Epistemology and research methodologies in International Relations: contemporary debates

The field of international studies in Latin America has become more significant due to its growth and professionalization, as well as its increased visibility within global and central knowledge production networks. Indeed, for the past five years, international studies associations with the greatest influence on shaping the discipline's grammar (undergraduate and graduate education, academic research) have opened themselves up to knowledge and theoretical-methodological proposals developed both in "peripheral" regions (hence the reference to the "Global South") and by marginalized and marginalized subjects (women, gender non-conforming individuals, diverse groups, Indigenous peoples, and Black people).

Therefore, a twofold “demand” justifies the relevance of this proposal. On the one hand, there is the growing professionalization of the discipline of international relations (IR) in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially with the increase in postgraduate training (master's and doctoral degrees), where the epistemological and methodological reflections specific to IR are more “behind” compared to other social sciences (although they draw upon them). On the other hand, there is the need for spaces for knowledge construction and the dissemination of knowledge in Spanish and Portuguese. The most innovative and novel discussions in the field, including thematic “classics” that have also remained peripheral due to a discipline that is Anglocentric, Western-centric, and androcentric, are disseminated and circulated in English; this hinders a closer appropriation and reinterpretation within the academic institutions of our countries.

For these reasons, as can be seen from the proposal, the aim is not only to generate reflection on methods and techniques (which is highly demanded), but also to be able to culminate the seminar with processes of translation and reinterpretation of a set of themes and texts that are central to thinking about the dynamics of the international today and to contribute to rewriting the discipline and disputing its grammar.

Regarding the specific point of bibliographic works, we have the following diagnosis to share and make available a joint proposal to develop a translation action:

The texts that shape the most recent central debates in the field of International Relations in our countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay) and in the Latin American region are not available in Spanish, although they are of growing interest to students, researchers, and professionals in this discipline. While current rules for the production and dissemination of academic knowledge prioritize structured circulation networks based on indexed journals in English, there is a growing movement to increase the visibility of Spanish as a scientific language, as well as the need to update undergraduate and graduate training with essential texts that are not available in this language. Furthermore, there is a growing interest within central knowledge production networks in locally produced works, which should engage in dialogue with these broader debates. In other words, there is greater openness to other moments of disciplinary development in the interaction between different spaces, networks, and territories, in the reflection on the field.

Objective

• To contribute to the training of researchers in international relations in Latin America through reflection on ontological, epistemological, methodological, and theoretical aspects. The aim is to generate tools for discussing the current development of the discipline of international relations, incorporating less visible, peripheral, and/or marginalized debates and knowledge-building processes.

 Specific objectives

• To promote epistemological and methodological reflection on the main theoretical approaches and debates in International Relations.
• To analyze in depth the current debates in the construction of knowledge about international reality based on the definitions and methodological decisions they make.
• Deploy different research strategies for the variety of problems that students will address in their thesis project.
• To provide tools for the development of the research project, especially regarding bibliographic managers and academic writing.
• To make visible the own production of Latin American international studies and to discuss its insertion into global networks of knowledge of the international and its role in the current program in pursuit of “globalizing” the discipline (generated in the disciplinary mainstream).

• Critical Theory in International Relations
• Conceptual and methodological contributions of Constructivism in International Relations
• Decoloniality and International Relations
• Feminisms in International Relations
• Rationalism/Positivism as epistemological perspectives in International Relations
• Research design in International Relations
• Comparative analysis of small sample sizes and case selection. Comparative historical method
• Use of quantitative analysis in IR. Comparative analysis of large N
• Regional integration and regionalism
• Latin American international relations theory: contributions to the study of foreign policy
• Latin American contributions to international relations: the periphery and autonomy as central issues

