This book identifies and addresses subtle but important questions and issues associated with the configuration of International Relations as a discipline. Starting with a much-needed discussion of manifold implications and issues associated with pluralism, the book raises important questions, such as where does the field of IR stand in terms of epistemological, theoretical, and methodological diversity. The book also carries out a comparative analysis of the present status of post-positivist IR scholarship in the United States and China.Eun discusses these questions through a close reading of the key texts in the field and by undertaking a critical survey of publishing and teaching practices in IR communities. IR scholars will gravitate to this text that fills many gaps in international political theory.

International Relations (IR), as a discipline, is a western dominated enterprise. This has led to calls to broaden the scope and vision of the discipline by embracing a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives - particularly those outside the Anglo-American core of the West. The ongoing 'broadening IR projects' - be they 'non-Western IR', 'post-Western IR', or 'Global IR' - are making contributions in this regard. However, some careful thinking is needed here in that these attempts could also lead to a national or regional 'inwardness' that works to reproduce the very parochialism that is being challenged. The main intellectual concerns of this edited volume are problematising Western parochialism in IR; giving theoretical and epistemological substance to pluralism in the field of IR based on both Western and non-Western thoughts and experiences; and working out ways to move the discipline of IR one step closer to a dialogic community. A key issue that cuts across all contributions in the volume is to go beyond both parochialism and fragmentation in international studies. In order to address the manifold and contested implications of pluralism in in the field of IR, the volume draws on the wealth of experience and research of prominent and emerging IR scholars whose contributions make up the work, with a mixture of theoretical analysis and case studies. This book will appeal to scholars and students interested in Global IR and promoting dialogue in a pluralist IR.

International Relations (IR), as a discipline, is a western dominated enterprise. This has led to calls to broaden the scope and vision of the discipline by embracing a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives - particularly those outside the Anglo-American core of the West. The ongoing 'broadening IR projects' - be they 'non-Western IR', 'post-Western IR', or 'Global IR' - are making contributions in this regard. However, some careful thinking is needed here in that these attempts could also lead to a national or regional 'inwardness' that works to reproduce the very parochialism that is being challenged. The main intellectual concerns of this edited volume are problematising Western parochialism in IR; giving theoretical and epistemological substance to pluralism in the field of IR based on both Western and non-Western thoughts and experiences; and working out ways to move the discipline of IR one step closer to a dialogic community. A key issue that cuts across all contributions in the volume is to go beyond both parochialism and fragmentation in international studies. In order to address the manifold and contested implications of pluralism in in the field of IR, the volume draws on the wealth of experience and research of prominent and emerging IR scholars whose contributions make up the work, with a mixture of theoretical analysis and case studies. This book will appeal to scholars and students interested in Global IR and promoting dialogue in a pluralist IR.

International Relations (IR) as a discipline is often deemed to be "too Western" centric. It has been argued that much of mainstream IR theory is "simply an abstraction of Western history." In this respect, many IR scholars have called for "broadening" the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over broadening the theoretical and practical horizons of IR, several critical questions remain unclear and under-explored. For example, does IR need to embrace pluralism? If so, how much? To what extent, and in what sense, is IR parochial? Should IR promote dialogue across theoretical and spatial divides? If so, how? Yong-Soo Eun addresses these questions. He undertakes a literature review and an empirical analysis of the extent to which the field has actually become diverse and pluralistic. This investigation considers diversity beyond the current limited focus on the geographical origins of theory. Yong-Soo also draws attention to the mechanisms and processes of knowledge production and transmission in IR. More importantly, he addresses what is probably the most acute issue associated with the "non-Western" IR theory-building enterprise; namely, fragmentation and dialogue. In conclusion, Yong-Soo notes that the role of unsettling the present hierarchical structure of the discipline falls to reflexive individual agents. He argues that in order for their agential power to be more fully harnessed in the opening up of IR, critical "self"-reflection and "collective" empathy and collaboration among marginalised scholars are all essential.

This book identifies and addresses subtle but important questions and issues associated with the configuration of International Relations as a discipline. Starting with a much-needed discussion of manifold implications and issues associated with pluralism, the book raises important questions, such as where does the field of IR stand in terms of epistemological, theoretical, and methodological diversity. The book also carries out a comparative analysis of the present status of post-positivist IR scholarship in the United States and China.Eun discusses these questions through a close reading of the key texts in the field and by undertaking a critical survey of publishing and teaching practices in IR communities. IR scholars will gravitate to this text that fills many gaps in international political theory.

International Relations (IR) as a discipline is often deemed to be "too Western" centric. It has been argued that much of mainstream IR theory is "simply an abstraction of Western history." In this respect, many IR scholars have called for "broadening" the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over broadening the theoretical and practical horizons of IR, several critical questions remain unclear and under-explored. For example, does IR need to embrace pluralism? If so, how much? To what extent, and in what sense, is IR parochial? Should IR promote dialogue across theoretical and spatial divides? If so, how? Yong-Soo Eun addresses these questions. He undertakes a literature review and an empirical analysis of the extent to which the field has actually become diverse and pluralistic. This investigation considers diversity beyond the current limited focus on the geographical origins of theory. Yong-Soo also draws attention to the mechanisms and processes of knowledge production and transmission in IR. More importantly, he addresses what is probably the most acute issue associated with the "non-Western" IR theory-building enterprise; namely, fragmentation and dialogue. In conclusion, Yong-Soo notes that the role of unsettling the present hierarchical structure of the discipline falls to reflexive individual agents. He argues that in order for their agential power to be more fully harnessed in the opening up of IR, critical "self"-reflection and "collective" empathy and collaboration among marginalised scholars are all essential.