Talks by Felix Grenier
The recent TRIP reports indicate that the “dialogical turn” identified by Lapid (2003) is probabl... more The recent TRIP reports indicate that the “dialogical turn” identified by Lapid (2003) is probably the next step in the evolution of the discipline. But it is not clear what this turn is about and names to designate it flourish: authors of IR alternatively called such an approach pluralism, ecumenism, amalgam, eclecticism, pragmatism, multiperspectivism, dialogue, integration, synthesis etc. Between and inside these various tendencies, numerous convergences as well as oppositions can be found.
Trying to go beyond the tendency to fight for legitimate appropriation of labels, this paper will focus not on what dialogic internationalists claim they are, i.e. “pluralists”, “prone to dialogue” or “pragmatists”, but on what they actually stand for in regards to the relations that exist, could exist or should exist, between theories or theoretical approaches in IR.
Therefore, following Bernstein for whom pluralism is open to many interpretations (1997: 396), this paper will first attempt to draw a typology of pluralist and dialogic approaches in IR. Then, it will focus on the status of the “dialogical turn” in the discipline, in the context of weariness for the long-lasting debate that opposes positivism and post-positivism. It will attempt to clarify what the dialogical turn is and what is innovative in it. Finally, new disciplinary dichotomies will be underlined, which we think have the potential to become the next disciplinary “Great Debate” in IR.
The past fifteen years have witnessed a remarkable proliferation of studies in IR trying to asses... more The past fifteen years have witnessed a remarkable proliferation of studies in IR trying to assess the nature, history, structure, functioning, internal relations and broad features of the academic discipline itself. There is almost universal agreement that the discipline has been and continues to be characterised by stark imbalances of socio-epistemic power, imbalances typically framed in national or geographical terms — in particular, that theorising in the global discipline has typically revolved around concepts, approaches, debates and problematiques originating in the United States. There seems little reason to challenge this understanding of American “hegemony” in the discipline: it is accurate, significant and informative. But one may nevertheless ask whether it is the only way to conceptualise disciplinary hegemony, or indeed even the most useful. This paper argues that it is neither. It is rather within the transnational confines of (what is often loosely known as) “mainstream” IR theory, and not necessarily of American IR per se, that power is most heavily concentrated within the discipline. Arguing that an adequate understanding of disciplinary hegemony must begin with a close analysis of its characteristic intellectual practices, this paper briefly sketches a possible model for studying some of the characteristic practices of mainstream IR scholarship. It then attempts to undertake a very preliminary analysis of this kind based on the examination of ten of the most-cited journal articles published in the last decade, and ends with some reflections on what we might hope to get out of such an enterprise.
Published works by Felix Grenier
This article provides a state-of-the-art of ‘Reflexive studies on IR’, namely the research litera... more This article provides a state-of-the-art of ‘Reflexive studies on IR’, namely the research literature that has recently questioned the identity, traditional narratives, and conditions of knowledge production in the academic field of International Relations. Empirical accounts of International Relations’ existence make explicit the social and political relations that order the academic field as well as the biases and the myths that are perpetuated in associated scholarly practices and literature. To further our understanding of Reflexive studies on IR, this article delineates a typology of the main perspectives recently developed in this research agenda, namely the geo-epistemic, the historiographical, and the sociological. This typology is a valuable tool for analysis, synthesis, and further engagement. Reviewing these three perspectives also illustrates how Reflexive studies on IR can help scholars and students to extend their critical awareness towards the historical and current conditions of knowledge production, which reflects the understanding of science as a product of complex social interactions.
