1On the sidelines”, [1] demonstrating a “self-chosen isolation” likely to become “incestuous”; [2] “confined”; [3] “largely self-contained” and “self-sufficient”; [4] “disconnected”, “very France-specific” and “lacking openness to the outside”; [5] “on the periphery” and “marginal”. [6] To read the findings made by both French and foreign observers over the past 25 years on the state of the international relations (IR) discipline [7] in France, the situation French IR scholars find themselves in seems hardly enviable: wallowing in their “subdiscipline”, [8] spending most of their time lamenting “the paucity of resources, the absence of prospects and the immaturity of the discipline”, [9] French IR scholars are considered “remarkably idiosyncratic”. [10] Certainly, the same authors note that in recent years, French IR has gone through “a period of metamorphosis” synonymous with “a revolution in both the quantity and the quality of the French contribution to IR discourse at the international level”. [11] As such, Marie-Claude Smouts talks of a “considerable change” which happened during the 1990s; [12] similarly, for Jörg Friedrichs, “after two generations of self-chosen isolation, French IR is finally beginning to become connected to the international debate”; [13] lastly, Jean-Jacques Roche welcomes the fact that today in France, “international relations is no longer considered as the refuge for failed teachers, but rather as an innovative sector at the cutting edge of research”. [14] However, when we know that as early as 1956 Alfred Grosser had highlighted that “over the past few years, the study of international relations has begun to develop in France”, [15] how can we not wonder whether this cautious optimism is not more a case of not wanting to sow discouragement, rather than firmly believing that significant progress is being made in French IR?

2In any event, do these findings correspond to the actual French IR reality experienced by French IR scholars themselves? What about the “self-reliance” [16] that it is claimed they have chosen? [17] Do they agree with the idea that “French IR is at a greater distance from the Anglo-American mainstream than any other continental [European] IR community”? [18] How do they view their relationship with IR theory, defined as “the fabric of competing approaches that try to represent in abstract terms the organisational principles of political interaction beyond national territories”? [19] Is it true to say that French IR scholars “do not conceive of [their] central research practice – as would be the case for any aspiring assistant professor on the US job market – to participate in and help to shape the central theoretical debates of the day”? [20]

3With the aim of reviewing the “temptation to exist” of French IR scholars (to borrow the title of a special issue of the journal La Revue internationale et stratégique published in 2002 which was devoted to French IR), [21] this article intends to study the situation of French IR scholars by using data collected in the course of the fourth survey in the TRIP (Teaching, Research, and International Policy) research project, conducted by a team of investigators at the Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, part of the College of William & Mary, located in Williamsburg, in the US state of Virginia.

4Our initial postulate is that this survey paints a detailed picture of contemporary French IR, [22] for never has so much data on so many subjects been available, allowing comparisons with such a large number of other countries. This allows us to determine whether French IR scholars fit in with the global theoretical trends, what their degree of access to American journals is, how they perceive their discipline’s place in France and also its evolution over the past twenty years, where they studied for their PhD, whether they collaborate with English-speaking IR scholars and are members of international associations, whether they think that French universities and French scholars are recognised internationally, etc.

5Our analysis brings together the responses obtained on different themes whilst also comparing them to those obtained in other countries. Specifically, this article will look at, successively, the place that IR occupies in French academe, the issue of the possible existence of a French style of IR, the positioning of French IR scholars in relation to current global IR trends, their attitude towards IR practitioners, and lastly the issue of the French language in a global discipline of Anglo-American origin and expression. More generally, the analysis of the results obtained revolves around two issues: how do French IR scholars perceive themselves? How open is French IR to global IR?

The place of international relations within French academe

6To read the findings made on the state of IR in France suggests that French IR is in bad shape, apparently not independent and likely to remain structurally disadvantaged in relation to other disciplines better established in French universities. The “poor relation of political science” [23], IR appears to suffer from a “chronic deficit […] occupy[ing] a modest, if not marginal place” in social sciences and humanities in France. [24] It also appears to be absorbed by other disciplines: some commentators highlight for example the low proportion of IR scholars acknowledged by the National Universities Council of France (CNU) or employed by France’s National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS); the small number of IR scholars who are agrégés (who have passed the highly demanding national competitive examination to become a full professor) or who are members of the committee awarding the aforementioned qualification (jury d’agrégation); and the tendency to fill positions indicated as being in IR with candidates who are not really IR scholars. It is claimed that this lack of professional opportunities, in research as well as in teaching, pushes new scholars in political science to prefer to work in areas other than IR. There are thus not enough French IR scholars, and they have not reached the “critical mass” that would ensure them international visibility and enable them to build research networks. In other words, incapable of acquiring the material and symbolic resources necessary for their institutionalisation in France, IR scholars are perceived as not being in a position to control the allocation of certain resources or to be competitive on the international market. Internal marginalisation therefore results in international marginalisation. [25]

