PhD Project Proposal Science, Expertise, and the Security ... · PhD Proposal: Peter Marcus...

PhD Project Proposal

Science, Expertise, and the Security Strategies of Rising Powers

Peter Marcus Kristensen

Table of contents

Introduction 1 Puzzle and disposition 1 Background 1 Peaceful Rise – science and expertise in the grand strategy of a rising power 2

Literature review – security studies and rising powers 3 Rising powers 4 Non-western IR 4 Sociological approaches to knowledge production 5

Research design and chapter outline 6 Chapter 1. Puzzle and disposition 7 Chapter 2. Theorizing security expertise 7 Chapter 3. A methodology to map social networks 7 Chapter 4. Mapping networks of security expertise 8 Chapter 5. The organizational and institutional setup 10 Chapter 6. The security strategy and policymaking process 11

Conclusions and contributions 12

Proposed supervisor 12

Outcome and feasibility 12

Bibliography 13

Proposed schedule 19

Proposed budget 20

PhD Proposal: Science, Expertise, and the Security Strategies of Rising Powers

1

Introduction

Puzzle and disposition How do rising powers mobilize intellectual resources in their security strategies? What is the role of knowledge production for rising non-Western powers? What kinds of knowledge do they demand and from what agencies? This PhD proposal examines the role of security expertise in the formulation of national security strategies in Brazil, China, and India in the post-Cold War period. My main theoretical puzzle is whether the seemingly similar macro- and geopolitical environment of rising powers generates specific dynamics of intellectual innovation. It theorizes the knowledge/power nexus in a practical and micro-sociological way, with particular theoretical attention to linkages between different types of knowledge producing agencies and the formulation of national security strategies. In my former research, I have focused on the academic production of security knowledge in China (Kristensen and Nielsen 2010) but I have since realized the importance of theorizing the continuum from the disciplinary and theoretical knowledge forms of academia through the more practical and applied modalities of think tanks to policymaking, because various agencies tend to be involved in fashioning of security strategies. Therefore, this PhD proposal introduces to International Relations a theoretical framework based on the sociology of knowledge that draws particular attention to micro-level networks and inter-personal linkages, the organizational relations between policymakers, think tanks, and universities as well as macro-political factors. The theoretical argument pursued is that sociological and social network theories of knowledge production must be incorporated, in addition to semiotic and materialist perspectives, in order to understand the national security strategies of rising powers.

The different levels of the model are operationalized in a comparative case study design that triangulates quantitative and qualitative methods. At the micro-level, it applies ethnomethodological interview methods and network analytical methods inspired by actor-network-theory. Structural features are studied using statistical methods from social network analysis. My academic contribution—in studying rising power strategies from the perspective of knowledge production—is aimed at the growing International Relations literature on security practitioners, epistemic communities, and the epistemic power of knowledge producing agencies and technocratic elites on security strategies. My main motivation, however, is to acquire more knowledge about non-Western perspectives on international relations. How new and diverse players in world politics understand security is crucial to our understanding of the security policy and behavior of these future powers and our navigation in a post-Western world. The comparative insights into Brazil, China and India’s security policy produced by this research proposal are thus relevant to both scholars and policymakers who wish to understand security in a world where the production truths and knowledge is no longer a privilege of the West.

Background World politics is entering a post-Western stage. The political and economic rise of third world countries and the relative decline of Western great powers is transforming world politics from Western-centered to multi-centered. A key feature of this change is the geopolitical rise of non-Western countries, sometimes referred to as the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China). These emerging powers are showing aspirations toward greater activism and leverage on the global stage, but their rise is shrouded in uncertainty because former third world countries such as China, India and Brazil bring different cultures, political systems, and histories of colonialism onto the stage. For this reason, and because Russia is arguably not a ‘rising’ power, I have selected the three cases of Brazil, India, and China. A key security dilemma for these rising non-Western, and in some cases non-democratic, powers is how to pave the road the great power status. Knowledge production is a crucial—but often overlooked—part of the capacity building to fulfill such aspirations, yet it tends to be pooled in the furry concept of ‘soft power’ strategies (Nye 2004; and for example the literature on China's soft power Bell 2009; Glaser and Murphy 2009; Kurlantzick 2007; McGiffert 2009; Mingjiang 2008; Sheng 2010). Growing ambitions in Brasilia, Delhi, and Beijing has led to a high demand for foreign policy advice, and yet there is little

PhD Proposal: Peter Marcus Kristensen

2

research about the knowledge base of foreign policy making in these newly emerging powers. If the scientific discipline International Relations, and its sub-discipline security studies in particular, is indeed “an American social science” (Hoffmann 1977; Wæver 1998; Smith 2000) serving American and Western interests where does that leave rising non-American and non-Western powers? Although some have argued that “there is no non-Western International Relations theory” (Acharya and Buzan 2007, 2010), there is evidence that some rising powers have made an effort to develop their own visions of the world and corresponding IR theories or what could be called ‘practice theories’. For example, Chinese IR scholars have discussed how to construct a particularly Chinese School of International Relations, which in some ways resonates with the government’s call for a ‘Harmonious World’ and ‘Peaceful Rise’ (see Hu 2005). I have previously studied the case of China with a particular focus on the relationship between rising power and academic knowledge production (Kristensen and Nielsen 2010), and the section below focuses primarily on findings related to the Chinese case, how these demand further research, and why a comparative setup is necessary to do so. It also serves as an illustration of the subject matter, or dependent variable, of the thesis: the general security orientation known as ‘grand strategy’ (e.g. P. Kennedy 1992; Posen and A. L. Ross 1996) or ‘strategic culture’ (e.g. C. Gray 1981; Johnston 1995; Klein 1986) and not, that is, a specific technological policy area like nuclear strategy. Unlike the literature on grand strategy and strategic culture, which has been criticized for its lack of a framework for empirical analysis and its reified notion of culture (Neumann 2005), I suggest a focus on the practices of different security agencies, think tanks, policymakers, academic experts, and how they employ different security rationalities in the formation of grand strategy of a rising power.

Peaceful Rise – science and expertise in the grand strategy of a rising power During the past decade, Chinese policymakers have launched several new strategic concepts such as Peaceful Rise and the Confucian-inspired Harmonious World in opposition to Western discourses on a ’China threat’. Various actors from the broader Chinese security network have been involved in the formulation of new ideas on security. Various experts from universitities and think tanks have been directly involved in the fashioning of China’s new strategic concepts.1 Chinese military and intelligence analytics are recovering ancient Chinese strategic classics and debate how to put them into practice (Scobell 2002). The Chinese academic IR community is allocating substantial attention and resources to construct a particularly Chinese school, often with the explicit intention of supporting the hypothesis of China’s peaceful rise (Qin 2007; Ren 2008; Yan 2008; Yiwei Wang 2007, 2009). As two observers note, Peaceful Rise “provides an example of how new foreign policy ideas and strategies can come from outside the formal, central government bureaucracy, and underscores the growing relevance of think-tank analysts and university-based scholars.” (Glaser and Medeiros 2007, 291). It may not be surprising that rising powers with growing international interests and ambitions demand more instrumental, policy-relevant, and area-specific knowledge forms from security experts at think tanks. More puzzling, however, is the demand for theoretical and normative visions of world order for their strategy formulation—as exemplified by China’s Peaceful Rise, Scientific Development and Harmonious World strategies.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 Some of the most famous examples are Wang Huning who served as dean at Fudan University and now is director of the Policy Research Office of the Party Central Committee, and considered one president Hu Jintao’s closest advisors and one of the architects of China’s soft power strategy. Zheng Bijan from the Central Party School, a government think tank, who was the original architect behind the concept ‘Peaceful Rise’. Due to the problematic connotations of ‘rise’, the concept later became Peaceful Development before it was rejected in favor of Harmonious World. Hu Jintao put forward Harmonious World to explain the Chinese vision for the world (Hu 2005). Harmonious World explicitly draws its inspiration from the ancient Chinese culture of harmony and its recent revival in philosophy and international relations, for example that of Zhao Tingyang (Callahan 2008). The architects behind the Harmonious World policy are widely considered to be president Hu Jintao and Yu Keping, a professor at Peking University and deputy director of the Compilation and Translation Bureau of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (Glaser and Medeiros 2007, 294; Callahan 2008, 758).


