Contributions and Blind Spots of Constructivist Norms Research in International Relations, 1980-2018: A Systematic Evidence and Gap Analysis

9Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The study of international norms from a social constructivist perspective has been one of the major conceptual innovations to the discipline of international relations (IR) over the past forty years. However, despite the concept's ubiquity, there is only a limited understanding of the large-scale trends in research associated with its rise. This analytic essay interrogates conventional wisdom, using a dataset of 7,795 mainstream, English-language journal articles from the Teaching, Research and International Policy Journal Article Database, supplemented with data from Web of Science. How have international norms been studied substantively and methodologically, what are major contributions and blind spots, and which opportunities for future innovation might exist? Although norms research has historically helped expand the scope of issues covered in IR (e.g., gender issues and public health), others have evidence gaps relative to the broader discipline of IR (e.g., terrorism and public opinion). Over the years, the proportion of empirical studies has increased, while purely theoretical, epistemological, and methodological work and innovation have decreased. Despite calls for methodological pluralism, norms research is significantly more qualitative and conceptual than mainstream IR in general and far less multi-method. While more international and less US-based than IR in general, norms research in mainstream journals seems to be no closer to a "Global IR,"measured by regional focus and author affiliation. This suggests three promising avenues for future innovation: greater attention to specific substantive blind spots, more multi-method research, and increased attention to the agenda of Global IR. Beyond these individual insights, this review illustrates the general utility of complementing narrative literature reviews with ones based on quantitative data. It also provides a case study on conceptual proliferation and innovation in IR.

References Powered by Scopus

bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis

7276Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

International Norm Dynamics and Political Change

5515Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar Economic Order

2672Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Norm dynamics in a post-hegemonic world: multistakeholder global governance and the end of liberal international order

11Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

International Norm Disputes: The Link between Contestation and Norm Robustness

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Indigenous Identity, Human Rights, and the Environment in Myanmar: Local Engagement with Global Rights Discourses

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Peez, A. (2022, March 1). Contributions and Blind Spots of Constructivist Norms Research in International Relations, 1980-2018: A Systematic Evidence and Gap Analysis. International Studies Review. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab055

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 7

58%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

33%

Researcher 1

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 7

58%

Business, Management and Accounting 3

25%

Chemistry 1

8%

Engineering 1

8%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free