The constitutive effects of teaching activities on the study of International Relations (IR) and ... more The constitutive effects of teaching activities on the study of International Relations (IR) and on the practice of international relations have generated a long-term interest in approaches to teaching and learning in IR. Recently, a cluster of literature has emerged that focuses on critical pedagogy in IR, which questions traditional relations of power, ideas, and norms in the classroom. However, these inquiries have yet to be systematically connected with reflexivity in IR (i.e., the developing awareness of the diversity, production, and positionality of knowledge). This article proposes that critical pedagogies and reflexivity are mutually reinforcing. It argues that applying reflexivity to teaching activities in IR raises awareness about the social conditions enabling the (re)production of specific understandings of the world. To support this proposition, the article presents and evaluates a trial IR seminar inspired by reflexivity. In this trial seminar, three aspects of reflexivity are developed (i.e., the theoretical, the sociological, and the self- reflexivity), each of which supports critical pedagogy. This article explains how these three perspectives were infused into different trial seminar activities, to varying degrees of success. It also evaluates how the development of the reflexive agenda can be of particular benefit to IR scholars, IR students, and critical pedagogy as a whole.
dans Traité de Relations internationales, Thierry Balzacq et Frédéric Ramel (dir.), 2013
La présente analyse de la discipline canadienne des Relations internationales (RI) s"inscrit dans... more La présente analyse de la discipline canadienne des Relations internationales (RI) s"inscrit dans un champ en rapide croissance généralement qualifié d"études disciplinaires ou études du champ des RI (voir par exemple Acharya et Buzan, 2010;. Cette littérature permet de clarifier les raisons et dynamiques menant à la formation d"une communauté académique et disciplinaire des RI, c'est-à-dire, une communauté intellectuelle préoccupée par l'étude des phénomènes liés aux relations internationales. Deux questions émergent d'une analyse disciplinaire, y inclus dans le contexte canadien : Est-il possible de définir une discipline "essentiellement" canadienne des RI? En d"autres mots, une analyse de « la discipline des RI au Canada », c"est-à-dire de la transposition d"une discipline globale des RI dans l"espace canadien, ne serait-elle pas plus appropriée ? Cette distinction indique la nécessité de réfléchir aux pratiques disciplinaires en RI au Canada en conjuguant des perspectives locale/nationale et internationale/globale. D"autre part, est-il possible de concevoir une discipline réellement "globale" en RI, du moins, dans l"espace canadien? Cette interrogation apparaît nécessaire vu la domination importante qu"opère le champ états-unien des RI sur cette sphère d"études et de recherche et la pluralité des perspectives qu'implique une sphère qui, par sa nature même, se révèle mondiale et plurielle. Vu l"importance de ces questions dans le cadre de notre analyse, celles-ci traverseront l"ensemble de ce chapitre.
ABSTRACT: Calling for genuine and open dialogues between research agendas and theoretical orienta... more ABSTRACT: Calling for genuine and open dialogues between research agendas and theoretical orientations, this article seeks to put “conversations” at the center of the process of discipline-building. Just as Steve Smith declared: “We construct, and reconstruct, our disciplines just as much as we construct, and reconstruct, our world” (2004: 510), we intend to convene researchers in IR to reflect on the way we build and represent our discipline, our object of study and our community’s purposes. Applying discursive analysis and Emanuel Alder’s communitarian constructivist approach to the discipline of IR, this article will particularly discuss the use of mechanisms of labeling, cognitive structuring, and disciplinary debates to the framing of IR itself. It will propose some answers to questions such as: “What is the content and appropriate label of the discipline?”, “Who constitutes the disciplinary community?”, and “What is the legitimate purpose of the discipline?” and finally underlie some questions and contradictions in the way we understand such issues.
Call for papers by Felix Grenier
The Institute for Advanced International Studies at the University Laval (HEI) celebrated its twe... more The Institute for Advanced International Studies at the University Laval (HEI) celebrated its twentieth anniversary in 2014. This represents an exceptional moment to reflect on the past, present and future of International Studies in Québec, the francophone sphere, and beyond, and most particularly to discuss the interdisciplinary evolution of this field of study and research. In the context of interdisciplinary institutions dedicated to graduate education in International Studies, the topics of continuities and discontinuities are particularly important at such points of juncture. For example, the transition from “International Relations” to “International Studies” is promising increasing integration of related disciplines, previously considered unrelated. Up to which point is this interdisciplinary integration can move and mark a departure from the previous field of International Relations? What are the epistemological, ontological, and administrative challenges that this integrative trajectory has generated, is generating and will generate? The goal of this workshop is to share our past experiences and to advance future solutions to these questions.