7Furthermore, the strength of the rivalries between individuals and also between IR scholar communities is seen as preventing the creation of a positive dynamic. [26] This finding is supported by Olivier Godechot and Nicolas Mariot: after analysing the networks that determine who is invited to sit on political science doctoral thesis committees, they conclude that “the relational structure [of international relations experts] provides evidence of many ‘cliques’, very dense networks of relationships between groups of two, three or four individuals; however these cliques are poorly interlinked”. [27] Knowing that “the level of cohesion and density of the group enables it to exist, to limit internal competition and to mobilise itself against the other groups in order to obtain benefits for its own members”, [28] such practices are seen as detrimental to IR. The fact that French IR is monopolised by some centres and departments, all of which are located in Paris, would, if these findings are to believed, also contribute to France’s isolation [29] by allowing a small number of well-established professors in the discipline to define the research agenda. [30] Lastly, and on a broader level, it can be argued that the decline in French influence in the world after the Second World War has put the study of IR in France on the defensive – a phenomenon which, conversely, would work in favour of American IR scholars, who benefit from the rising power of the United States. [31]

8Notwithstanding these handicaps, the beginnings of change during the 1990s and throughout the 2000s were also observed, with French IR scholars seemingly wanting to address the structural weakness of IR in France. These changes would take a number of forms. According to François Constantin, there was mounting evidence of this: “the number of conferences, seminars and publications has increased and they illustrate the quality and intensity of the investment” made by French IR scholars. [32] In addition, in 1987 there was the success of the first expert in international relations to be “agrégé”; [33] the creation of a certain number of research centres focusing on international issues and an International Studies Section (SEI) [34] within the French Political Science Association (AFSP); the organisation of the second pan-European conference of the Standing Group on International Relations in Paris in 1995; [35] and also the founding of the Association des Internationalistes (Association of IR Scholars) in 2010. Another sign of change was the launch of two journals, Cultures et conflits and Critique internationale. [36]

9Are these assertions supported by the TRIP survey? Several questions were posed with the aim of determining how French IR scholars would themselves assess their discipline and its place in academe. The answers provided confirm, at least in the first instance, the finding of a somewhat negative perception of the place of IR in France: 57% somewhat disagree and 35% very much disagree with the assertion that “IR research and teaching occupies a respectable place within French universities” (Q 386). This is therefore almost a unanimous view. It is a similar situation for the assertion that “there are a lot of IR scholars in France”: 60% somewhat disagree with this assertion, and 34% very much disagree (Q 385).

10Only 44% of respondents are members of a French professional association primarily for IR scholars [37] (Q 381), which is both the cause and the consequence of the poor structuring of IR in France. Without a professional body similar to what exists elsewhere – and notably in the form of associations affiliated to the International Studies Association (ISA) such as the British International Studies Association, or the ISA-Canada – French IR scholars are less able to organise themselves. This type of association notably holds an annual conference which is the opportunity for scholars to come together, to discuss their research and to widen their networks – all of which are elements that would help strengthen French IR. As regards the response rate, it must furthermore be highlighted that the TRIP survey in France had the lowest response rate of all the participating countries: of the 276 IR scholars who received the questionnaire, only 101 participated. France’s 36.6% response rate is considerably lower than the average (49.5%) and, by way of comparison, the country with the second lowest response rate – the United States as it happens – had a response rate of 42.3%. The fact that not far off two thirds of those persons contacted simply did not take the time to reply, or self-excluded as they did not see themselves as IR scholars, would seem to indicate that French IR scholars do not feel like they belong to one and the same community.

11The imbalance between Paris and provincial France – an imbalance specific to France in comparison to the other countries involved in the TRIP survey – is another indicator of the poor structuring of French IR (Q 12 and Q 13). The centrality of Paris is blatant, as more than half of the French respondents received their highest degree from four Paris-based institutions (Sciences Po Paris, University of Paris I – Panthéon Sorbonne, University of Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle and the School for Advanced Studies in Social Studies (EHESS)). There is certainly more variety with regard to the universities where respondents received their undergraduate degrees; however Paris continues to dominate, as demonstrated by the choice of the five best universities in France for undergraduate students to study international relations: the replies indicate the predominance of Paris (Sciences Po Paris and University of Paris I – Panthéon Sorbonne), followed by the Institute of Political Studies (IEP) of Bordeaux, Institute of Political Studies (IEP) of Lille, University of Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle, Institute of Political Studies (IEP) of Grenoble, Institute of Political Studies (IEP) of Strasbourg and Jean Moulin University – Lyon 3 (Q 55).

