Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship

Moving beyond Reiter’s Dichotomies toward Effective Synergies

Laura Sjoberg, Kelly Kadera, Cameron Thies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We seek a more accurate review of, and reflection on the gender and international relations (IR) literature than that offered by Reiter. Our evaluation corrects misunderstandings related to key dichotomies (mis)used in analyzing scholarship: sex/gender, positivism/nonpositivism, and epistemology/ontology. It also underscores the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different types of research in order to identify more fruitful possibilities for synthesis. We make the pluralist case that gender and IR research is at its best when it is multimethod, epistemologically pluralist, multisited, and carefully navigates the differences between feminist analyses and large-n statistical studies. The potential payoff of careful, synergistic engagement is worth any risks.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)848-870
Number of pages23
JournalJournal of Conflict Resolution
Volume62
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2018

Fingerprint

gender relations
synergy
international relations
positivism
epistemology
ontology
gender
evaluation
Synergy
Dichotomy
International relations
Gender relations
literature
Multi-method
Positivism
Evaluation
Ontology
Epistemology

Keywords

  • conflict
  • gender
  • rebellion
  • war

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship : Moving beyond Reiter’s Dichotomies toward Effective Synergies. / Sjoberg, Laura; Kadera, Kelly; Thies, Cameron.

In: Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 62, No. 4, 01.04.2018, p. 848-870.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9fd47e8a29d44d42827a5c52b27927f4,
title = "Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship: Moving beyond Reiter’s Dichotomies toward Effective Synergies",
abstract = "We seek a more accurate review of, and reflection on the gender and international relations (IR) literature than that offered by Reiter. Our evaluation corrects misunderstandings related to key dichotomies (mis)used in analyzing scholarship: sex/gender, positivism/nonpositivism, and epistemology/ontology. It also underscores the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different types of research in order to identify more fruitful possibilities for synthesis. We make the pluralist case that gender and IR research is at its best when it is multimethod, epistemologically pluralist, multisited, and carefully navigates the differences between feminist analyses and large-n statistical studies. The potential payoff of careful, synergistic engagement is worth any risks.",
keywords = "conflict, gender, rebellion, war",
author = "Laura Sjoberg and Kelly Kadera and Cameron Thies",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0022002716669207",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "848--870",
journal = "Journal of Conflict Resolution",
issn = "0022-0027",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship

T2 - Moving beyond Reiter’s Dichotomies toward Effective Synergies

AU - Sjoberg, Laura

AU - Kadera, Kelly

AU - Thies, Cameron

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - We seek a more accurate review of, and reflection on the gender and international relations (IR) literature than that offered by Reiter. Our evaluation corrects misunderstandings related to key dichotomies (mis)used in analyzing scholarship: sex/gender, positivism/nonpositivism, and epistemology/ontology. It also underscores the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different types of research in order to identify more fruitful possibilities for synthesis. We make the pluralist case that gender and IR research is at its best when it is multimethod, epistemologically pluralist, multisited, and carefully navigates the differences between feminist analyses and large-n statistical studies. The potential payoff of careful, synergistic engagement is worth any risks.

AB - We seek a more accurate review of, and reflection on the gender and international relations (IR) literature than that offered by Reiter. Our evaluation corrects misunderstandings related to key dichotomies (mis)used in analyzing scholarship: sex/gender, positivism/nonpositivism, and epistemology/ontology. It also underscores the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different types of research in order to identify more fruitful possibilities for synthesis. We make the pluralist case that gender and IR research is at its best when it is multimethod, epistemologically pluralist, multisited, and carefully navigates the differences between feminist analyses and large-n statistical studies. The potential payoff of careful, synergistic engagement is worth any risks.

KW - conflict

KW - gender

KW - rebellion

KW - war

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041726095&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041726095&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0022002716669207

DO - 10.1177/0022002716669207

M3 - Article

VL - 62

SP - 848

EP - 870

JO - Journal of Conflict Resolution

JF - Journal of Conflict Resolution

SN - 0022-0027

IS - 4

ER -