3

What is remarkable about the Chinese case is that most parts of the Chinese security network—from scholars at universities and think tanks to policymakers—seem to have aligned their resources to explain the world why China will rise peacefully. It is tempting to conclude that this common telos is the automatic product of China’s geopolitical rise or authoritarian government directives, yet closer analysis shows that the relation between these actors is far from hierarchical but rather a networked web of national and international, government, military and civilian actors (Kristensen and Nielsen 2010). Despite their common telos, the Chinese security network is debating the means to ensure the peaceful rise of China, and even if this is the correct term. Networks consisting of both policymakers, bureaucrats, civil activists, intellectuals, and scholars have combined variegated scientific discourses—Western ideas on complex interdependence as well as ancient Confucian philosophy—to build “soft power with Chinese characteristics” (Glaser and Murphy 2009).

Also interesting for further research is the important role played by ancient cultural and intellectual resources in this political reassurance strategy towards its neighbors and the West. Part of the intellectual revisionism builds on a negation of what is considered to be ‘Western’ concepts such as anarchy, conflict and power politics and is also stimulated by the increasing popularity of civilizational concepts such as Greater China and Confucian harmony (Callahan 2004, 2008). These alternative representations take an indigenous rather than universal or global stance by devising civilizational and national discourses; they are not theories, strategies or political visions but Chinese theories, strategies or political visions. Similar tendencies can be traced in other rising non-Western powers. Among Indian policymakers, “reference to Ashoka, Buddha, and Gandhi continues to be a diplomatic catchphrase.” (Upadhyaya 2009, 79) and scholars turn to ancient philosophers such as Kautilya and Asoka in order to understand Indian security strategy (Bandyopadhyaya 2003; Zaman 2006). There are indications of a revival of “Indian ways of knowing” composed by a non-violent ethos (Behera 2007). Brazilian scholars and policymakers are emphasizing “Brazilian concepts” and are “particularly concerned with the absolute need to view and think IR through a Brazilian prism” (Cervo 2008; Ferreira-Pereira and Resende 2010). There is room for further examinations of the dynamics behind these quests for alternative security strategies that expose the civilizational nature of future great powers.

A comparative analysis of the use of security expertise in the formulation of security strategy in three different rising powers can serve to examine: (1) Networks: How do the BRICs mobilize their national security networks around common projects, like the ‘peaceful rise of China’? That is, how do different rising powers assemble networks of security experts with various security rationalities. How do debates and disagreements between different network actors affect this process, and do varying degrees of freedom of expression among the BRIC countries explain the homo- or heterogeneity in outcome? What knowledge forms are demanded from these agents: applied, instrumental, theoretical, or others? (2) Institutions: What is the institutional environment of security studies? What actors are being recruited in the security network the different cases, only government officials and researchers from governmental think tanks, or are university scholars and even civil activists or public intellectuals involved? What is the relation between state institutions and the use of expert advice, how do democratic and authoritarian rising powers use security experts? (3) Strategy: How they are used in the formulation of national security strategies. How is the development of intellectual capacities and science policy related to security strategy?

Literature review – security studies and rising powers

The existing research drawn upon in this research proposal can be organized into three clusters: (1) research on rising powers, (2) research on non-Western perspectives on international relations, (3) and the literature on security knowledge production and strategy formulation.


4

Rising powers Much attention in security studies is being paid to rising powers and global power transitions, particularly the relative decline of the US (Ikenberry 2008; Layne 2009; Zakaria 2008) and the growing economic, military, and political clout of non-Western countries (Khanna 2008; Mahbubani 2008) known as the BRICs (an acronym coined by Goldman Sachs 2003). However, the majority of the security literature on rising powers is guided by materialist-realist power transition and power parity theories (Gilpin 1981 and; Organski and Kugler 1981 received more cites than ever in 2009 and 2010, respectively. For a review and critique, see S. Chan 2008). It is guided by the classical realist question of rising power revisionism: will emerging powers integrate into economic, financial, political institutions, and the existing world order, or try to revise it (the tension between rising and status quo powers, or what classical realist Carr 1939 called haves and have-nots and Morgenthau 1948 called revisionist and status quo power; is now found in its neoclassical version in Schweller 1994, 1999; Christensen 1996b; Zakaria 1999). In line with the neoclassical realist research program, a range of studies have opened the black box of domestic policymaking processes and national interest formation in the formulation of grand strategy, for example in China (Christensen 1996a; Deng and Fei-Ling Wang 2005; Fewsmith and Rosen 2001; Garver 2006; Hao and Hou 2009; Lieberthal 2007; Nathan and R. S. Ross 1998) where there has also been some kremlinology-style research on Chinese think tanks to gain knowledge about future Chinese foreign policy-making (Gill and Mulvenon 2002; Glaser and Saunders 2002; Medeiros 2004; Naughton 2002; Shambaugh 1987, 2002; Wortzel and Scobell 2004). This literature studies rising power centers, like this research proposal, but tends to apply deductive frameworks based on universal and materialist assumptions that are not sensitive to the comparative differences between rising powers and their ways of knowing and conceptualizing security strategy. Simply put, they are looking at power and ‘traditional’ security but cannot see its variations.

Non-western IR There is a growing body of research that addresses the above-mentioned discursive revisionism, counter-hegemony, and attempts to develop non-Western perspectives on IR. In fact, critical and reflectivist IR seems strangely tantalized by the idea of non-western IR and recent years have witnessed more edited volumes on the topic than ever (Acharya and Buzan 2010; Lizée 2011; Shilliam 2010; Tickner and Wæver 2009; International Studies Review Symposium 2008 (4); International Political Sociology Forum 2009 (3); International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 2007 (3)). It seems that the radicals of the periphery—who tend to receive most of the attention in this ‘thinking past the West’ literature (Bilgin 2008)—in their own peculiar way confirm what critical ’post’-hyphenated IR scholars have long insisted about the conceptual apparatus in International Relations: concepts like the state, anarchy, sovereignty, and international are not universal, but contingent and Western. This literature is sensitive to alternative ways of knowing and conceptualizing security but remains single-case oriented, specific, and thus perhaps too sensitive to differences and radical otherness. This sensitivity is most extremely embodied in the literature on “vernacular security” in Indonesian villages (Bubandt 2005) or Cambodian temples (Kent 2006). Most studies of non-Western security concepts furthermore tend to focus on the conceptual and discursive level, while it remains atheoretical on the question of how knowledge production relates to the political-strategic level. Simply put, this literature sees the variation and differences but is not looking at power and ‘traditional’ security. This thesis should not be confused with a postmodern critique of ’Eurocentrism’ or ’Western hegemony’, instead it follows the argument of actor-network-theory that ”dispersion, destruction, and deconstruction are not the goals to be achieved but what needs to be overcome. It’s much more important to check what are the new institutions, procedures, and concepts able to collect and to reconnect the social.” (Latour 2007, 11). It studies how emerging powers are trying to assemble new modes of order and ways of thinking about security that may or may not be radically different from existing western ones. The literature on non-Western security is no doubt useful to the present project, but in order to know more about alternative ways of conceptualizing security, there is a need move


5

from the fact that such differences exists to their nature. In this task both of the literatures above are relevant but the main theoretical framework I propose to theorize the link between security expertise and the political-strategic level is found in the sociological literature on knowledge production.

