Abstract

A full understanding of the development and re-production of IPE is only possible with an appreciation of its disciplinary politics. This institutionalises four aspects of academic inquiry: (a) what is considered admissible work in the field, (b) how work should be conducted and where it should be published (c) where the field’s legitimate boundaries are, and (d) ‘external relations’ with cognate disciplines. Academic gatekeepers in positions of disciplinary influence shape perceptions about appropriate conduct within the field, what constitutes its core, and what lies outside its realm. Disciplinary political definitions of the field’s nature and limits are manifest in the writing of texts introducing students to IPE. Particularly important are origin stories, which are always partly about directing and coordinating scholarly activity in the present and for the future. Disciplinary history entails forgetting certain events, scholars and works that do not fit the prevailing chronology, marginalising or excluding some topics, debates and questions from the core of the field. We evidence our claims about the boundary work done in narrating IPE’s origins through bibliometric mapping and network analysis of IPE citation patterns and practices. We find that IPE is a narrower, more blinkered field than it typically presents itself to be.

摘要

只有了解其学科政治，才能全面了解 IPE 的发展和再生产。这将学术探究的四个方面制度化：（a）什么被认为是该领域可接受的工作，（b）应该如何进行工作以及在哪里进行工作它应该在 (c) 该领域的合法边界所在的地方发布，以及 (d) 与同源学科的“外部关系”。具有学科影响力的学术看门人塑造了对该领域内适当行为的看法，什么构成了它的核心，什么是它的领域之外。该领域的性质和限制的学科政治定义体现在向学生介绍 IPE 的文本的写作中。特别重要的是起源故事，它们总是部分地与指导和协调当前和未来的学术活动有关。纪律史需要遗忘某些事件、学者和作品不符合流行的年表，将某些主题、辩论和问题边缘化或排除在该领域的核心之外。我们通过文献计量映射和 IPE 引用模式和实践的网络分析来证明我们关于在叙述 IPE 起源方面所做的边界工作的主张。我们发现 IPE 是一个比它通常呈现的更狭窄、更狭隘的领域。