A Political Analysis of International Studies: Who Gets What, When, and Why,

Abstract

I have been asked to reflect upon the condition of the field of international studies at the threshold of the 1980s: where we are, how we got here, and where we are headed or should be headed. Candidly, I'm not sure that I'm the right guy for this assignment, for several reasons. First, while the use of the term 'we' is probably a useful convention to enhance the sense of community across the vast sea of international studies and specialists, and certainly reflects a feeling of goodwill at this conference, the population of the international studies 'community,' as I've come to know it, actually consists of many hundreds of sects, tribes, families, and one-man schools of thought, each of which has only a passing interest, if not outright disdain, for the others. Lacking an accepted general theory, or even a body of competing theories (in spite of the best efforts of anthology editors to describe the field as a battleground of contending approaches), I have come to the unhappy view that international studies is not a field at all but merely a domain of human interaction.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Dec 01, 1979
Accession Number
ADA095443

Entities

People

  • Steven J. Rosen

Organizations

  • RAND Corporation

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Autonomy

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Behavioral Research
  • California
  • Communities
  • Corporations
  • Employment
  • Language
  • Materials
  • Organization Theory
  • Personnel Management
  • Psychological Theory
  • Schools
  • Social Sciences
  • Specialists
  • Systems Approach
  • Test Methods
  • Universities
  • Ussr

Readers

  • Asian Economic Studies
  • Military History of the United States in the 20th Century.
  • Theoretical Analysis.