• Adler, E., and Haas, PM (2009). "Epistemic communities, world order and the creation of a reflective research program", in International Organization, Vol. 46. 1. Winter. MIT Press, 1992. P. 367-390. International Relations (12). 
• Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2019). International practices. Uruguayan Journal of Political Science, 28, 15-58. 
• Blaney, D.L., and Tickner, A.B. (2017). Worlding, ontological politics and the possibility of a decolonial IR. Millennium, 45(3), 293-311. 
• Cervo, A. (2001) Relações Internacionais da América Latina – Velhos e Novos Paradigmas, UnB/Imprensa Official/IBRI, Brasilia, 2001.
• Cox, R. (2013). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, in International Relations, No. 24, October 2013-January 2014, pp. 129-162.
• De Lombaerde, P., Soderbaum, F., Van Langenhove, L., & Baert, F. (2010). The problem of comparison in comparative regionalism. Review of International Studies, 36(03), 731-753.
• De Salazar Serantes, G. (2003). The sources of research in international relations. CIDOB Journal of International Affairs, 193-208.
• Devés-Valdes, E. (2013). How to think about international-global issues from the perspective of Latin American thought: Analysis of theorization. História Unisinos, 17(1), 48-60.
• Devin, G. and Durand, MF Describing, Representing, Interpreting. In Resources and Applied Methods in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018. p. 3-18. 
• Editorial Team of International Relations (2014). Feminisms in International Relations, 30 years later. International Relations, (27), pp. 5-12. 
• Fonseca, M. and Jerrems, A. (2012). Decolonial thinking: a “new” bet in International Relations? International Relations, (19), 103-121.
• Howell, M and Preventier, W. (2001). An Introduction to Historical Methods. London: Cornell University Press. Chapter I. The Source: The Basic of Our Knowledge about the Past, pages 17-42. Chapter III. Historical Interpretation: The Traditional Basics, pages 69-87.
• Hug, S. Examples of quantitative data processing in International Relations. In Resources and Applied Methods in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018. p. 125-138.
• Iñiguez de Heredia, M. (2013). “Practices and Processes in International Relations” International Relations (24). 
• Katzenstein, P. (2012). Eclectic theorizing in the study and practice of international relations. In A. Santa Cruz (Ed.), Politics without borders or the ubiquity of the distinctive: Selected essays by Peter J. Katzenstein (pp. 345-374). Colonia Portales: CIDE
• Katzenstein, P. (2012). Eclectic theorizing in the study and practice of international relations. In A. Santa Cruz (Ed.), Politics without borders or the ubiquity of the distinctive: Selected essays by Peter J. Katzenstein (pp. 345-374). Colonia Portales: CIDE.
• Linklater, A. (2007). Critical Theory and World Politics. Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity. Introduction. New York: Routledge. Pp. 1-12.
• Mansfield, E. and Pevenhouse, JC (2008) Quantitative approaches (pp. 481-498) in Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (Eds.) (2008) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Morgan, C. (2004). “Rational Choice and Game Theoretic Approaches.” In Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations edited by Zeev Maos, Alex Mintz, Clifton Morgan, Glenn Palmer and Richard Stoll 33-37. Oxford: Lexington Books.
• Moses, J., & Knutsen, T. L. (2012). Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. Second edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 2: The Naturalist Philosophy of Science, pages 19-51.
• Perrotta, D. (2018). The field of regional integration studies and its contribution to the discipline of International Relations: a view from Latin America. International Relations(38), 9-39. 
• Perrotta, D. and Porcelli, E. (2019). Regionalism is what academia makes of it. Uruguayan Journal of Political Science, 28, 183-218.
• Roberts, G. (2006). History, theory and the Narrative turn in IR. Review of International Studies. 32: 703-714.
• Robinson, F. (1997). “Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory and International Relations.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, vol.22, n°1. Pp. 113-133.
• Soto Acosta, W. (2014). Territorial borders and cognitive borders: the decoloniality of knowledge and the importance of “place” in the construction of transnational spaces. In Soto Acosta, W. and Ramírez Brenes, JC (Eds.) (2014) Transborder studies: an approach from international relations. Heredia, CR: Editorial Management Unit of the School of International Relations, National University of Costa Rica. Pp. 15-26.
• Urdinez, F. and Cruz Labrín, A. (Eds) AnalizaR Political Data, March 15, 2019; version 0.1. 
• Villarroel Peña, YU (2018). "Historiography and International Relations in Latin America: Between Autonomist Rebellion and Westernist Submission" International Relations 37 (2018).
• Villarroel Peña, YU Latin American Decolonial Feminisms: Geopolitics, Resistance and International Relations International Relations UAM, no. 39, Aug. 2018. ISSN 1699-3950.
• Woods, N. (1996). “The Use of Theory in the Study of International Relations.” In Explaining International Affairs Since 1945 edited by Ngaire Woods 9-31. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zalewski, M. (2019). Forget(ting) feminism? Investigating relationality in international relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(5), 615-635.

The basic requirements for taking a seminar are:

• Availability of at least 4 hours per week to dedicate to the seminar course.
• Internet access.
• Reasonable handling of communication and computer tools.
• Language proficiency in the language in which the course will be taught. The official languages ​​are Spanish and Portuguese.

The seminars last 12 weeks, plus the completion of a final project. A total of 90 hours of dedication will be credited.

A course consists of twelve classes, each accompanied by required readings, supplementary readings, discussion forums, and learning activities proposed by the teaching team, as well as partial submissions and a final project. The course is delivered online and asynchronously. Some instructors may propose synchronous activities. In these cases, the time and date will be agreed upon in advance between the teaching team and the students to ensure everyone's participation. To pass the seminar, students must participate in at least 80% of the discussion forums and activities proposed by the instructors, complete all scheduled partial submissions, and pass the final project.

The possible payment methods are credit card, bank transfer and bank deposit.