Reflexive Solidarity: Toward a Broadening of What It Means to be “Scientific” in Global IR Knowledge

2Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This article shows that the problem of “West-centrism” in the study of International Relations (IR) is synonymous with the problem of the dominance of positivism, a particular version of science that originated in the modern West. How can we open up this double parochialism in IR? The article calls for reflexive solidarity as a way out. This indicates that on-going Global IR projects need to revamp their geography-orientated approaches and instead seek solidarity with other marginalised scholars irrespective of their geographical locations or geocultural backgrounds to build wide avenues in which not only positivist (i.e., causal-explanatory) inferences but also normative theorising and ethnographically attuned approaches are all accepted as different but equally scientific ways of knowing in IR. As a useful way of going about this reflexive solidarity, this article suggests autobiography.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Eun, Y. S. (2022). Reflexive Solidarity: Toward a Broadening of What It Means to be “Scientific” in Global IR Knowledge. All Azimuth, 11(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1024925

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free