'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn. / Rosamond, Ben; Warleigh-Lack, Alex.
In: Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2013, p. 542-555.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - 'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn
AU - Rosamond, Ben
AU - Warleigh-Lack, Alex
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - In a recent piece in this journal Jørgensen and Valbjørn develop a typology of intellectual dialogue across fields that yields rather negative conclusions about the prospects for sustainable dialogue between ‘European studies’ and the ‘new regionalism’. This response disputes this pessimistic conclusion. First, it is argued that while their derivation of models of dialogue is impressive, it is nonetheless incomplete. Using Jørgensen and Valbjørn’s premises, the article derives a ‘market’ mode of dialogue that represents a challenge to their assumption that dialogue will tend towards hierarchy. Second, the article accepts that there are important ‘sociology of knowledge’ impediments to effective dialogue within political science and International Relations, but maintains that Jørgensen and Valbjørn fail to work through the question of ‘dialogue between whom?’ The article argues that methodological division is the most significant impediment to dialogue, but maintains that within-methodology dialogue is more than viable in the case under scrutiny in this debate. Third, having established these general parameters of disagreement, the article moves to a number of more particular criticisms of the assumptions made by Jørgensen and Valbjørn about extant calls for dialogue between scholars in these two fields.
AB - In a recent piece in this journal Jørgensen and Valbjørn develop a typology of intellectual dialogue across fields that yields rather negative conclusions about the prospects for sustainable dialogue between ‘European studies’ and the ‘new regionalism’. This response disputes this pessimistic conclusion. First, it is argued that while their derivation of models of dialogue is impressive, it is nonetheless incomplete. Using Jørgensen and Valbjørn’s premises, the article derives a ‘market’ mode of dialogue that represents a challenge to their assumption that dialogue will tend towards hierarchy. Second, the article accepts that there are important ‘sociology of knowledge’ impediments to effective dialogue within political science and International Relations, but maintains that Jørgensen and Valbjørn fail to work through the question of ‘dialogue between whom?’ The article argues that methodological division is the most significant impediment to dialogue, but maintains that within-methodology dialogue is more than viable in the case under scrutiny in this debate. Third, having established these general parameters of disagreement, the article moves to a number of more particular criticisms of the assumptions made by Jørgensen and Valbjørn about extant calls for dialogue between scholars in these two fields.
KW - Faculty of Social Sciences
KW - dialogue
KW - European studies
KW - new regionalism
KW - sociology of knowledge
U2 - 10.1177/0010836713484903
DO - 10.1177/0010836713484903
M3 - Journal article
VL - 48
SP - 542
EP - 555
JO - Cooperation and Conflict
JF - Cooperation and Conflict
SN - 0010-8367
IS - 4
ER -
ID: 44781202