Reassembling and Dissecting: International
Relations Practice from a Science Studies
Perspective
CHRISTIAN BˇGER
European University Institute
FRANKGADINGER
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
What does it take to be an international relations (IR) scholar? IR dis-
courses have tackled this question with focus on very different problems:
the role and function of IR scholars for policy; the (ir)relevance and
impact of IR knowledge and expertise in world politics; disciplinary his-
tory; or in studying IR’s institutions. We argue that all these ‘‘disciplinary
sociology’’ debates struggle with the relation between an internal scien-
tific IR world and an external social context (policy, society). We reject
this distinction and argue that science studies can help us to address these
problems more adequately by treating IR as a scientific practice that is
closely tied to its social environment. The article sets out to explore
science studies’ possible contributions. Based on science studies key as-
sumptions, we develop a heuristic by which the relations between IR and
its environment can be grasped systematically. From this perspective, IR
is pivotally a culture constituted by different domains of practice. Hence,
understanding IR scholars in ‘‘doing IR’’ requires taking into account
their daily and sometimes trivial practices. For instance, writing an article
in IR means much more than only thinking theoretically at a desk. We
systematize the different domains of practices as the articulation of
knowledge claims, mobilizing the world, autonomy seeking, alliance
building, and public representation. ‘‘Being an IR scholar’’ and ‘‘pro-
ducing IR knowledge’’ depends inevitably on these sets of practices and
IR is intrinsically interwoven with its environment through these.
Keywords: IR practice, policy relevance, science studies, Bruno Latour
Introduction: The Disciplinary Sociology Debate
The way the profession remains strangely quiet, almost silenced, [. . .], makes this
a particularly relevant time to enquire into the links between theory and practice
(Steve Smith 2002:233).
Authors’ note: This paper has profited from several discussions. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at
the 46th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2005, and at two work-
shops at Frankfurt University. For insightful comments and ongoing support, we are especially grateful to Ole
Wæver, Iver Neumann, and Gunther Hellmann. For their comments and hints, we would also like to thank Johan
Eriksson, Friedrich Kratochwil, Dirk Peters, and Gerard Holden, as well as the three anonymous reviewers of ISP.
For research assistance, we would like to thank Eric Hower. The usual disclaimer applies.
r 2007 International Studies Association.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
International Studies Perspectives (2007) 8, 90–110.

The relationship between IR and sociology of science is virtually nonexistent.
Sociology of science has concentrated on the natural sciences,[. . .]. A sub discip-
line (IR) within one of the least studied disciplines (political science), therefore
gets no attention from ‘‘professional’’ sociology of science. If sociology of science
were to be applied to IR, a combination of the two could come from the opposite
side (Ole Wæver 1998:691).
International Relations (IR) scholars have (re-)discovered themselves as a relevant
object of study. What has now established as IR’s disciplinary sociology debate
(Holden 2004:451) has triggered research on the history of the discipline (e.g.,
Dunne 1998; Long and Schmidt 2005), the nature of disciplinary knowledge pro-
duction (e.g., Elman and Fendius Elman 2003; Aganthangelou and Ling 2004) and
institutions (e.g., Wæver 2003; J
rgensen and Knudsen 2006) andFmost import-
antlyFon the status of IR in national and global policy processes.
Although a large body of literature has now been produced, this debate suffers
from a too loose and often careless treatment of conceptual questions. How can we
think and speak about and analyze our own discipline thoroughly? While many
analysts have followed the tradition of Stanley Hoffmann (1977) of merely mud-
dling through,
1
the main conceptual inspiration has been that of intellectual history
(e.g., Guzzini 1998; Schmidt 2002). Others have introduced ideas from public pol-
icy studies (e.g., Nincic and Lepgold 2000; Eriksson and Sundelius 2005).
While these conceptual imports and approaches are valuable, we argue in this
article that the concepts and cases of science studies can complement these studies
and help us to advance our thoughts on the discipline. As Ole Wæver (1998) has
stressed, the intellectual field of science studies has been largely ignored by IR, but
it offers promising insights into the praxis and function of the discipline. Further, as
we cannot hope that science studies scholars will decide to study our discipline, we
have to do the job ourselves. This requires a careful exploration of the contribu-
tions that science studies can make to IR.
This paper picks up a conceptual line of science studies to explore and to
illustrate in what ways science studies can advance IR’s disciplinary sociology. We
suggest that from this perspective, a very different picture of the discipline and the
kind of relations with its environment can be developed. We thus address one of the
key issues of disciplinary sociology, the character of the relations of IR to other
actors, their institutions, and discourses, such as politicians, journalists, citizens,
funding agencies, or neighboring disciplinesFin sum, IR’s environment. As the
question of environmental relations directly addresses IR’s role for policy and so-
ciety, as well as the social relevance of the discipline, it is indeed one of the most
fundamental issues, if not the most important one. However, we do not attempt to
present yet another assessment of the relevance of the discipline, but to inquire into
the foundations on which we can set up such attempts.
We proceed as follows: first, we discuss why the IR–environment relation has
been conceived as problematic. Different problem frames can be identified. This
discussion also stresses that the disciplinary sociology debate is much wider then
usually perceived: we are faced with far more then a self-reflexive enterprise of
scholars who do not want to get in touch with the reality of politics. Second, we
argue that these problem frames all stress different facets of the IR–environment
relation, but do not seem to be complementary. Moreover, these frames struggle
with the problem of relating internal and external dimensions. What is missing is a
heuristic by which these thoughts can be combined, integrated, and pushed further.
As we sketch in section three, such a heuristic can be drawn from science studies,
although a revision of some of the current assumptions is necessary. This can be
done, as science studies points us to a different focus, i.e. an emphasis on the
1
Cp. for instance the critique by Wæver (1998), Holden (2002), Schmidt (2002), and Thies (2002).
CHRISTIAN B
GER AND FRANKGADINGER 91