Sociological approaches to knowledge production The sociology of science is a broad and diffuse research field that encompasses scholars from Marx and Mannheim to Foucault and Bourdieu (for an overview, see Camic and Gross 2004; Stehr and Meja 2005). The part introduced in this research proposal addresses questions at the interplay of science and policy-making, and could be called science-policy or policy-science. It addresses questions on the use of scientific advice in policymaking and the democratic accountability of experts (Jasanoff 2005; Maasen and Weingart 2005). For example, how the advisory process can rarely be restricted to technical issues that enlighten decision-makers prior to making decisions, but politics can become scientized (by asserting that there are certain value-free and systematic methods for dealing with it, and only these) while science can become politicized (when shared epistemes are created and achieve standing in the political realm) (Jasanoff 1994, 1996); Do policymakers value expertise because it improves policy decisions or simply because it lends authority to their preferences or to signal capacity to make sound decisions? (Boswell 2009); Does society speak back to science with demands of applied and relevant knowledge forms also known as mode-2 knowledge? (Gibbons et al. 1994). Also relevant to the study of how policymakers in the three cases use expert advice are comparative studies of expert cultures (Jasanoff 1986) and, to some extent, comparative studies on think tanks (Stone and Maxwell 2005). It should be noted, however, that the empirical focus of this literature has primarily been Western democracies, and thus the question of variation in political systems and mechanisms for political accountability demands further research when applying it to the cases of Brazil, India and China. This dimension can benefit from research on the relationship between social science and state-building (Wagner and Wittrock 1991b, 1991a). Although its empirical focus is also Europe, it is sensitive towards the interaction between different intellectual traditions and state-building projects and how coalitions form between researchers and policy actors when their respective research programs and policy programs become mutually reinforcing. This policy-science literature is particularly useful for the analysis of institutional environments of advisory, that is, relations between policy and expert institutions at the meso- and macro-level, but it offers little help for the analysis of micro-level interactions and the network relations among security actors. The micro-analysis, I suggest, can benefit from methodological developments in Science and technology studies (STS). STS is another field under the broad umbrella of the sociology of science but distinguishes itself from policy-science by studying specifically the production, rather than use, of scientific knowledge. STS is more united by its research questions and methods than its theories. STS research focuses on the production of scientific truths in its most immediate local and social context to show how scientific results are reached through contingent and sometimes coincidental social processes (see the summary in Diesing 1991). Most work has been done on natural and technological sciences, that is, in laboratories (Knorr-Cetina 1995; Latour 1987; Latour and Woolgar 1986) and it has only recently been introduced to the study of social science research, and remains almost absent in IR (Büger and Gadinger 2007). The literature I propose to integrate into the study of security knowledge production in rising powers is the micro-sociological and ethnomethodological research associated with actor-network-theory because it provides a range of tools generally applicable to map networks and trace associations while at the same time having its origin in the study of knowledge production (Latour 2007; Law and Hassard 1999). The methodological focus on the local practices of security experts ties well onto recent developments in security studies. Recently, it has been argued that ”security studies needs a sociological analysis of its workings” (Wæver 2010, 649; see also Wæver 1998; Büger and Gadinger 2007). And critical security scholars have turned their attention to the role of security analysts (Bigo 2002; Huysmans 2006). This literature conceptualizes security as a social practice and focuses on various types of security practitioners and


6

experts—scholars as well as professionals—and relates to the ‘practice turn’ in IR (Neumann 2002; see also Adler and Pouliot 2011). Knowledge production is at the center of their mapping of networks of security analysts, particularly how various forms of expertise such as ‘social statistics’ (Bigo and Guild 2005) or ‘theory’ (Villumsen 2008) put experts in a position of authority as primary actors to identify strategies to address security problems (see also Büger and Villumsen 2007; D. Kennedy 2002). To follow the sociological line of research in the context of this study involves tracing how agencies that possess different security rationalities and knowledge forms try to establish authority and build alliances with other agencies, as, for example, when conflicting Chinese elites use expert advice in support of their own preferred policy. Also relevant here is the research on “epistemic communities” and “practice communities” that addresses the epistemic power of knowledge producing agencies and technocratic elites on policy formulation (Adler 2005, 2009; Adler and Haas 1992; Haas 1992, 1997). The claim of the sociological line of research is that networks of security experts, by virtue of their expertise and knowledge production, are thus involved in defining (in)security, a micro-level process which has been largely neglected by the more discursively oriented security theories (e.g. Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde 1998). There are some parallels, though. In the same way that “securitization” as a speech act initiates a process of closure and decisionism while “politicization” is a process of contestation, openness, and conflict (Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde 1998), I argue that ‘scientization’ can be considered an alternative process of closure, if successful. However, with grand strategy as well as other politicized issues, “there is typically no single universally agreed upon, correct outcome to these sorts of assessments. Incoherence, not consensus, is the normal epistemological condition in many domains of policy-relevant knowledge.” (Jasanoff 2005). In such cases, scientists can no longer stand of secured platforms of knowledge. In sum, critical and reflectivist security scholars have increasing turned to microsociological studies of the practices of security experts. However, they have focused mainly on non-traditional security issues—such as migration, human security, terrorism, environmental security—and left the analysis of war, power politics, rising powers, and grand strategy to traditional realist security studies. This empirical division of labor is not fruitful and may be one of the reasons why the American mainstream that takes a traditionalist and state-centric perspective on security has thus far paid little attention to critical security research. This thesis aims to contribute to the critical security literature while at the same time entering the empirical domain of traditionalists.

Research design and chapter outline The purpose of the research design is to operationalize the main research question into a viable methodological and empirical research strategy. The main research question can be dissected into five sub-questions that are allocated a chapter each:

How do rising powers mobilize security expertise in the formulation of national security strategies?

Chapter 1. Puzzle and disposition

The theoretical and methodological dimensions

Chapter 2. How can security expertise be studied theoretically? Chapter 3. How can security expertise be studied methodologically?

The empirical dimensions

Chapter 4. How have local networks of security experts been assembled in the three cases the post-cold war period? Chapter 5. How have the organizational and material bases of security experts and their access to policymaking

developed in the three cases the post-cold war period? Chapter 6. How have security experts contributed to the formulation of national security strategies in the three

cases the post-cold war period?


7

Chapter 1. Puzzle and disposition The thesis will unfold its overall argument in six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the puzzle. Chapters 2-3 ask how to study security expertise theoretically and methodologically. Chapter 2 outlines the theoretical framework inspired by sociological theories of expertise. Chapter 3 develops a methodology to study social networks. It synchronizes micro-sociological theory with an ‘interactionist’ methodology inspired by ethnomethodology to analyze qualitative interviews and study scholars, researchers and policymakers at the micro-level (Garfinkel 1967). Chapters 4-6 ask the empirical question how do rising powers mobilize security expertise in the formulation of national security strategies? The main argument proceeds by mapping (1) the local context of security practitioners and their network positions, then moves through (2) the institutional and organizational environment of universities, think tanks, and policy institutes to (3) the policymaking level of national security strategy formulation.

Chapter 2. Theorizing security expertise Where most studies of non-Western security concepts tend to be overly focused on the conceptual and discursive level, this PhD proposal emphasizes how the construction of new security strategies and concepts is also a process of building institutional coalitions and informal networks. It focuses on the social dynamics involved in building the security networks that formulate security strategy and alternative strategic concepts, i.e. how emerging powers mobilize intellectual resources. Its theoretical framework is inspired by the third literature outlined above, sociological approaches to knowledge production. In the anti-reductionist spirit of microsociology, it takes the dynamics among security researchers and practicioners as point of departure, rather than the macro-level of the balance of power or foreign policy discourses. It aims not to reduce these developments to the workings of macro-social entities, class struggles, anti-colonialism, political authoritarianism, or geopolitical balances of power. Theoretically, it thus challenges both the materialist argument that knowledge production is a product of similar macro- and geopolitical environments (‘every great power needs a vision of world order’) as well as the discursive argument that sees it as reaction to Western hegemonic discourses. Indeed, China, India, and Brazil share some similarities with regard to geopolitical position (expanding foreign policy interests and influence) material bases (growing GDP and investment in science), and, in part, colonial histories. But it is pertinent to set up a comparative framework that takes into account how state-building, foreign policy behavior, expert culture, political culture and organization, degrees of idea import from the US/West vis-à-vis indigenous philosophies, and other such factors may affect intellectual innovation in rising powers and the kind of knowledge produced (see for example the variables in Wæver 1998; Breitenbauch 2008; Breitenbauch and Wivel 2004). For example, despite some macro-level similarities, Brazil and India do not display the same explicit intellectual revisionism in the direction of a distinctly non-Western outlook that China does. Different institutional setups with different distances between knowledge producing agencies and policymakers may also affect the knowledge produced: Indian security studies which are largely isolated from policymaking are also more critical and peace-oriented than the instrumental and technological Chinese security network that is more closely connected to policymaking. This is also the case in Brazil, and South America in general, where close relations between the state and science has led to a focus on practical knowledge forms (lo práctico) that are useful to policymaking (Tickner 2008).2 In studying this connection, it draws on methodological tools from the micro-sociological and network-oriented sociology of knowledge (Collins 1998; Latour 1987, 2007; Latour and Woolgar 1986).

