Beyond the gap: relevance, fields of practice and the securitizing consequences of (democratic peace) research
License
Access Rights
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Journal of International Relations and Development, 2007, 10, 4, 417-448
Cite
BÜGER, Christian, VILLUMSEN, Trine, Beyond the gap: relevance, fields of practice and the securitizing consequences of (democratic peace) research, Journal of International Relations and Development, 2007, 10, 4, 417-448 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/7764
Abstract
International Relations (IR) has cultivated the idea of a gap between the theory and
the practice/praxis of IR. This division into two different spheres of knowledge is
related to the predominant objectivist conception of science in IR, where the
scientist is said to be observing reality from a distance without affecting it.
Poststructuralists have denied that this distinction is meaningful and have even
argued that it is dangerous to be oblivious to the structuring effects science may
have on the social world. This article sets out to avoid further cultivation of the so-called
gap between theory and practice, and instead addresses the question of how
the theories of IR relate empirically to the practices of world politics. We suggest a
theoretical and empirical alternative based on practice theoretical thought. We
argue that researchers’ theories and policymakers practice ‘hang together’ and
require analytical attention. In order to give empirical flesh to the theoretical
discussions and to demonstrate the difference a practice theory approach makes, we
discuss the example of the democratic peace thesis. We lay out how US peace
researchers, the Clinton government and NATO participated in weaving a ‘web of
democratic peace practice’ and stabilizing the thesis as a ‘fact’. We argue that ‘ivory
tower scientists’, US foreign policymakers, and NATO politicians and bureaucrats
hang together in this web and use each other as a resource. As a consequence, the
academically certified version of the democratic peace led to a securitization of
democracy. We conclude that one way to cope with the complexity of science–
politics interactions is to foster reflexive empirical work on researchers’ own
practices.