Discourse, genealogy and methods of text selection in international relations

References

• Angermuller J, Maingueneau D, and Wodak R (eds) (2014) The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ashley R (1988) Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium 17: 227–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., KhosaviNik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T., and Wodak, R (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society 19(3): 273–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banta B (2013) Analyzing discourse as a causal mechanism. European Journal of International Relations 19(2): 379–402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartelson J (1995) A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett A (2015) Found in translation: Combining discourse analysis with computer assisted content analysis. Millennium 43(3): 984–997.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevir M (2008) What is genealogy? Journal of the Philosophy of History 2(2): 263–275.
   Google Scholar
• Bevir M (2011) The contextual approach. In Klosko G (ed) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 11–23.
   Google Scholar
• Borg S (2018) Genealogy of critique in International Relations: Beyond the hermeneutics of baseless suspicion. Journal of International Political Theory 14(1): 41–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady H and Collier D (eds) (2004) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Carta C and Morin J (eds) (2014) EU Foreign Policy through the Lens of Discourse Analysis: Making Sense of Diversity. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carta C and Wodak R (2015) Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity. Journal of Language and Politics 14(1): 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier D and Mahon J (2003) ‘Conceptual ‘stretching’ revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis. American Political Science Review 87(4): 845–855.
   Google Scholar
• Collier D, et al (2004) Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. In Brady H and Collier D (eds) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 161–200.
   Google Scholar
• Coopman C (2013) Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the Problems of Modernity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Derrida J (1976) Of Grammatology (trans. Spivak GC) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Derrida J (1996) Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression (trans. Prenowitz E). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doty R (1993) Foreign policy as a social construction: A post-positivist analysis of US counterinsurgency policy in the Philippines. International Studies Quarterly 37(3): 297–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elster J (1989) Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein C (2008) The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein C (2013) Constructivism or the eternal return of universals in International Relations: Why returning to language is vital to prolonging the owl’s flight. European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 499–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flowerdew J (2014) Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics, vol.3. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault M (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge (trans: Smith AMS). New York: Pantheon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault M (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. Colin Gordon. London: Harvester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M (1990) The History of Sexuality, vol. 1 (trans. Hurley R) New York: Vintage.
   Google Scholar
• Foxlee N (2010) Albert Camus’s ‘The New Mediterranean Culture’: A Text and Its Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• George A and Bennett A (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geertz C (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gerring, J (2004) What is a case study and what is it good for?’ American Political Science Review 98(2): 341–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J (2006). Single-outcome studies: A methodological primer. International Sociology 21(5): 707–734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring J and Seawright J (2007). Techniques for choosing cases. In Gerring J. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–150.
   Google Scholar
• Gilpin R (1984) The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization 38(2): 287–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser B and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Goertz G (2017) Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guzzini S and Leander A (eds) (2006) Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and His Critics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen L (2006) Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkesworth M (2006) Contending conceptions of science and politics: Methodology and the constitution of the political.’ In Yanow D and Schwartz-Shea P (eds) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. NY: ME Sharpe, pp. 27–49.
   Google Scholar
• Heron T and Murray-Evans P (2017) Limits to market power: Strategic discourse and institutional path dependence in the European Union—African, Caribbean, and Pacific economic partnership agreements. European Journal of International Relations 23(2): 341–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holzscheiter A (2013). Between communicative action and structures of signification: Discourse theory and analysis in International Relations. International Studies Perspectives 15(2): 142–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson PT (2006) Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson PT (2010) The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• KhorsaviNik, M (2010) Actor descriptions, actor attributions, and argumentation: towards a systemization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies 7(1): pp. 55–72.
   Google Scholar
• King, G, Keohane R, and Verba S (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kinsella H (2011) The Image before the Weapon: A Critical History of the Distinction between Combatant and Civilian. thaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kratochwil F (1989). Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krebs R (2015) How dominant narratives rise and fall: Military conflict, politics, and the Cold War consensus. International Organization 69(4): 809–845.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krippendorff K (2013) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kristeva J (1982) Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krzyzanowski, M (2010) Discourses and concepts: interfaces and synergies between Begriffsgeschichte and the discourse-historical approach in CDA. in R de Cillia, H Gruber, M Krzyzanowski & F Menz (eds), Diskurs-Politik-Identitaet/Discourse-Politics-Identity. Stauffenburg Verlag, Tuebingen, pp. 125–137.