Chapter 3. A methodology to map social networks Social network methods have seen a revival in International Relations scholarship in recent years

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 Others have shown that closeness to power produced a rationalist social science in the United States while distance from power has produced more critical, reflectivist, and historicist approaches in Europe (Hoffmann 1977; Wæver 1998).


8

(Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery 2009; Hafner-Burton and Montgomery 2006; Lazer 2011; Ward, Stovel, and Sacks 2011). It is (almost too) obvious for a discipline that has both ‘inter’ and ‘relations’ in its name to engage in a dialogue with network methodology that conceptualizes power as a product of relations, associations, and in-betweenness rather than as a characteristic of units and their capabilities. Despite growing interest, social network analysis (SNA) has found only a narrow audience among formal modelers and large-n researchers. Mainstream applications use network analysis to study bargaining power among connected actors and the social capital assigned to nodes in the form of access, brokerage, and exit options (Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery 2009; Hafner-Burton and Montgomery 2006; Lazer 2011; Maoz 2010; Maoz et al. 2005). These approaches are concerned with network centrality as the quantity and quality of communicative associations between actors. This thesis aims to introduce network analytics to reflectivist IR. Social network analysis is widely used in communication studies and the vocabulary of social network analysis is not completely alien to discourse analysis.3 Another strand of network analytics is actor-network-theory (ANT). ANT is not a theory about the social but a methodological perspective on how actor-network are formed, reproduce themselves, evolve, or disintegrate. It differs from the formalistic SNA applications by focusing on the productive and definitional power in the assembling of networks in the first place, as exemplified the idea that those ‘who are powerful are not those who “hold” power in principle, but those who practically define and redefine what “holds” everyone together’ (Latour 1986, 273). ANT is primarily concerned with ‘translations’: the practice of network-building where agents enroll others into a network by problematizations and the deployment of ‘interessement devices’, that is, by making other actors accept the problem, align with the network project, and enroll as allies. Translation, in other words, involves the strategies through which an actor identifies other actors and arranges them in relation to each other (Callon et al. 1983)—the alignment of security experts to support China’s Peaceful Rise strategy being a case in point. The strategic use of discourses to recruit members and forge common identities into a coherent network plays an important role in this process. This approach makes ANT particularly relevant for the analysis of how emerging powers build security networks. As a theory about controversies, it studies how some interactions end up being stabilized at the expense of others and how network centers and peripheries are constructed. At stake is the right to define how, when, by whom and to what extent science will be integrated into solution of security problems (and who will frame these problems?). Such questions straddle the line between science and politics, theory and practice, truth and power. Any attempt to answer them must address the boundary drawings of where the role of science ends and politics and policy begins. Attempts are made, probably differently in the three cases, to draw clear lines between science and politics. But rather than participating as part in it, these boundary struggles should be the subject of analysis.

Chapter 4. Mapping networks of security expertise This chapter applies the theoretical framework and the network methodology on the empirical cases. It analyzes (1) the associations and groupings among security experts in the three cases, and (2) the kind of knowledge and conceptual assemblages they produce. The mapping of the security networks of the BRICs starts by following the trace of three types of agents: scholars at universities, researchers at think tanks, and technocratic-bureaucratic elites in government institutions. In the mapping of expert cultures in the three cases, the analysis focuses on what ties security experts together. As opposed to the following chapter on institutional setting, this one applies a thoroughly micro-sociological methodology and an “interactionist interviewing” method (Denzin 1989; Gubrium and Holstein 1997, 2003; Järvinen and Mik-Meyer 2005). Thus I follow the ethnomethodological argument that social interaction can only be studied in relation to the interactive methods employed by actors themselves to create meaning and maintain reality (Garfinkel 1967). The appreciation of meaning making processes, in addition to meaning,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3 The idea of nodal points as central concepts that tie together a discourse, for example, is a central concept in SNA.


9

derives from ethnomethodologically inspired social constructivism (Berger and Luckmann 1967; Blumer 1969; Garfinkel 1967). Interactionist methodology studies the procedures producing social order rather than order per se; or, in other words, the meaning making rather than the meanings of Brazilian security experts. The idea is that as security experts interact over time, they create particular ways of talking, thinking, and interacting. Being a Brazilian security expert involves seeing the world in a particular way, to draw on a common body of knowledge, and present oneself in socially appropriate ways. These cultural practices constitute network membership and demarcate other networks. Following ANT and ethnomethodology, I will rely primarily on personal in-depth interviews to map connections and networks. The main empirical source will be local interviews with researchers, scholars, and policymakers/bureaucrats (which is basically the same in China). As should be clear by now, the focus of this research proposal is the how, not what, of security strategy formulation, that is, the mapping of networks and meaning making. Concerning the “openness of purpose” (Kvale 1996, 127), however, the immediate purpose of the interviews will be to talk to Brazilian researchers and policymakers about Brazil’s security strategy, while implicitly studying the meaning making and network connections employed in this effort. This calls for a combination of structure (predetermined themes) regarding the former and room for agency (a more open and unstructured approach) regarding the latter. I thus expect to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with a question guide that works to balance the sociological framework in its focus on form with the IR/security content. The data collection for this chapter will be the most time consuming, but also the key empirical contribution of the thesis. At a minimum it entails fieldwork in Brazil and India, since I already did some research that might be relevant for the China case (interviews with 27 scholars and think tank researchers), which could be supplemented by telephone interviews. These interviews have provided me with a solid network among some of China’s most prominent foreign policy advisors (Qin Yaqing, Wang Jisi, Wang Yizhou, Yan Xuetong, Li Bin, and many others) and thus potentially to policymakers and bureaucrats. In the other two cases, I expect to utilize the network of Centre for Advanced Security Theory (CAST) where I have been affiliated the past two years (e.g. Navnita Behera in India). Taking a micro-level and qualitative perspective on networks does not mean that one should not study the quantitative and formalistic characteristics of networks, however. For example, the study of networks among security experts can benefit from visualizations of linkages to international networks. The image below shows the network of authorships in leading academic IR journals in the 2000s:


10

This type of network analysis provides an example of how to analyze associations and information flows in an academic security network using quantitative data.4 The network shows a predominance of European and North American authors in leading security and IR journals, and that the majority of cooperation in terms of co-authorships is trans-Atlantic (as indicated by the lines). The security experts of Brazil, India, and China are weakly integrated into this particular international expert network. The method can be further developed to study which actors—in the traditional sense of states, institutions, people and actors as concepts, semiotic constellations, or technologies—are most central to the information flows, who sets the discursive terms for security, what is the relation between developed and developing world? In addition to this, it is interesting to study the publications in the three cases at hand, how far do associations and links extend from national network centers and how the three cases relate to each other? There are indications of highly nationalized security networks that have historically been decoupled from global security networks. This may have added to the trend of developing particularly non-Western perspectives on security.5 Data for such quantitative analyses can be harvested at online databases.6 Thus, quantitative methods can work as a useful supplement to the qualitative network analysis. I have only recently started to explore quantitative network analytics and expect to take courses on this if granted a PhD scholarship.

