What’s the point of being a discipline? Four disciplinary strategies and the future of International Relations

While disciplinary identities are among the most fraught subjects in academia, much less attention has been given to what disciplinarity actually entails and risks different strategies involve. This article sets out a theory of that recognises not only their coercive but also redeeming features, particularly view coexistence multiple competing disciplines powerful transdisciplinary movements (such as rationalism). On this basis it identifies four each is assessed relation future IR: (1) remaining subdiscipline Political Science (‘stay put’), (2) becoming an interdisciplinary field (‘reach out’), (3) dissolving into transdisciplinarity or abolishing IR (‘burn down’), (4) establishing discipline its own right (‘break out’). Rejecting false choice constraint versus epistemic freedom, framework allows other subfields more consciously consider range entertain affordances they offer. The concludes independent focused on implications ‘the international’ just for politics all fields – including would make broader, diverse IR, ultimately better able engage disciplines.