, with no clear standards for the definition of the scholar’s relationship to the public sphere and of scholarship’s social and moral role 1 . The International Studies Association’s (ISA) 2007 Annual Meeting, which called on the IR community to reflect on issues of “political involvement,”“scientific detachment,”“moral responsibility,” and “ethical standards” (Tickner and Tsygankov 2008:661), is the institutional manifestation of this current state of affairs, which has recently been questioned or rejected by scholars promoting a more “reflexive” engagement with the commitments that underlie or result from IR’s objectivation of world politics (Smith 2002, 2004; Agathangelou and Ling 2004; Widmaier 2004; Tickner 2006; Ackerly and True 2008; Ish‐Shalom 2008; Lynch 2008). “September 11” and the subsequent US “war on terror” have undoubtedly provided an extraordinary context and material for a critical reflexion on the discipline’s conceptual and practical relationship to its object of study, especially in light of the promotion of the Democratic‐Peace thesis to the rank of official state ideology (Steele 2007; Ish‐Shalom 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%