ISA's 41st Annual Convention - Los Angeles 2000

Theme: Reflection, Integration, Cumulation: International Studies Past and Future
March 14th-18th, 2000, at the The Biltmore Hotel; Los Angeles, California, USA
   MICHAEL BRECHER, President  -   FRANK HARVEY, Program Chair

Reflection, Integration, Cumulation: International Studies Past and Future

The maturity of an academic discipline is based not only on its capacity to expand, but also on its ability to select. Recognizing the virtue of the 1999 call for ‘dialogue’ across perspectives, the theme for ISA 2000 is a call for self-critical , state-of-the-art ‘reflection’ within epistemologies, perspectives and subfields. The objective is to challenge proponents of specific paradigms, theories, approaches and substantive issue areas to confront their own limitations, stimulate debate about their most significant accomplishments, and discuss research paths for the years ahead. The promise of International Studies cannot be fulfilled without sustained reflection on the state-of-the-art.

The number and size of subfields and sections has grown steadily since the ISA was founded in 1959. This diversity, while enriching, has made increasingly difficult the crucial task of identifying intra-subfield consensus about important theoretical a nd/or empirical insights. Aside from focusing on a cluster of shared research questions related, for example, to globalization, gender and international relations, political economy, international institutions, development, democracy and peace, foreign an d security policy, etc., there are still few clear signs of selective cumulation. The lack of agreement within these communities is particularly disquieting. Realists, for instance, cannot fully agree on their paradigm's core assumptions, central postulat es or the lessons learned from empirical research. Similarly, feminist epistemologies encompass an array of research programs and findings that are not easily grouped into a common set of beliefs or theories. If those who share common interests and perspe ctives have difficulty agreeing on what they have accomplished to date, or do not concern themselves with the question of what has been achieved so far, how can they establish clear targets to facilitate creative dialogue across these diverse perspectives and subfields?

The 1999 theme was intended, in part, to "provide a forum in which debate and discussion across the wide variety of viewpoints...becomes a norm for behavior." That challenge is far too important to be limited to one conference; indeed, it req uires a long-term, sustained and coordinated effort. The goal of ISA 2000, then, is to offer a complementary path to integration and cumulation by encouraging scholars to reflect on their achievements, failures, strengths and weaknesses, and to avoid the tendency to define accomplishments with reference to the failures and weaknesses of others. As a community of scholars, we are rarely challenged to address the larger question of "progress" (however one chooses to define the term), perhaps because there i s so little agreement on the methods and standards we should use to identify and integrate important findings. Not all perspectives and subfields of International Studies are directed to cumulation in this sense; and some may have difficulty with words li ke 'synthesis' and 'cumulation'. However, even where critiques of mainstream theory or methodology are part of their raison d'etre, the lack of consensus is still apparent and relevant.

On the eve of a new millennium, scholars of International Studies have an opportunity and an obligation to engage in genuine self-criticism as a guide to identifying important contributions to knowledge and selecting core research questions for the yea rs ahead. ISA 2000 is an excellent opportunity to explore the theoretical, methodological and epistemological credentials and prospects of International Studies and to seek directions for our discipline. Thus, in addition to the regular panels, the Progra m Committee will organize eight ‘reflection’ panels, asking participants to:

• engage in self-critical, state-of-the-art reflection on accomplishments and failures, especially since the creation of the ISA over 40 years ago;
• assess where we stand on key debates and why we have failed to resolve them;
• evaluate what intra-subfield standards should be used to evaluate the significance of theoretical insights;
• explore ways to achieve fruitful synthesis of approaches, both in terms of core research questions and appropriate methodologies;
• address the broader question of progress in international studies; and
• selectan agenda of topics and research questions that should guide the subfield during the coming decades.

The results of this exercise, which spans the 1999 and 2000 conferences and encompasses close to 20 theme panels, may point to one of two conclusions: (a) that divisions in the field are so entrenched that constructive dialogue is impossible, or (b) th at there is more consensus than we imagined. In either case, the need for self-critical assessment among scholars of International Studies is imperative as we enter a new millennium.