Affiliation:
1. Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we assess the methodological approaches employed in articles published in Brazilian and global mainstream IR journals in order to observe the differences between the two. To this end, we compare the methodological tools applied in research articles published in the top two Brazilian journals (Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional and Contexto Internacional) vis-à-vis two other top international influential mainstream publications (International Organization and World Politics), from the year 2009 to 2019. By undertaking a Systematic Literature Review, we surveyed a total of 955 articles. Our research concluded that Brazilian IR scholarship differs from the mainstream literature because (1) most articles do not mention the mobilized methods during their analyses, (2) the field of IR presents more non- and post-positivist approaches, and (3) contrary to the mainstream outlets, quantitative methods are rarely employed in Brazil.
Reference68 articles.
1. Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies;Acharya A;International Studies Quarterly,2014
2. The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary;Acharya A,2019
3. Foreign policy analysis: new approaches;Alden C,2017
4. Reflexive discourse analysis: A methodology for the practice of reflexivity;Alejandro A;European Journal of International Relations,2021
5. Western dominance in international relations? the internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India, Worlding beyond the West;Alejandro A,2019
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献