Chapter 5. The organizational and institutional setup This chapter analyzes the formal institutional setup of security agencies: university systems, think tank structure, and policymaking institutions. It relies on secondary sources. It will perform a comparative analysis based on the growing number of single-case studies of national IR communities. An entire issue of International Studies has recently been devoted to Indian IR (Alagappa 2010; K. Bajpai 2010; Basrur 2010; Mallavarapu 2010; Mattoo 2010; Mohan 2010; Paul 2010; Sahni 2010; Sharma 2010) and several other books and articles are available (Kanti P. Bajpai and Mallavarapu 2005; Behera 2004, 2007, 2009; Misra and Beal 1980). IR in China, too, is well covered in terms of institutional setup and development (G. Chan 1997b, 1997a, 1998, 1999; Geeraerts and Men 2001; Johnston 2002; Liang 1997; Qin 2007, 2009; Shambaugh and Jisi Wang 1984; Song 1997, 2001; Song and G. Chan 2000; Jianwei Wang 2002; Jisi Wang 2002; Zhang 2002). There are some studies of IR in South America and a growing attention to Brazil (Cruz 2005; Ferreira-Pereira and Resende 2010;

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 Data is derived from the articles publications in nine leading academic IR journals: International Organization, International Security, World Politics, Journal of Conflict Resolution, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Peace Research, European Journal of International Relations, Review of International Studies, Millennium – Journal of International Studies. These journals are selected because they represent the top academic journals in the field according to reputational surveys among scholars (Garand and Giles 2003; Giles and Garand 2007; Giles, Mizell, and Patterson 1989; Maliniak, Oakes, and Tierney 2009) and citation based rankings (ISI Web of Science). I have also chosen these journals to achieve comparability with previous research (Goldmann 1995; Wæver 1998; Aydinli and Mathews 2000; Breuning, Bredehoft, and Walton 2005). 5 For example, a study of citation patterns of Chinese political science journals and their international counterparts has found that Chinese and international communication systems in the social sciences are almost decoupled (Zhou, Su, and Leydesdorff 2010, 1362). Further evidence of decoupling is provided by the fact that no single Chinese journal covered by the domestic Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) is also covered by the international SSCI, the contribution of international scholars to Chinese domestic journals in the social sciences is virtually absent, and the non-source citations of Chinese authors in domestic journals to international literature are very sparse. 6 Scielo (Scientific Eletronic Library Online) Brazil contains the most important Brazilian journals such as Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (28 issues available online, 1997-2010), Contexto Internacional (15 issues available, 2003-2009) and Carta Internacional; Política Externa.6 CNKI (http://en.cnki.com.cn), Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI), Chinese Humanities and Social Science Citation Database (CHSSCD) and other databases comprise the large number of Chinese publications in International Relations and security studies (CSSCI 2010; Su, Xinming Han, and Xinning Han 2001; Zhou, Su, and Leydesdorff 2010). The English language journals Chinese Journal of International Politics and Social Sciences in China are available online. Indian journals International Studies are available online. National variations in publication patterns should, of course, be accounted for in making such a comparative analysis. It has been argued that in Brazil, for example, “IR publication is less driven by journals and more by monographs, perhaps due to the rather small number of available avenues for publication.” (Kenkel 2003, 123).


11

G. Fonseca 1987; Kille, Krain, and Lantis 2008; Pinheiro 2008; Santos and F. E. Fonseca 2009; Tickner 2003, 2008), although this is probably the least studied case. An organizational factor that affects the openness towards civilian knowledge producers such as universities is whether governments have their own think tanks. The comparative analysis of organizational setup will therefore make use of comparative and single-case studies of national think tank environments, advisory, and policymaking institutions. The comparative think tank literature shows how think tanks as organizational form is growing in numbers all over the world (Stone and Maxwell 2005), but particularly so in the BRICs. According to a global survey of think tanks, China, India, and Brazil have grown to possess the second, third and thirteenth largest number of think tanks in the world—just two years ago they ranked 12th, 6th and 24th, respectively. In absolute figures, China had 74 registered think tanks in 2008 and 425 in 2010, second only to the United States (1816) (McGann 2011). There has been a proliferation of think tanks and public policy institutes that provide input to policy debates. The comparative think tank literature tends to focus on institutional setup, funding sources, and policy influence, however, and rarely does it address the nature of think tanks and the security expertise they produce. The large country-specific literature on think tanks does this, at least to some extent, but this literature has no basis for comparison. In the case of China there is a large and expanding literature on think tanks and policymaking institutions (Gill and Mulvenon 2002; Glaser and Saunders 2002; Li 2009; Liao 2006; Medeiros 2004; Naughton 2002; Shambaugh 1987, 2002; Wortzel and Scobell 2004; Xuefeng Zhu and Teng 2006; Xufeng Zhu 2009; Xufeng Zhu and Xue 2007) and how Chinese intellectual elites view the world and debate the future of international relations (Deng and S. Gray 2001; Leonard 2008, 2009; Lynch 2009). However, this literature makes no distinction between, or even conflates, political and intellectual elites (Ren 2010). This is not without reason, of course, but if intellectuals are indeed influential in policy circles it is worth investigating the links rather than assuming them to be there. The same can be said about the Brazilian case (Kenkel 2003) while there is a clearer demarcation between scholars and policymakers in the Indian context where the think tank link is largely missing (Alagappa 2010; Baru 2009; Mohan 2010).

Chapter 6. The security strategy and policymaking process The purpose of this chapter is to, first, study the national security strategies of the three cases in the post-Cold War period and, second, to analyze the impact of security experts and how it has evolved over time. I suggest a focus on the post-Cold War period because this relatively long time period allows for significant variation and progress in the use of experts, and because this specific period after the fall of the bipolar world system is when the three countries in case have formulated gradually more activist security strategies. Given the continued sensitivity of policy-making processes in several of the cases, particularly with regard to ‘grand strategy’ formulation, sources remain rare. I thus expect the mapping of post-Cold War grand strategies in the three cases to employ a combination of sources. Its primary source will be secondary, academic literature. It will also use official documents and speeches. For example, The Ministry of Defense of Brazil publishes a National Defense Strategy (Estratégia Nacional de Defesa) as does the Indian Ministry of Defense. The government of the People’s Republic of China publishes neither a formal National Security Strategy nor a National Defense Strategy, but since 1998 it has presented defense “white papers” that express its view on defense and security issues. These papers published by the Information Office of the State Council present the closest one gets to a Beijing government “assessment of China’s national security environment” (Shambaugh 2004, 59). The analysis can be supplemented by analyzing publications by senior officials at the National Defense University in Beijing. In addition to official papers, I also expect this chapter to analyze speeches held by key foreign policymakers since strategic concepts, such as Peaceful Rise, are often presented in public speeches rather than official documents.


12

Conclusions and contributions My former research on China has provided me with insight and access to security studies in China but was more narrowly focused on academic security studies than this proposal. This project embarks on a broader mapping of security agencies in academia through think tanks to policymakers using network analytical tools. Due to the inductive and micro-oriented methodology of such a project it is difficult to perform any pre-analysis prior to the fieldwork. Nevertheless, I do expect to identify constellations of these different security agencies that, although they come from distinct organizational bases with distinct security rationalities, engage in network and alliance building. I expect to find a deepening and widening of scientific advisory processes in rising powers and that this knowledge production is not limited to technical and policy-specific knowledge but also theoretical and normative ideas about rising power behavior. The project has relevance along several lines:

- It provides empirical insight into the security policymaking of future great powers.

- It provides knowledge about expert advisory processes and political decision-making.

- It contributes to the theoretical development at the research front of critical security studies.

- It contributes with a practice-founded theorization of the power/knowledge nexus. - It contributes with insights into non-Western ideas about security and thus brings critical

research beyond the stage of merely deconstructing Western concepts. - It contributes with a sociological development of security theory that speaks to both reflectivist

and traditionalist strands by applying theories from the sociology of knowledge on a largely ‘traditionalist’ subject (grand strategy).

Proposed supervisor Professor Ole Wæver (University of Copenhagen) who has done research on non-Western IR (Tickner and Wæver 2009), security studies (Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde 1998), and sociology of science (Wæver 1998, 2007, 2010, 2010). External co-supervisors could be Alastair Iain Johnston (Harvard University) who has done research on Chinese foreign policy (Johnston 2003), strategic culture (Johnston 1995) and its IR community (Johnston 2002). Also relevant are Didier Bigo and Bruno Latour (both Sciences-Po), leading figures in security studies and actor-network-theory, respectively.