   Google Scholar
• Krzyzanowski M and Wodak R (2011) Political strategies and language policies: The European Union Lisbon strategy and its implications for the EU’s language and multilingualism policy. Language Policy 10(2): 115–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law J (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson S (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lijphart A (1971) Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review 65(3): 682–693.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundborg T and Vaughan-Williams N (2015) New materialisms, discourse analysis, and International Relations: A radical inter-textual approach. Review of International Studies 41(1): 3–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lustick I (1996) History, historiography, and political science: Multiple historical records and the problem of selection bias. American Political Science Review 90(3): 605–618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney J and Goertz G (2004). The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review 98(4): 653–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milliken J (1999) The study of discourse in International Relations: A critique of research and methods. European Journal of International Relations 5(2): 225–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nealon J (1993) Double Reading: Postmodernism after Deconstruction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nietzsche F (1887/1997) On the Genealogy of Morality (trans. Diethe C) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parel A (2003) The comparative study of political philosophy. In Parel A and Keith R (eds) Comparative Political Philosophy: Studies Under the Upas Tree. Lanham: Lexington, pp. 11–28.
   Google Scholar
• Price R and Reus-Smit C (1998) Dangerous liaisons? Critical international theory and constructivism. European Journal of International Relations 4(3): 259–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price R and Tannenwald N (1996) Norms and deterrence: The nuclear and chemical weapons taboo. In Katzenstein P (ed) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 114–152.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
   Google Scholar
• Rheindorf M and Wodak R (2017) Borders, fences, and limits—protecting Austria from refugees: Metadiscursive negotiation of meaning in the current refugee crisis. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies 16(1/2): 1-2; 15–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenau P (1992) Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruggie, J (1993). Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in International Relations. International Organization 47(1): 139–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Said E (1993) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Sartori G (1970) Concept misinformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review 64(4): 1033–1053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz-Shea P (2006) Evaluative criteria and epistemic communities. In Yanow D and Schwartz-Shea P (eds) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. NY: ME Sharpe, pp. 89–114.
   Google Scholar
• Seawright J and Gerring J (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options,’ Political Research Quarterly 61(2): 294–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skocpol T (1979) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strath B and Wodak R (2009) Europe-Discourse-Politics-Media-History: Constructing Crises. in A Triandafyllidou, R Wodak & M Krzyżanowski (eds), The European public sphere and the media: Europe in crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 15–33.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss C (1987) Introduction to Marcel Mauss. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Swanton C (1985) On the ‘essential contestedness’ of political concepts. Ethics 95: 811–827.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titscher S, Meyer M, Wodak, R and Vetter E (2000) Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk T (2009) Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen T (2006) Towards a semiotics of typography. Information Design Journal 14(2): 139–155.
   Google Scholar
• Various (2015) Qualitative and Multi-Method Research Newsletter 13(1).
   Google Scholar
• Vucetic S (2011) Genealogy as a research tool in International Relations. Review of International Studies 37: 1295–1312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker RBJ (1986) Culture, discourse, insecurity. Alternatives 11(4): 485–504.
   Google Scholar
• White H (1973), Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Widdowson HG (1998) The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics 19(1): 136–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wigen E (2015) Two-level language games: International Relations as inter-lingual relations. European Journal of International Relations 21(2): 427–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodak R and Krzyzanowski M (2008) Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wodak R and Meyer M (eds) (2009) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edition. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Wodak R and Reisigl M (2009) The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In Wodak R and Meyer M (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edition. London: SAGE, pp. 87–121.
   Google Scholar
• Yanow D (2006) Neither rigorous nor objective? Interrogating criteria for knowledge claims in interpretive science. In Yanow D and Schwartz-Shea P (eds) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. NY: ME Sharpe, pp. 67–88.
   Google Scholar