At the University Laval, the institutional change from the Centre Québécois des Relations Internationales (CQRI) to the Institut Québécois des Hautes Études Internationales (HEI) in 1994, and the following transformations in the HEI education programs, underlines the gradual construction of a field of “International Studies”, which originates from the field of “International Relations”. Beyond this specific case, the challenges of interdisciplinarity in International Studies appear under multiple guises. These challenges are for example associated with the transformations in the object of study associated with International Studies, the connexions between multiple fields of study and research, the specific development in Québec and the francophone sphere, the organization of education programs at multiple academic levels, and the management of academic institutions with a specific interdisciplinary mission in International Studies.
During the workshop, discussions on these perspectives could benefit from a comparative approach as well as epistemological, sociological, and historical analyses. By going beyond the traditional historiography of the academic field of International Relations, this workshop will enable us to situate the history of the HEI and other education institutions dedicated to International Studies in the local and institutional context as well as the major regional and global developments of the field in the last decades. By highlighting the role of the HEI and similar institutions in Québec, Canada, the francophone sphere and beyond, this project will finally echo the increasing interest toward the analysis of specific research institutions, practices, and education programs in the development of the field of International Studies.
Proposals about integration experiences between diverse disciplines in the study and research of major topics such as institutional design, the agri-business field, conflicts associated with natural resources, etc., will be particularly appreciated.
Uploads
Talks by Felix Grenier
Trying to go beyond the tendency to fight for legitimate appropriation of labels, this paper will focus not on what dialogic internationalists claim they are, i.e. “pluralists”, “prone to dialogue” or “pragmatists”, but on what they actually stand for in regards to the relations that exist, could exist or should exist, between theories or theoretical approaches in IR.
Therefore, following Bernstein for whom pluralism is open to many interpretations (1997: 396), this paper will first attempt to draw a typology of pluralist and dialogic approaches in IR. Then, it will focus on the status of the “dialogical turn” in the discipline, in the context of weariness for the long-lasting debate that opposes positivism and post-positivism. It will attempt to clarify what the dialogical turn is and what is innovative in it. Finally, new disciplinary dichotomies will be underlined, which we think have the potential to become the next disciplinary “Great Debate” in IR.
Published works by Felix Grenier
Call for papers by Felix Grenier
At the University Laval, the institutional change from the Centre Québécois des Relations Internationales (CQRI) to the Institut Québécois des Hautes Études Internationales (HEI) in 1994, and the following transformations in the HEI education programs, underlines the gradual construction of a field of “International Studies”, which originates from the field of “International Relations”. Beyond this specific case, the challenges of interdisciplinarity in International Studies appear under multiple guises. These challenges are for example associated with the transformations in the object of study associated with International Studies, the connexions between multiple fields of study and research, the specific development in Québec and the francophone sphere, the organization of education programs at multiple academic levels, and the management of academic institutions with a specific interdisciplinary mission in International Studies.
During the workshop, discussions on these perspectives could benefit from a comparative approach as well as epistemological, sociological, and historical analyses. By going beyond the traditional historiography of the academic field of International Relations, this workshop will enable us to situate the history of the HEI and other education institutions dedicated to International Studies in the local and institutional context as well as the major regional and global developments of the field in the last decades. By highlighting the role of the HEI and similar institutions in Québec, Canada, the francophone sphere and beyond, this project will finally echo the increasing interest toward the analysis of specific research institutions, practices, and education programs in the development of the field of International Studies.
Proposals about integration experiences between diverse disciplines in the study and research of major topics such as institutional design, the agri-business field, conflicts associated with natural resources, etc., will be particularly appreciated.