12Q 55. What are the five best universities in France for undergraduate students to study international relations?

Table 1

The best universities in France for undergraduate students to study international relations (in %)

Rank French university 1 Sciences Po Paris 89 2 University of Paris I – Panthéon Sorbonne 56 3 IEP of Bordeaux 52 4 IEP of Lille 33 5 University of Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle 33 6 IEP of Grenoble 22 7 IEP of Strasbourg 15 8 Jean Moulin University – Lyon 3 11

The best universities in France for undergraduate students to study international relations (in %)

13However, there are several factors that temper this pessimism. The response to the question concerning how the place of IR within French universities has evolved over the past twenty years is fairly positive: 33% of respondents consider that the place of IR remains unchanged, 56% believe that IR has advanced, and only 11% believe that IR has regressed (Q 384). The claims made by some commentators of an improvement in the position of IR during the 1990s and 2000s is thus supported by the majority of French IR scholars. Similarly, the average age of the French respondents (Q 14) is 40 – quite clearly younger than the global average of 46 – which is the sign of the revival and increased appeal that IR has experienced over the past twenty years. Another sign which could be interpreted as the symptom of a revival [38] is that 38% of the French respondents were women (Q 15). This represents a proportion significantly greater than the global average of 31%. To sum up this first point, the TRIP survey confirms the notion that French IR is not well placed within French academe, while indicating that this position has been improving over recent years.

A French style of IR?

14Over the last 30 years in France, several attempts have been made to define a specifically French IR approach. For example, in the 1980s, the French publishing house Presses universitaires de France (PUF) launched a collection publishing the writings of the “École française des RI” (French School of IR), an expression employed in the “temptation to exist” special issue of the journal Revue internationale et stratégique concerning French IR scholars, where one of the sections asks whether there is a move “towards a French School of International Relations”. [39] In 2005, Bertrand Badie posed the question of whether Raymond Aron was a “French-style” [40] thinker in the IR field, and in 2012, Dario Battistella identified the “sociology of international relations” as the dominant feature of the most practised form of IR in France. [41] Furthermore, in 2010, Battistella and Badie organised a deliberately loosely structured IR summer school, French Touch, in order to take stock of any IR specificities in France. The reasons for most of these initiatives are clear: by successfully creating a national identity – in the manner of the English School of IR – French IR scholars would be likely to combine their fragmented efforts rather than tear themselves apart in internal wars, and set in motion a positive dynamic enabling them to better position themselves within French universities and gain a place and recognition in the international arena.

15It remains to be seen what response these initiatives received from the IR scholars. In the TRIP survey, the majority of the French respondents have heard of a French School of IR (57% had heard of it, 20% had heard of it but do not know very much about it, 23% had never heard of it) (Q 376), whereas 48% had never heard of French Touch, compared to 29% who had heard of it and 24% who had heard of it but did not know very much about it (Q 371). The French School of IR therefore has a certain degree of recognition, in contrast to French Touch. Unfortunately no comparative data is available, making it impossible to determine whether these labels are known outside France. That said, there is no comparison with the English School of IR, which has managed to impose itself within the global discipline to the extent, for example, of forming a separate section within the ISA.

16The replies to the questions asking whether the IR scholars surveyed had heard of French Theory (Q 370) and the Paris School (Q 372), indicate that the majority of respondents (54%) had never heard of the former (while 28% had heard of it and 17% had heard of it but did not know very much about it), nor of the latter (the percentages for the different responses being 75%, 11% and 14% respectively). These last results confirm the disconnect between French IR scholars and global IR, as French Theory – which particularly refers to Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze – is well known in the majority of foreign countries, notably in Europe, due to its influence on post-structuralism. The Paris School, associated with Didier Bigo, has been presented by Ole Waever – in a study that again received a certain level of attention abroad – as the French equivalent of the Copenhagen and Aberystwyth Schools as regards security studies. [42] In other words, to be a success with French IR scholars, it is not enough to penetrate international markets. [43] This paradox is in part the result of the development of social sciences in the United States, and the growing success that constructivism has enjoyed since the 1980s, [44] while in France the latter has had far less influence than the sociology of IR and the analysis of actors and public policies.

