Search

The academic study of international relations in South Asia is, for the most part, derivative and stultified. Most university departments rely on outdated and archaic syllabi. It is derivative in that much of what is imparted is drawn from early Amercian international relations scholarship or obtained from the canons of British diplomatic history. Scholarship for the most part remains descriptive, hortatory and atheoretic. The reasons for this aritdity in the study of international relations across the region cries out for an explanation. The answers are complex and are rooted, in part, in the British colonial history of the subcontinent. Most university faculty were trained in the British diplomatic history tradition and were only partially exposed to key currents in American social science scholarship in the sub-field of international politics. At another level, until recently, few individualsof any intellectual calibre, entered the study of international relations as opportunities in the fields of teaching, research and practice were exceedingly limited. Consequently, most individuals simply replicated the work that their mentors imparted and frequently in less sophisticated ways. Finally, policy makers, again until very recently, rarely, if ever, sought the advice of academic specialists. Instead, following the British civil service traditions, preferred their own counsel and relied on diplomatic precdents and practices. All these features are currntly changing as the principal power in the region, India, is now becoming more prosperous. More talented individuals are entering the sub-field, American social science methods are now percolating into university syllabi and increasing numbres of academics have American university degrees. Policymakers are also now more attuned to rely on academics for policy-relevant advice. This paper will explore the changing epistemological bases of international relations scholarship in India and to some degree in the other states of South Asia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main purpose of this paper is to assess how networks have been conceptualized and studied within a select cross-section of the social science literature on transnational networks (TNs). The study of TNs has only recently become a field in its own right. What sparked the scholarly interest in TNs? Researchers (Kriesberg 1997; Smith 1997: 2; Rucht 1999) mark the rise of the field from the mid 1970?s, when there began a series of UN-sponsored conferences on the environment, women?s rights and human rights that was matched by a noticeable surge in the number of NGOs world-wide, particularly those operating within international arenas. The 1990?s brought even more attention to TNs, sparked by the 1992 Earth Summit Conference in Rio, the 1995 World Women Conference in Beijing and the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle. More generally, a number of major trends provide the context for both the emergence of TNs and their study: 1) increasing global integration; 2) an increase in "transnational" problems; 3) converging and diffusing values (such as human rights and consumerism); 4) proliferating transnational institutions; and 5) the rise of information communication technology (Kriesberg 1997; Rucht 1999). The result is a large and rather amorphous body of social science literature that explores various aspects of TNs from a diverse range of analytical perspectives. The conceptual and methodological ?diversity? of TN research simultaneously enriches, complicates and divides the field. Efforts to take stock of what has been said and learned up to now about social networks are warranted and can provide insight into future research on TNs. As such, this paper realizes an interdisciplinary exploration of current thinking on TNs. First, we identify a specific sub-set of recent sociological and political science scholarship from transnationalism studies, migration studies, global civil society (GCS) and transnational social movements (TSM) studies. Then, rather than simply pointing out lines of agreement and debate, we highlight the range of conceptual, theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of TNs. To that end, a version of the ?grounded theory? approach was employed to identify how the idea of networks is invoked in the selected literature. We combed through each article to locate the author?s main conceptual frame for researching and analyzing TNs; the conceptual frames were then grouped into analytical categories. In sum, we found that networks are referred to in the following ways: 1) something that has effects on or connects to a node, 2) a set of linkages and disconnections, 3) a pattern or quantity of flows, 4) a structure, 5) a type of space, and 6) a challenge to existing concepts and methodological approaches. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is global environmental politics? What are the core research questions and findings in this field of inquiry? Where do the disciplinary boundaries begin and end? This article maps out the history and current trends in the field of global environmental politics. To receive a copy of the paper, please email the author at dauvergne@politics.ubc.ca [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]