Skip to content

Charting The Turning Discipline: International Relations Reading Group

The International Relations Reading Group is a group of scholars brought together by a shared interest in the discipline of International Relations. We meet regularly to discuss classic and contemporary papers in the field of IR. The intent of the group is to build and strengthen the IR community at Tampere University (and beyond). The group was initiated as a venue for doctoral researchers to deepen their understanding of the discipline, but we also welcome scholars at other stages to join the discussions. Readings are selected as a group, covering a range of topics — theoretical, methodological as well as empirical.

Love in International Relations

In the February 2025 meeting of the Tampere IR Reading Group, we discussed the underexplored theme of love in international relations (IR). The discussion was centered around two articles: Simon Polinder's "Through the Eyes of Love: Looking at International Politics Differently" and Liane Hartnett's "How Love Orders: An Engagement with Disciplinary International Relations."

Overcoming ‘innocent’ outrage: paying attention to the structures of whiteness in the discipline of IR

In the academic year’s final reading group meeting titled “Racialization, eurocentricity and colonialism in IR” we focused on recent scholarship on the whiteness in/of IR. We discussed Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit’s 2023 article “Upholding disciplinary whiteness: The #SdScandal, gender and international relations’ critical turn” and Meera Sabaratnam’s 2020 article “Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts”.

International Relations vs. Area Studies: Which research club do I belong to?

Are you considered, or do you consider yourself, an IR or Area Studies scholar? Are you hesitating whether to pursue a career in an IR department or in Area Studies?  What demarcates the difference between those fields, and what are the outcomes of belonging to either of them? These are common questions regarding academic identity that both our peers and we, as early-career researchers, often grapple with. In response, our IR Reading Group decided to discuss and critically reflect on these questions in April. We delved into the three articles: Andrew Hurrell’s commentary from 2020 in St. Antony’s International Review, “Why International Relations and Area Studies Need Each Other”; Amitav Acharya’s 2014 proposal in International Studies Quarterly, “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies”; and Stephen Aris’s 2021 research article in International Theory, “International vs. Area? The Disciplinary-politics of Knowledge-exchange between IR and Area Studies.”

Power in International Relations: In search of reconciliation of ontological incompatibilities

Power is one of the cornerstone concepts in International Relations. Despite its central role in study of politics, the concept of power – paradoxically – seems quite elusive and full of contradictions. Different theoretical traditions engage in long-standing debates about what power is, how it comes to be, and what its effects are. Following these questions, this time at our reading group we explored how we all understand the concept of power and how it is used in our research. To delve into these conversations, we discussed two articles: “Power in International Politics” by Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (2005) and “Decentering Global Power: The Merits of a Foucauldian Approach to International Relations” by Doerthe Rosenow (2009).

From fragmentation to productive engagement with difference in IR

In February 2024 the IR Reading Group took a dive into waters of metatheorising and the role of philosophy of science in the study of International Relations. Two articles served as the starting points to our reflection: L.H.M. (Lily) Ling’s article “Heart and Soul for World Politics: Advaita Monism and Daoist Trialectics in IR” which was published in the journal International Relations of the Asia-Pacific in 2018 and Colin Wight’s article “Bringing the outside in: The limits of theoretical fragmentation and pluralism in IR theory” that appeared in the journal Politics in 2019.