Outcome and feasibility I have previously conducted three weeks of fieldwork in China which included interviews with 27 researchers at universities and think tanks. My experience is that this is sufficient qualitative data material for a single case analysis. I thus consider it feasible to conduct fieldwork of approximately the same duration in Brazil and India. I also expect to supplement this with some telephone interviews. As a part of my Master’s thesis, I also conducted a questionnaire among Chinese IR researchers. For reasons of feasibility this type of data generation is not part of this research proposal, but if time allows it would provide some interesting comparative data. In addition to the fieldwork, I plan on spending semester abroad: Either with Alastair Iain Johnston at Harvard University with whom I am already in contact regarding my Master’s thesis. Alternatively, it would be relevant to be visiting scholar with Didier Bigo and Bruno Latour at Sciences-Po in Paris, the former of whom is part of the network at CAST. I plan to teach two courses: One on ‘Security in a post-Western world’ and another on ‘Think tanks and experts in the policymaking process’. I expect the first course to be taught in the spring


13

semester 2012 and the second in the spring semester 2013. I expect the outcome of the PhD project to be a monograph and possibly two peer-reviewed articles relating to the subjects of the courses taught. I already have several articles in the pipeline, one on network analytics in International Relations (submitted to International Studies Review), one on interdisciplinarity in International Relations (to be presented at the annual convention of the Danish Association for Political Science, November 2011) and one on the construction of a Chinese school of International Relations (to be presented at the British Inter-University China Centre at Oxford University, UK, September 1-2, 2011). I expect to finish all of them within the first semester of the PhD scholarship and hopefully to have time to write further articles alongside the research for the monograph.

!

Bibliography

Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan, eds. 2010. Non-Western International Relations Theory. Abingdon: Routledge. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. 2007. “Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction.”

International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7(3): 287-312. Adler, Emanuel. 2005. Communitarian international relations: the epistemic foundations of international relations. London and New

York: Routledge. ———. 2009. “The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea

of nuclear arms control.” International Organization 46(01): 101. Adler, Emanuel, and Peter M. Haas. 1992. “Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective

research program.” International Organization 46(1): 367-390. Adler, Emanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. 2011. International Practices: Introduction and Framework. New York: Cambridge

University Press. Alagappa, Muthiah. 2010. “Strengthening International Studies in India: Vision and Recommendations.” International Studies

46(1-2): 7-35. Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. 2000. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in

Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1(3): 289-303. Bajpai, K. 2010. “Obstacles to Good Work in Indian International Relations.” International Studies 46(1-2): 109-128. Bajpai, Kanti P., and Siddharth Mallavarapu. 2005. International Relations in India: Bringing theory back home. New Delhi: Orient

Blackswan. Bandyopadhyaya, J. 2003. The making of India's foreign policy. New Delhi: Allied Publishers. Baru, Sanjay. 2009. “Can Indian Think Tanks and Research Institutions Cope with the Rising Demand for Foreign and

Security Policy Research?.” Paper Presented at the workshop on ‘International Studies in India’ at National University of Singapore, 25–26 March 2009..

Basrur, R. M. 2010. “Scholarship on India's International Relations: Some Disciplinary Shortcomings.” International Studies 46(1-2): 89-108.

Behera, Navnita Chadha. 2004. “Meta Narratives and Subaltern Voices: Role of the Ford Foundation in South Asia.” Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the International Studies Association (ISA), Montreal, Canada, March 17-20.

———. 2007. “Re-imagining IR in India.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7(3): 341-368. ———. 2009. “South Asia: A“realist” past and alternative futures.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World,

Worlding beyond the West, eds. Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver. London: Routledge, p. 134-157. Bell, Daniel A. 2009. “War, Peace, and China's Soft Power: A Confucian Approach.” Diogenes 56(1): 26-40. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City,

NY: Doubleday. Bigo, Didier. 2002. “Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease.” Alternatives: Global,

Local, Political 27: 64-92. Bigo, Didier, and Elspeth Guild. 2005. Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe. Burlington, VT: Ashgate

Publishing, Ltd. Bilgin, Pinar. 2008. “Thinking past 'Western' IR?.” Third World Quarterly 29(1): 5-23. Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interaction: Perspective and Method. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Breitenbauch, Henrik Ø. 2008. Cartesian Limbo: A Formal Approach to the Study of Social Sciences: International Relations in France.

Copenhagen: Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultets Reprocenter. Breitenbauch, Henrik Ø., and Anders Wivel. 2004. “Understanding national IR disciplines outside the United States:


14

political culture and the construction of International Relations in Denmark.” Journal of International Relations and Development 7(4): 414-443.

Breuning, Marijke, Joseph Bredehoft, and Eugene Walton. 2005. “Promise and Performance: An Evaluation of Journals in International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 6(4): 447-461.

Bubandt, N. 2005. “Vernacular Security: The Politics of Feeling Safe in Global, National and Local Worlds.” Security Dialogue 36(3): 275-296.

Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security: a new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Büger, Christian, and Frank Gadinger. 2007. “Reassembling and Dissecting: International Relations Practice from a Science

Studies Perspective.” International Studies Perspectives 8(1): 90-110. Büger, Christian, and Trine Villumsen. 2007. “Beyond the gap: relevance, fields of practice and the securitizing

consequences of (democratic peace) research.” Journal of International Relations and Development 10(4): 417-448. Callahan, William. 2008. “Chinese Visions of World Order: Post-hegemonic or a New Hegemony?.” International Studies

Review 10(4): 749-761. ———. 2004. “Remembering the Future -- Utopia, Empire, and Harmony in 21st-Century International Theory.” European

Journal of International Relations 10(4): 569-601. Callon, M. et al. 1983. “From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis.” Social Science

Information 22(2): 191-235. Camic, Charles, and Neil Gross. 2004. “The New Sociology of Ideas.” In The Blackwell Companion to Sociology, ed. Judith R.

Blau. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Carr, Edward Hallett. 1939. Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York:

Harper Perennial. Cervo, Amado Luiz. 2008. “Conceitos em Relações Internacionais.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 51(2). Chan, Gerald. 1999. Chinese perspectives on international relations. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ———. 1998. International Studies in China: An annotated bibliography. Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers. ———. 1997a. “International studies in China: origins and development.” Issues and Studies 33(2): 40-64. ———. 1997b. “International studies in China: Problems and prospects.” Political Science 49(1): 6-22. Chan, Steve. 2008. China, the U.S., and the power-transition theory: a critique. Taylor & Francis. Christensen, Thomas J. 1996a. “Chinese Realpolitik.” Foreign Affairs 75(5): 37-52. ———. 1996b. Useful adversaries: grand strategy, domestic mobilization, and Sino-American conflict, 1947-1958. Princeton, N.J:

Princeton University Press. Collins, Randall. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge and London: The Belknap

Press of Harvard University Press. Cruz, Jose A. da. 2005. “Brazil's International Relations at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century.” Latin American Politics &

Society 47(1): 115-122. CSSCI. 2010. “Chinese Social Science Citation Index.” http://www.cssci.com.cn/ (Accessed July 23, 2010). Deng, Yong, and Sherry Gray. 2001. “Introduction: growing pains - China debates its international future.” Journal of

Contemporary China 10: 5-16. Deng, Yong, and Fei-Ling Wang. 2005. China rising: power and motivation in Chinese foreign policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield. Denzin, Norman K. 1989. Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Diesing, Paul. 1991. How Does Social Science Work? Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Ferreira-Pereira, Laura Cristina, and Erica Simone Almeida Resende. 2010. “International Relations in Brazil and Portugal:

Disciplinary Histories in Comparative Perspective. Why Do We Take Each Other for Granted and What We Do About It?.” 7º Encontro da Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP) 4-7 de agosto de 2010 Recife, PE.

Fewsmith, Joseph, and Stanley Rosen. 2001. “The Domestic Context of Chinese Foreign Policy: Does ‘Public Opinion’ Matter?.” In The Making of Chinese Foreign and Security Policy in the Era of Reform, ed. David M. Lampton. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 151-187.

Fonseca, G. 1987. “Studies on International Relations in Brazil: Recent Times (1950-80).” Millennium - Journal of International Studies 16(2): 273-280.

Garand, James C., and Micheal W. Giles. 2003. “Journals in the Discipline: A Report on a New Survey of American Political Scientists.” Political Science and Politics 36(2): 293-308.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall. Garver, John W. 2006. “China's Decision for War with India in 1962.” In New directions in the study of China's foreign policy, eds.

