Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR's 'reflexive turn' - and beyond
View / Open Files
Authors
Publication Date
2013-12Journal Title
European Journal of International Relations
ISSN
1354-0661
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
669-694
Type
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Hamati-Ataya, I. (2013). Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR's 'reflexive turn' - and beyond. European Journal of International Relations, 19 (4), 669-694. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066112437770
Abstract
<jats:p> The notion of ‘reflexivity’ has been so intimately tied to the critique of positivism and empiricism in International Relations (IR) that the emergence of post-positivism has naturally produced the anticipation of a ‘reflexive turn’ in IR theory. Three decades after the launch of the post-positivist critique, however, reflexive IR has failed to impose itself as either a clear or serious contender to mainstream scholarship. Reasons for this failure include: the proliferation of different understandings of ‘reflexivity’ in IR theory that entail significantly different projects and concerns for IR scholarship; the equation of ‘reflexive theory’ with ‘critical’ and ‘emancipatory theory’ and the consequent confusion of ethical/normative issues with strictly epistemic/theoretical ones; and the refusal to consider reflexive IR as a ‘research programme’ concerned with empirical knowledge, not just meta-explanation. The development of reflexivity in IR theory as a sustainable cognitive and praxeological effort is nonetheless possible — and still needed. This article suggests what taking the ‘reflexive turn’ would really entail for IR. </jats:p>
Identifiers
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066112437770
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/286099
Rights
Licence:
http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.