Beyond the gap: relevance, fields of practice and
the securitizing consequences of (democratic peace)
research
Christian Bu¨ger
a
and Trine Villumsen
b
a
European University Institute, Badia Fiesolana, Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico di
Fiesole, Italy.
E-mail: Christian.bueger@eui.eu
b
Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353
Copenhagen, Denmark.
E-mail: tv@ifs.ku.dk
International Relations (IR) has cultivated the idea of a gap between the theory and
the practice/praxis of IR. This division into two different spheres of knowledge is
related to the predominant objectivist conception of science in IR, where the
scientist is said to be observing reality from a distance without affecting it.
Poststructuralists have denied that this distinction is meaningful and have even
argued that it is dangerous to be oblivious to the structuring effects science may
have on the social world. This article sets out to avoid further cultivation of the so-
called gap between theory and practice, and instead addresses the question of how
the theories of IR relate empirically to the practices of world politics. We suggest a
theoretical and empirical alternative based on practice theoretical thought. We
argue that researchers’ theories and policymakers practice ‘hang together’ and
require analytical attention. In order to give empirical flesh to the theoretical
discussions and to demonstrate the difference a practice theory approach makes, we
discuss the example of the democratic peace thesis. We lay out how US peace
researchers, the Clinton government and NATO participated in weaving a ‘web of
democratic peace practice’ and stabilizing the thesis as a ‘fact’. We argue that ‘ivory
tower scientists’, US foreign policymakers, and NATO politicians and bureaucrats
hang together in this web and use each other as a resource. As a consequence, the
academically certified version of the democratic peace led to a securitization of
democracy. We conclude that one way to cope with the complexity of science–
politics interactions is to foster reflexive empirical work on researchers’ own
practices.
Journal of International Relations and Development (2007) 10, 417–448.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800136
Keywords: democratic peace; NATO; policy relevance; practice theory; theory and
practice; US Foreign Policy
Journal of International Relations and Development, 2007, 10, (417–448)
r 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 1408-6980/07 $30.00
www.palgrave-journals.com/jird

Introduction: Rethinking IR–Policy Relations
The discipline of international relations (IR) has cultivated the idea of the
existence of a gap between the theory and the practice of IR. This division into
two different spheres of knowledge is related to the predominant objectivist
conception of science in IR, where the scientist is said to be detached from the
object of study. IR poststructuralists have denied that this distinction is
meaningful, and have zoomed in on the structuring effects science may have on
the social world. In general, however, the theory/practice nexus of IR has been
an undervalued issue. Yet, recently it has been resurrected: a new wave of
publications (Jentleson 2002; Lepgold and Nincic 2002; Walt 2005; Ish-Shalom
2006) has called for re-thinking the relation. The International Studies
Association (ISA) made responsible scholarship and the IR–politics relation
the theme of the 2007 annual meeting and the poststructuralist position was
prominently re-stated in Steve Smith’s (2004: 500) provocative ISA presidential
address which argued that IR had ‘sung the world of 9-11 into existence.’
This article sets out to avoid further cultivation of the so-called gap between
theory and practice and instead addresses the question of how the theories of
IR relate empirically to the practices of world politics. Even though we largely
agree with Smith’s presentation of the poststructuralist argument, that IR
theories co-constitute and theorists contribute to the constitution of the world
they study, we find that it lacks a specific theoretical underpinning and —
perhaps most importantly — empirical case studies to back the philosophical
claims.
In order to fill the void left in IR, we suggest a theoretical and empirical
alternative based on ‘practice theoretical’ thought, which refines and adds
precision to the poststructuralist position. We suggest that researchers’ theories
and policymakers’ practice ‘hang together’ and require analytical attention. To
elaborate on this alternative, we discuss the ways in which the science–policy
relation has been addressed in IR and security studies so far. We argue that two
imaginaries have structured current debates: an imaginary of a ‘gap’ and a
poststructuralist-inspired imaginary of an ‘all-encompassing text’. We suggest
that both conceptualizations suffer from shortcomings and lead to a set of
‘blind spots’: practical patterns of interaction between research and practice
and the specificity of social science contributions have been underestimated,
and the normative dilemmas that researchers face have been formulated in too
universal terms. Hence, we argue for the formulation of a third imaginary.
Through the adoption of practice theory — specifically the work of Pierre
Bourdieu and Bruno Latour — we develop the notion of a ‘dense web of
practices’ in which scientists and politicians partake. This approach calls for
empirical analyses of concrete science–practice interactions and allows us to
study dilemmas as linked to webs of practices.
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 10, Number 4, 2007
418