Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship

• Author: Laura Sjoberg,Kelly Kadera,Cameron G. Thies
• Date: 01 April 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0022002716669207
• Published date: 01 April 2018
• Subject Matter: Dialogue and Debate Feature

Dialogue and Debate Feature

Reevaluating Gender

and IR Scholarship:

Moving beyond Reiter’s

Dichotomies toward

Effective Synergies

Laura Sjoberg

1

, Kelly Kadera

2

,

and Cameron G. Thies

3

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 mis-

understandings 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

gender, conflict, rebellion, war

1

Department of Political Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

2

Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

3

School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Cameron G. Thies, School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University, 6748 Lattie F. Coor

Hall, Tempe, AZ 85282, USA.

Email: cameron.thies@asu.edu

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2018, Vol. 62(4) 848-870

ªThe Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022002716669207

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

Dan Reiter (2015, 2) aims ‘‘to overturn ...(mis)perceptions ...about the past and

future of the positivist study of gender and IR’’ in his literature review for JCR

readers. While Reiter’s survey of ‘‘positivist gender/international relations (IR)

scholarship’’ thoroughly summarizes large-n, statistical analyses relating sex or

gender and various aspects of global politics, it falls short of its goal of overturning

misperceptions. Instead, Reiter’s portrayal of much gender and IR research is pro-

blematically dichotomized between what he calls ‘‘positivist’’ and ‘‘nonpositivist’’

approaches. As a result, his proposed synthesis between these two bodies of work

impedes intellectually productive dialogue.

We seek a more accurate picture of different approaches to gender and IR work

that underscores their comparative strengths and weaknesses to identify more fruit-

ful possibilities for synthesis. While many gender and IR scholars see synergistic

conversations as dangerous (e.g., Sylvester 2013; Brown 1988), we believe the

potential payoff of careful, complex engagement is worth any risks. Thus, we defend

a pluralist approach to (gender and) IR rather than critiquing one side or the other in

divides constructed between positivism and postpositivism.

1

Gender and IR research

is at its best when it is multimethod, epistemologically pluralist, multisited, and

carefully navigates these differences (Ackerly, Stern, and True 2006). We develop

this argument below and conclude by analyzing how such an approach changes

Reiter’s claims concerning research in gender and IR.

Seeing Gender and IR Scholarship

Reiter’s account of the disciplinary history and sociology of gender and IR scholar-

ship characterizes ‘‘nonpositivist’’ work as fading from its dominant position begin-

ning around 2000 (p. 1), with only ‘‘several scholars’’ (p. 4) continuing to do

nonpositivist work in the new millennium. The research Reiter labels ‘‘nonpositivist

gender/IR’’ frequently self-identifies as feminist IR—a substantively important dis-

tinction. While (largely postpositivist) feminist IR was founded in the late 1980s

(e.g., Cohn 1987; Tickner 1988; Brown 1988; Whitworth 1989; Peterson 1992;

Tickner 1992), and entered its second generation of in-depth case study research

in the 1990s (e.g., Moon 1997; Hooper 2001; Chin 1998; see Tickner and Sjoberg’s

2011 discussion), its trajectory since has been exponential growth rather than abate-

ment. Membership in the International Studies Association’s Feminist Theory and

Gender Studies section, for example, rose from barely 100 members in 2005 to

almost 500 in 2015. Third generation feminist IR, both theoretically and empirically

rich, suggests gender constitutes war and conflict (Cockburn 2010; Sjoberg 2013),

structures socialization of male and female s oldiers (Belkin 2012; Enloe 2010),

constructs security narratives (Wibben 2010; MacKenzie 2009), makes militariza-

tion possible (Kronsell 2012; Alexander 2010; Eichler 2012), influences militaries’

selections of strategies and tactics (Sjoberg and Peet 2011; Sjoberg 2013), weighs

heavily in participation in political violence (Parashar 2014; Gentry and Sjoberg

Sjoberg et al. 849