For a public international relations

The last few years have seen an opening up of what is considered to be the legitimate terrain of international relations (IR). This move is, for the most part, extremely welcome. Yet, the multiple theoretical and empirical openings in IR since the end of the Cold War have failed to elucidate many of the puzzles, questions and problems posed by the contemporary conjuncture. There are a number of reasons for this failure ranging from the stickiness of Cold War problem fields to IR’s continued attachment to systemic-level theories. However, this article focuses less on symptoms than on treatment and, in particular, on how generating a more “public” international relations enterprise might help to connect IR with the core theoretical, empirical and normative terrain of “actually existing” world politics. Taking its cue from recent debates in sociology about how to generate a “public sociology,” the article lays out three pathologies that a public IR enterprise should avoid and four ground rules—amounting to a manifesto of sorts—which sustain the case for a “public” international relations

Sociology and international relations: legacies and prospects

While sociological concepts have often been implicitly used in International Relations (IR), recent years have seen a more explicit engagement between IR and Sociology. As with any such interdisciplinary assignation, there are both possibilities and challenges contained within this move: possibilities in terms of reducing IR's intellectual autism and opening the discipline towards potentially fertile terrain that was never, actually, that distant; challenges in that interdisciplinary raiding parties can often serve as pseudonyms for cannibalism, shallowness and dilettantism. This forum reviews the sociological turn in IR and interrogates it from a novel vantage point—how sociologists themselves approach IR concepts, debates and issues. Three sociological approaches—classical social theory, historical sociology and Foucauldian analysis—are critically deployed to illuminate IR concerns. In this way, the forum offers the possibility of (re)establishing exchanges between the two disciplines premised on a firmer grasp of social theory itself. The result is a potentially more fruitful sociological turn, one with significant benefits for IR as a whole

Metaphors in complexity theory and planning

This article reviews the use of complexity theory in planning theory using the theory of metaphors for theory transfer and theory construction. The introduction to the article presents the author's positioning of planning theory. The first section thereafter provides a general background of the trajectory of development of complexity theory and discusses the rationale of using the theory of metaphors for evaluating the use of complexity theory in planning. The second section introduces the workings of metaphors in general and theory-constructing metaphors in particular, drawing out an understanding of how to proceed with an evaluative approach towards an analysis of the use of complexity theory in planning. The third section presents two case studies – reviews of two articles – to illustrate how the framework might be employed. It then discusses the implications of the evaluation for the question ‘can complexity theory contribute to planning?’ The concluding section discusses the employment of the ‘theory of metaphors’ for evaluating theory transfer and draws out normative suggestions for engaging in theory transfer using the metaphorical route