Alastair I. Johnston and Robert S. Ross. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Geeraerts, Gustaaf, and Jing Men. 2001. “International Relations Theory in China.” Global Society 15(3): 251-276. Gibbons, Michael et al. 1994. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE. Giles, Micheal W., and James C. Garand. 2007. “Ranking Political Science Journals: Reputational and Citational

Approaches.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40(4): 741-751. Giles, Micheal W., Francie Mizell, and David Patterson. 1989. “Political Scientists' Journal Evaluations Revisited.” PS:


15

Political Science and Politics 22(3): 613-617. Gill, Bates, and James Mulvenon. 2002. “Chinese Military-Related Think Tanks and Research Institutions.” The China

Quarterly 171(-1): 617-624. Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Glaser, Bonnie S, and Evan S Medeiros. 2007. “The Changing Ecology of Foreign Policy-Making in China: The Ascension

and Demise of the Theory of “Peaceful Rise”.” The China Quarterly 190: 291-310. Glaser, Bonnie S., and Melissa E. Murphy. 2009. “Soft Power with Chinese Characteristics: The Ongoing Debate.” In

Chinese Soft Power and Its Implications for the United States: Competition and Cooperation in the Developing World, a Report of the CSIS Smart Power Initiative, ed. Carola McGiffert. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Glaser, Bonnie S., and Phillip C. Saunders. 2002. “Chinese Civilian Foreign Policy Research Institutes: Evolving Roles and Increasing Influence.” The China Quarterly 171(1): 597-616.

Goldman Sachs. 2003. Dreaming With BRICs: The Path to 2050. Global Economics Paper No: 99. Economic Research from the GS Financial Workbench.

Goldmann, Kjell. 1995. “Im Westen Nichts Neues: Seven International Relations Journals in 1972 and 1992.” European Journal of International Relations 1(2): 245-258.

Gray, Colin. 1981. “National Styles in Strategy: The American Example.” International Security 6(2): 21–47. Gubrium, Jaber F., and James A. Holstein. 2003. Postmodern Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ———. 1997. The new Language of Qualitative Method. New York: Oxford University Press. Haas, Peter M. 1992. “Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination.” International Organization

46(1): 1-35. ———. 1997. Knowledge, Power and International Policy Coordination. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Miles Kahler, and Alexander H. Montgomery. 2009. “Network Analysis for International

Relations.” International Organization 63(3): 559. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Alexander H. Montgomery. 2006. “Power Positions.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(1): 3 -27. Hao, Yufan, and Ying Hou. 2009. “Chinese Foreign Policy Making: A Comparative Perspective.” Public Administration Review

69: 136-141. Hoffmann, Stanley. 1977. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106(3): 41-60. Hu, Jintao. 2005. Build Towards a Harmonious World of Lasting Peace and Common Prosperity. New York: Speech at the Plenary

Meeting of the United Nations’ 60th Session, September 15, 2005. Huysmans, Jef. 2006. The politics of insecurity: fear, migration and asylum in the EU. London: Routledge. Ikenberry, John. 2008. “The Rise of China and the Future of the West; Can the Liberal System Survive?.” Foreign Affairs

87(1): 23. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. “Judgment under siege: The three-body problem of expert legitimacy.” In Democratization of Expertise?

Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, eds. Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, p. 209-224.

———. 1986. Risk management and political culture: a comparative study of science in the policy context. Russell Sage Foundation. ———. 1996. “Science and Norms in International Environmental Regimes.” In Earthly Goods: Environmental Change and

Social Justice, eds. Fen O. Hampson and Judith Reppy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, p. 173-197. ———. 1994. The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Järvinen, Margaretha, and Nanna Mik-Meyer. 2005. Kvalitative Metoder I Et Interaktionistisk Perspektiv. Copenhagen: Hans

Reitzel. Johnston, Alastair Iain. 1995. Cultural realism: strategic culture and grand strategy in Chinese history. Princeton, N.J: Princeton

University Press. ———. 2003. “Is China a Status Quo Power?.” International Security 27(4): 5-56. ———. 2002. “The State of International Relations Research in China: Considerations for the Ford Foundation.”. Kenkel, Kai Michael. 2003. Whispering to the Prince: Academic experts and national security policy formulation in Brazil, South Africa and

Canada. Geneva: PhD Thesis at Graduate Institute of International Studies. Kennedy, David. 2002. “The Politics of the Invisible College: International Governance and the Politics of Expertise.” In

Transformative Change and Global Order: Reflections on Theory and Practice, eds. D. A. Fuchs and F. Kratochwil. Münster: Lit Verlag.

Kennedy, Paul. 1992. Grand Strategies in War and Peace. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kent, A. 2006. “Reconfiguring Security: Buddhism and Moral Legitimacy in Cambodia.” Security Dialogue 37(3): 343-361. Khanna, Parag. 2008. The second world: empires and influence in the new global order. London: Allen Lane. Kille, Kent J., Matthew Krain, and Jeffrey S. Lantis. 2008. “Active Learning across Borders: Lessons from an Interactive

Workshop in Brazil.” International Studies Perspectives 9(4): 411-429. Klein, Bradley S. 1986. “Hegemony and Strategic Culture: American Power Projection and Alliance Defence Politics.”

Review of International Studies 14(2): 133-148. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1995. “Laboratory Studies: The cultural approach to the study of science.” In Handbook of science and

technology studies, Thousand Oaks: Sage, p. 140-166.


16

Kristensen, Peter Marcus, and Ras Tind Nielsen. 2010. Writing on the Wall: Prominence, Promotion, Power Politics and the Innovation of a Chinese International Relations Theory. Copenhagen: Master's Thesis in Political Science.

Kurlantzick, Joshua. 2007. Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kvale, Steinar. 1996. InterViews. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Latour, Bruno. 2007. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. ———. 1986. “The Powers of Association.” In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, ed. John Law. London,

Boston and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul, p. 264-280. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University

Press. Law, John, and John Hassard. 1999. Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Layne, Christopher. 2009. “The Waning of U.S. Hegemony—Myth or Reality? A Review Essay.” International Security 34(1):

147-172. Lazer, David. 2011. “Networks in Political Science: Back to the Future.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44(1): 61-68. Leonard, Mark. 2008. What does China think? London: Fourth Estate. ———. 2009. “What next for China?.” Renewal 17(1): 28-36. Li, Cheng. 2009. “China’s New Think Tanks: Where Officials, Entrepreneurs, and Scholars Interact.” China Leadership

Monitor 29. Liang, Shoude. 1997. “Constructing an International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics.” Political Science 49(1):

23-39. Liao, Xuanli. 2006. Chinese foreign policy think tanks and China's policy towards Japan. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. Lieberthal, Kenneth. 2007. “How Domestic Forces Shape the PRC’s Grand Strategy and International Impact.” In Strategic

Asia 2007-08. Domestic Political Change and Grand Strategy, eds. Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Wills. Washington, D.C.: The National Bureau of Asian Research, p. 28-66.

Lizée, Pierre P. 2011. A Whole New World: Reinventing International Studies for the Post-Western World. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Lynch, Daniel. 2009. “Chinese Thinking on the Future of International Relations: Realism as the Ti, Rationalism as the

Yong?.” The China Quarterly 197: 87-107. Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart, eds. 2005. Democratization of Expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political

decision-making. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Mahbubani, Kishore. 2008. The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East. New York: PublicAffairs. Maliniak, Daniel, Amy Oakes, and Michael J. Tierney. 2009. The International Relations Discipline, 1980-2006. The College of

William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/projects/trip/TRIP.pdf. Mallavarapu, Siddharth. 2010. “Development of International Relations Theory in India: Traditions, Contemporary

Perspectives and Trajectories.” International Studies 46(1-2): 165-183. Maoz, Zeev. 2010. Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816-2001. New York:

Cambridge University Press. Maoz, Zeev et al. 2005. “International Networks and International Politics.” In New Directions for International Relations, eds.

A. Mintz and Bruce Russett. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press, p. 35-64. Mattoo, Amitabh. 2010. “The State of International Studies in India.” International Studies 46(1-2): 37-48. McGann, James G. 2011. The Global "Go-To Think Tanks" 2010: The Leading Public Policy Research Organizations In The World.

The Think Tank and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania. McGiffert, Carola. 2009. Chinese Soft Power and Its Implications for the United States: Competition and Cooperation in the Developing

World, a Report of the CSIS Smart Power Initiative. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Medeiros. 2004. “Agents of Influence: Assessing the Role of Chinese Foreign Policy Research Organizations after the 16th

Party Congress.” In Civil-Military Change in China: Elites, institutes, and ideas after the 16th party congress, eds. Wortzel and Andrew Scobell. Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute.

