'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelfagfællebedømt

Standard

'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn. / Rosamond, Ben; Warleigh-Lack, Alex.

I: Cooperation and Conflict, Bind 48, Nr. 4, 2013, s. 542-555.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Rosamond, B & Warleigh-Lack, A 2013, ''Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn', Cooperation and Conflict, bind 48, nr. 4, s. 542-555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713484903

APA

Rosamond, B., & Warleigh-Lack, A. (2013). 'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn. Cooperation and Conflict, 48(4), 542-555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713484903

Vancouver

Rosamond B, Warleigh-Lack A. 'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn. Cooperation and Conflict. 2013;48(4):542-555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713484903

Author

Rosamond, Ben ; Warleigh-Lack, Alex. / 'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn. I: Cooperation and Conflict. 2013 ; Bind 48, Nr. 4. s. 542-555.

Bibtex

@article{a182b0a4edd2463ba35e0d481e131729,
title = "'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to J{\o}rgensen and Valbj{\o}rn",
abstract = "In a recent piece in this journal J{\o}rgensen and Valbj{\o}rn develop a typology of intellectual dialogue across fields that yields rather negative conclusions about the prospects for sustainable dialogue between {\textquoteleft}European studies{\textquoteright} and the {\textquoteleft}new regionalism{\textquoteright}. This response disputes this pessimistic conclusion. First, it is argued that while their derivation of models of dialogue is impressive, it is nonetheless incomplete. Using J{\o}rgensen and Valbj{\o}rn{\textquoteright}s premises, the article derives a {\textquoteleft}market{\textquoteright} mode of dialogue that represents a challenge to their assumption that dialogue will tend towards hierarchy. Second, the article accepts that there are important {\textquoteleft}sociology of knowledge{\textquoteright} impediments to effective dialogue within political science and International Relations, but maintains that J{\o}rgensen and Valbj{\o}rn fail to work through the question of {\textquoteleft}dialogue between whom?{\textquoteright} The article argues that methodological division is the most significant impediment to dialogue, but maintains that within-methodology dialogue is more than viable in the case under scrutiny in this debate. Third, having established these general parameters of disagreement, the article moves to a number of more particular criticisms of the assumptions made by J{\o}rgensen and Valbj{\o}rn about extant calls for dialogue between scholars in these two fields.",
keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, dialogue, European studies, new regionalism , sociology of knowledge",
author = "Ben Rosamond and Alex Warleigh-Lack",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1177/0010836713484903",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "542--555",
journal = "Cooperation and Conflict",
issn = "0010-8367",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - 'Greatly Exaggerated': the Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

AU - Rosamond, Ben

AU - Warleigh-Lack, Alex

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - In a recent piece in this journal Jørgensen and Valbjørn develop a typology of intellectual dialogue across fields that yields rather negative conclusions about the prospects for sustainable dialogue between ‘European studies’ and the ‘new regionalism’. This response disputes this pessimistic conclusion. First, it is argued that while their derivation of models of dialogue is impressive, it is nonetheless incomplete. Using Jørgensen and Valbjørn’s premises, the article derives a ‘market’ mode of dialogue that represents a challenge to their assumption that dialogue will tend towards hierarchy. Second, the article accepts that there are important ‘sociology of knowledge’ impediments to effective dialogue within political science and International Relations, but maintains that Jørgensen and Valbjørn fail to work through the question of ‘dialogue between whom?’ The article argues that methodological division is the most significant impediment to dialogue, but maintains that within-methodology dialogue is more than viable in the case under scrutiny in this debate. Third, having established these general parameters of disagreement, the article moves to a number of more particular criticisms of the assumptions made by Jørgensen and Valbjørn about extant calls for dialogue between scholars in these two fields.

AB - In a recent piece in this journal Jørgensen and Valbjørn develop a typology of intellectual dialogue across fields that yields rather negative conclusions about the prospects for sustainable dialogue between ‘European studies’ and the ‘new regionalism’. This response disputes this pessimistic conclusion. First, it is argued that while their derivation of models of dialogue is impressive, it is nonetheless incomplete. Using Jørgensen and Valbjørn’s premises, the article derives a ‘market’ mode of dialogue that represents a challenge to their assumption that dialogue will tend towards hierarchy. Second, the article accepts that there are important ‘sociology of knowledge’ impediments to effective dialogue within political science and International Relations, but maintains that Jørgensen and Valbjørn fail to work through the question of ‘dialogue between whom?’ The article argues that methodological division is the most significant impediment to dialogue, but maintains that within-methodology dialogue is more than viable in the case under scrutiny in this debate. Third, having established these general parameters of disagreement, the article moves to a number of more particular criticisms of the assumptions made by Jørgensen and Valbjørn about extant calls for dialogue between scholars in these two fields.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - dialogue

KW - European studies

KW - new regionalism

KW - sociology of knowledge

U2 - 10.1177/0010836713484903

DO - 10.1177/0010836713484903

M3 - Journal article

VL - 48

SP - 542

EP - 555

JO - Cooperation and Conflict

JF - Cooperation and Conflict

SN - 0010-8367

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 44781202