Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 3: IR in Close Up
3.3 IR Journals, Paradigms of IR and Issues of Epistemology
Table 1.11: A list of influential IR Journals
Source: TRIP Survey Maliniak et al (2009:49).
171
On the subject of journals related to IR, as displayed above, the following observation is brought afore. It is agreed that “there is hardly any consensus with regards to the best journals, beyond the fact that every scholarly community in the survey ranked International Organization, as the top IR journal” (Maliniak et al 2009:49). South Afrikan participants at 88% interestingly, gave it the highest rating. Reasons for this, are disappointedly not provided but it would have been interesting for the author of the study, to have been able, to take note of them.
If peer reviewed journals define the state of knowledge in a field, then IR is not a single discipline.
American based political science journals such as APSR, AJPS and JOP, are predictably more prominent in the United States, than elsewhere. The divergence of opinion, regarding the European journals, is even greater: Millennium is ranked as the 3rd most important journal in S.A and is listed, as one of the top 4 journals by 24% of British IR scholars; yet this same journal is apparently unread and unrated, in Hong Kong and Singapore and is only considered, to be in the top 4, by only 3% of US scholars (Maliniak et al 2009:50).
As further speculated below:
Perhaps the biggest transatlantic disconnect revolves around the British International Studies Association’s flagship journal “Review of International Studies”, which is mentioned by 47% of U.K scholars (and 53% of New Zealand readers), but only 4% of U.S scholars. The conflicting assessments of JCR may be driven, by the relative popularity of quantitative methods in the USA, Israel and Ireland, as compared to the UK, Australia, SA and New Zealand (Maliniak et al 2009:50).
In addition to all the above
It is noticed that within the United States IR community, there is some movement, among the top journals. APSR rises, from position 6 to position 4. It is assumed, that this might be as a consequence of publishing more IR research, over the past 6 years and because the new editor, is a prominent IR scholar, Ronald Rogowski. World Politics is headed, in the opposite direction, probably because it is publishing less IR (when it publishes at all) and continues its decline from number 4 in 2004 (37%), to number 5 in 2006 (30%) to number 6 in 2008 (29%). The European Journal of International Relations maintains a solid reputation, among American IR scholars and remains locked, at number 9, on the list. There are two non-peer reviewed publications, in the top 10 journals, Foreign Affairs, which holds steady at around 30% and Foreign Policy, which has improved from 2004 (14%) to 2006 (16%) to 2008 when 20% of American scholars, listed it as a top 4 journal.
172
For the author of this study it is interesting to note, how much respect, is given to the top ranked journals, by all the participating countries, especially because South Afrika (the only Afrikan country), registered the highest amount of interest at 88%, regarding the International Organization Journal. In posing the question, of how much of Afrocentric or perhaps Africanist’s IR scholar’s work feature, in this particular journal, perhaps such a question may assist, in explaining such a high percentage.
Given the limited space set for this study, that question may, at best given the confines of this study, remain food for thought. A note here may be highlighted, that the majority of these highly ranked journals, appear to be headquartered, in the West, specifically in America. A trend here should be noted of IR (at least in the contemporary phase), being an overly American didactic dish, served to the World community. May Afrocentricity have any say, in all the above? Well, that remains to be seen, as this study progresses.
In stemming from the following background above, the following remark as paraphrased below, by Maliniak et al (2007:15) stipulates that
there is no hegemonic paradigm, within the discipline of IR, at least not as reflected, in the articles being published, in the major journals. Instead, IR scholars continue to employ a wide variety of paradigms and theories, to guide their research. We may have normal science, taking place within specific paradigms, in other words, but there is little sign, of any particular paradigm, establishing a dominant position, in a Kuhnian sense (Kuhn 1970).
Finally with the future of IR in mind, after having made mention of paradigms of IR (which included Realism, Idealism, Liberalism, Historical Structuralism and Critical Theory) the author of this study, thought it important, to record some comment, towards the findings regarding epistemology of IR scholars. Epistemology, to be understood here as being “Theory of the method or grounds of knowledge” (Fowler and Fowler, 1964: 408). An important finding, by
173
Maliniak et al (2007:17) seems to be, that unlike with the paradigms of IR, in as far as its epistemology is concerned, Positivist research, appears to be dominant, in the present IR scholarly community (refer back to Table 1.3).
Moreover according to the findings, a trend is noted which indicates that IR scholars, associated with this category, instead of declining, their popularity in the contrary, seemed to be on the rise.
This finding thus enforces the reason, why the author of this study, had to reserve a word regarding epistemology, because of what its possible implications, for the future of IR entailed.
Though a Positivist epistemological approach, is defined as “The theory that social and indeed all forms of enquiry should adhere strictly to the methods of the natural sciences.” (Heywood, 2007:456), in the context of this study, the following disclaimer has been expressed
Our definition for Positivism, which we elaborate in the codebook, would likely not pass muster with philosophers of science; however, we attempted to capture the meaning of Positivism as it is used in the IR discipline. The language in the codebook reads: We code articles as positivist if they implicitly or explicitly assume that theoretical or empirical propositions are testable, make causal claims, seek to explain and predict phenomena, assume that research is supported by empirical means, and aspire to the use of a scientific method. Generally, these articles present and develop theory, derive hypotheses from their theory, and test them using data (empirical observations from the world). However, we code an article as Positivist, even when it does not explicitly employ the scientific method, if scientific principles are used to judge the validity of a study or the author is defending a concept of Social Science that uses these methods to establish knowledge claims. We also code an article as positivist if it describes, a scientific research project – such as POLITY, COW, KEDS, or TRIP-and/or explains coding rules and evidence collection procedures. Although these articles do not test hypotheses, make causal claims, or use evidence to make inferences, they clearly are part of a positivist research agenda (Maliniak et al (2007:17).
The comment below provides details to support the abovementioned observation
American IR scholars are more likely than academics from other countries, with the exception of Israel and Singapore, to describe their work as positivist, although Ireland and Singapore are close behind the United States. A majority of academics from the U.K, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, reported that their research was either non-positivist or post-positivist, while
174
only 35% of U.S respondents, said their research, could be categorized as such. The conventional wisdom, suggested by the TRIP researchers, is that evidence of a substantial epistemological divide, exists among IR scholars; with the deepest cleft being between the American academy and IR scholars, in the United Kingdom, Australia and South Afrika (Maliniak et al (2007:17).
So what may be the reasons, which may support such a rise of positivist thought? A response to this question is partly explained by mention of “a decline in atheoretic articles, that appear frequently in the 1980’s” (Maliniak et al, 2007:17). So in the affirmation that the “TRIP faculty survey provides strong evidence that IR, in the United States is overwhelmingly positivist (and the demographic data, suggests that it will become even more positivist as older scholars retire), but the survey data, actually understates the extent, to which the positivist epistemology, dominates journal publications” (authors emphasis) (Maliniak et al, 2007:16). With specific percentages at 58% in 1980 to 90% in 2006.