Mingjiang, Li. 2008. “China Debates Soft Power.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 2(2): 287-308. Misra, K. P., and R. C. Beal. 1980. International Relations Theory: Western and Non-Western Perspectives. New Delhi: Vikas

Publishing House. Mohan, C. Raja. 2010. “The Re-making of Indian Foreign Policy: Ending the Marginalization of International Relations

Community.” International Studies 46(1-2): 147-163. Morgenthau, Hans. 1948. Politics Among Nations. New York: Knopf. Nathan, Andrew, and Robert S. Ross. 1998. The Great Wall and the Empty Fortress: China's Search for Security. London and New

York: W. W. Norton & Company. Naughton, Barry. 2002. “China's Economic Think Tanks: Their Changing Role in the 1990s.” The China Quarterly 171(-1):

625-635. Neumann, I. B. 2005. “Grand Strategy, Strategic Culture, Practice: The Social Roots of Nordic Defence.” Cooperation and

Conflict 40(1): 5-23. ———. 2002. “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy.” Millennium - Journal of International Studies


17

31(3): 627-651. Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics. 1st ed. PublicAffairs. Organski, A. F. K., and Jacek Kugler. 1981. The War Ledger. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Paul, Thazha Varkey. 2010. “Integrating International Relations Studies in India to Global Scholarship.” International Studies

46(1-2): 129-145. Pinheiro, Leticia. 2008. “International Relations Studies in Brazil: Epistemological and Institutional Characteristics.” Paper

presented at the IPSA Conference, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, April 30 - May 2. Posen, Barry R., and Andrew L. Ross. 1996. “Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy.” International Security 21(3): 5-53. Qin, Yaqing. 2009. “Development of International Relations Theory in China.” International Studies 46(1-2): 185-201. ———. 2007. “Why is there no Chinese international relations theory?.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7(3): 313-340. Ren, Xiao. 2010. “The International Relations Theoretical Discourse in China: One World, Different Explanations.” Journal

of Chinese Political Science 15(1): 99-116. ———. 2008. “Toward a Chinese school of International Relations.” In China and the new international order, eds. Gungwu

Wang and Yongnian Zheng. London and New York: Routledge. Sahni, Varun. 2010. “The Fallacies and Flaws of Area Studies in India.” International Studies 46(1-2): 49-68. Santos, Norma Breda dos, and Fúlvio Eduardo Fonseca. 2009. “A pós-graduação em relações internacionais no Brasil.”

Contexto Internacional 31(2): 353-380. Schweller, Randall L. 1994. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19(1): 72-

107. ———. 1999. “Managing the Rise of Great Powers: History and Theory.” In Engaging China: The Management of an Emerging

Power, eds. Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert Ross. London and New York: Routledge, p. 1-31. Scobell, Andrew. 2002. China and strategic culture. Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute, Army War College (U.S.). Shambaugh, David. 2004. Modernizing China's military: progress, problems, and prospects. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2002. “China's International Relations Think Tanks: Evolving Structure and Process.” The China Quarterly 171(1):

575-596. ———. 1987. “China's national security research bureaucracy.” 110: 276-304. Shambaugh, David, and Jisi Wang. 1984. “Research on International Studies in the People's Republic of China.” PS 17(4):

758-764. Sharma, D. 2010. “Mapping International Relations Teaching and Research in Indian Universities.” International Studies 46(1-

2): 69-88. Sheng, Ding. 2010. “Analyzing rising power from the perspective of soft power: A new look at China's rise to the status quo

power.” Journal of Contemporary China 19: 255-272. Shilliam, Robbie. 2010. International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism and Investigations of Global

Modernity. London: Taylor & Francis. Smith, Steve. 2000. “The discipline of international relations: still an American social science?.” British Journal of Politics and

International Relations 2(3): 374-402. Song, Xinning. 2001. “Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics.” Journal of Contemporary China

10: 61-74. ———. 1997. “International Relations Theory-Building in China.” Political Science 49(1): 40-61. Song, Xinning, and Gerald Chan. 2000. “International Relations Theory in China.” In China's international relations in the 21st

century: dynamics of paradigm shifts, eds. Weixing Hu, Gerald Chan, and Daojiong Zha. University Press of America, p. 15-40.

Stehr, Nico, and Volker Meja. 2005. Society & knowledge: contemporary perspectives in the sociology of knowledge & science. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.

Stone, Diane, and Simon Maxwell. 2005. Global knowledge networks and international development: bridges across boundaries. London: Routledge.

Su, Xinning, Xinming Han, and Xinning Han. 2001. “Developing the Chinese Social Science Citation Index.” Online Information Review 25(6): 365-369.

Tickner, Arlene B. 2003. “Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies.” International Studies Perspectives 4(4): 325-350.

———. 2008. “Latin American IR and the Primacy of lo practico.” International Studies Review 10(4): 735-748. Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. 2009. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. London: Routledge. Upadhyaya, Priyankar. 2009. “Peace and Conflict: Reflections on Indian Thinking.” Strategic Analysis 33(1): 71-83. Villumsen, Trine. 2008. Theory as Practice and capital. NATO in a Bourdieusian Field of Security in Europe: towards a sociological

approach to IR. Copenhagen: Copenhagen University Press. Wagner, Peter, and Björn Wittrock. 1991a. Discourses on society: the shaping of the social science disciplines. Dordrecht and Boston:

Kluwer Academic Publishers. ———. 1991b. Social sciences and modern states: national experiences and theoretical crossroads. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge

University Press.


18

Wang, Jianwei. 2002. “International Relations Studies in China.” Journal of East Asian Studies 2(1): 69-88. Wang, Jisi. 2002. “International Relations Studies in China Today: Achievements, Trends, and Conditions. A Report to the

Ford Foundation.” Ford Foundation, International Relations in China: A Review of Ford Foundation Past Grant-making and Future Choices: 1-25.

Wang, Yiwei. 2007. “Between Science and Art: Questionable International Relations Theories.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 8(2): 191-208.

———. 2009. “China: Between copying and constructing.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, eds. Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver. London and New York: Routledge, p. 120-133.

Ward, Michael, Katherine Stovel, and Audrey Sacks. 2011. “Application of Network Analysis to Political Problems.” Annual Review of Political Science 14(1): 245-264.

Wortzel, and Andrew Scobell. 2004. Civil-Military Change in China: Elites, institutes, and ideas after the 16th party congress. Strategic Studies Institute.

Wæver, Ole. 1998. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52(4): 687–727.

———. 2007. “The Social and Intellectual Structure of the IR Discipline.” Paper prepared for presentation at the 48th annual convention of International Studies Association.

———. 2010. “Still a Discipline After All These Debates?.” In International relations theories: discipline and diversity, eds. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2010. “Towards a Political Sociology of Security Studies.” Security Dialogue 41(6): 1-10. Yan, Xuetong. 2008. “Why no Chinese School of IR Theory.” APSA Working Paper 2008, acquired from the author with

permission to quote.. Zakaria, Fareed. 1999. From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. 2008. The Post-American World. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Zaman, Rashed. 2006. “Kautilya: The Indian Strategic Thinker and Indian Strategic Culture.” Comparative Strategy 25(3): 231-

247. Zhang, Yongjin. 2002. “Review: International Relations Theory in China Today: The State of the Field.” The China Journal

47: 101-108. Zhou, Ping, Xinning Su, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2010. “A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese

journals in the social sciences.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(7): 1360-1376. Zhu, Xuefeng, and Siow Song Teng. 2006. China's think tanks: roles and characteristics. Singapore: East Asian Institute, National

University of Singapore. Zhu, Xufeng. 2009. “The Influence of Think Tanks in the Chinese Policy Process.” Asian Survey 49(2): 333-357. Zhu, Xufeng, and Lan Xue. 2007. “Think tanks in transitional China.” Public Administration and Development 27(5): 452-464.

PhD Project Proposal Science, Expertise, and the Security ... · PhD Proposal: Peter Marcus...

Documents

Transcript of PhD Project Proposal Science, Expertise, and the Security ... · PhD Proposal: Peter Marcus...