Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Remembering and forgetting IPE : disciplinary history as boundary work

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Clift, Ben, Kristensen, Peter Marcus and Rosamond, Ben (2022) Remembering and forgetting IPE : disciplinary history as boundary work. Review of International Political Economy, 29 (2). pp. 339-370. doi:10.1080/09692290.2020.1826341 ISSN 0969-2290.

[img]
Preview
PDF
WRAP-Remembering-forgetting-IPE-disciplinary-history-Clift-2020.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer.

Download (1600Kb) | Preview
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1826341

Request Changes to record.

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.

Item Type: Journal Article
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Politics and International Studies
Journal or Publication Title: Review of International Political Economy
Publisher: Routledge
ISSN: 0969-2290
Official Date: 2022
Dates:
DateEvent
2022Published
6 October 2020Available
10 September 2020Accepted
Volume: 29
Number: 2
Page Range: pp. 339-370
DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2020.1826341
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Reuse Statement (publisher, data, author rights): “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Review of International Political Economy on 06/10/2020, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09692290.2020.1826341
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access
Date of first compliant deposit: 30 September 2020
Date of first compliant Open Access: 6 April 2022

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us