The practice of maintaining a long-term, peacetime military presence in another state (or “sovereign basing”) only developed in the last century. Before World War II, a foreign military presence usually meant one of three things: occupation, colonization, or a wartime alliance. This changed radically in the years after 1945.
Perhaps the problem isn’t that theories leak from the lab, but efforts to seal the lab in the first place. If political scientists spent more time observing the policy world, me might get both better and more careful theories in the first place.
Is it a mistake to push back on a senior scholar (whose work you admire) right before ISA? Maybe. Is it overkill to post twice in one week? Probably (sorry Duck superiors). But I had to say...
Thanks to PTJ, ISQ Online is running a debate about the scope and nature of the 'practice turn' in the study of world politics. The symposium centers around a recent International Studies...
The seventeenth Duck of Minerva podcast features Iver Neumann, then of the London School of Economics.
2012 interview with Vincent Pouliot.
2012 interview with Ted Hopf.
Ted Hopf has an extremely cool talk on how practice-turn theory is being assimilated by the liberal-constructivist borg. Give it a listen.Background on liberalism and constructivism at the Duck, International Studies Review, and via Sammy Barkin.