17Beyond these different labels, several questions in the TRIP survey focus more specifically on the identity of the discipline in France. The majority of respondents think that there is a specifically French way of studying IR (26% very much agree, 46% somewhat agree), even if some of them signal their disagreement with this (28% somewhat disagree) (Q 382). Does this specificity lie in the sociology of IR (Q 373)? The picture is more or less identical, as 27% very much agree with this assertion, 50% somewhat agree, 20% somewhat disagree and 2% very much disagree. Overall, the vast majority of French IR scholars are therefore inclined to view the sociology of IR as a French specificity. It is interesting to link this result with the emphasis on the importance of ideational factors (such as culture, perceptions, ideology, beliefs, etc.). In their research, French IR scholars particularly stress the importance of these factors when explaining international outcomes (93% of the French respondents, compared with 84% on average and 80% in the United States), even if they are far from being the only ones to do so – the same applies, for example, to 94% of the respondents in New Zealand and Argentina and 95% in Turkey and Singapore (Q 27).

18Does the French specificity lie in the choice of a theoretical framework, in the adoption of a certain epistemology, or in the use of certain methods? [45] The responses concerning theoretical affiliation (Q 21) indicate that in France, as in the rest of the world, IR scholars are split firstly between constructivists (24% in France compared to 22% on average), realists (23% compared to 16% on average) and liberals (7% compared to 15% on average). The relatively large presence of realism and the very low proportion in France of supporters of liberalism must be underlined. Furthermore, and specific to France, a significant proportion of respondents chose to write “political sociology” (6%) and “institutionalism” (2%) in the “other” category. Similarly, as regards the presence of the different paradigms in the different undergraduate Introduction to IR courses (Q 6), several respondents have written “transnationalism” in the “other” category, thus confirming a certain distinctive French characteristic.

19Q 21. Which of the following best describes your approach to the study of IR? If you do not think of your work as falling within one of these paradigms, please select the category in which most other scholars would place your work.

Table 2

Theoretical affiliations of the IR scholars (in %)

Constructivism English School Feminism Liberalism Marxism Realism Political sociology Institutionalism Other paradigm I do not use paradigmatic analysis All 22 4 2 15 4 16 ** ** 15 22 United 20 2 2 20 2 16 ** ** 12 26 States France 24 2 0 7 2 23 6 2 8 24

Theoretical affiliations of the IR scholars (in %)

20Concerning the epistemological characteristics of the respondents, the three options (positivist, non-positivist, post-positivist) were chosen in similar proportions: 32%, 36% and 32% respectively (Q 26). Although the results from other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Mexico, may be similar to the French results, the proportion of positivist respondents in France is significantly lower than the average proportion of positivists in the other countries, and notably in the United States – the results of which are 59% positivist, 21% nonpositivist and 20% post-positivist. As regards the method primarily employed (Q 28), on the one hand, France distinguishes itself by the low use of quantitative methods (2% compared to 15% on average), and on the other hand, by the wider use of pure theory (7% compared to 3% on average) and policy analysis (26% compared to 17% on average). As elsewhere in the world, the majority of the French respondents overwhelmingly employ qualitative methods (57% in France compared to 58% on average). These results are confirmed by the fact that when a department advertises an IR lecturer post, only 12% of the respondents prefer a candidate who knows how to use quantitative research methods rather than a candidate who knows how to use qualitative research methods, compared to 49% who reply that they do not prefer such a candidate, and 39% who do not have a preference either way (Q 368).

21Q 26. In general, how would you characterise your work in epistemological terms?

Table 3

Epistemological characteristics of IR scholars (in %)

Positivist Non-positivist Post-positivist All 47 28 26 United States 59 21 20 France 32 36 32

Epistemological characteristics of IR scholars (in %)

22As regards the other methods employed in addition to the primary method, 54% of the French respondents (compared to 43% on average in the world) use policy analysis (Q 29). Single case study (58% in France compared to 63% on average) and comparative case study (70% in France compared to 79% on average) dominate for those French respondents who employ a qualitative method (Q 30). As for the other types of qualitative methods, the French particularly employ discourse analysis (49% compared to 32% on average), ethnography (30% compared to 12% on average) and process tracing (53% compared to 37% on average).

23Another reason often cited as an explanation for France’s isolation is the historical development of French IR. It was nurtured by lawyers and historians until the 1960s, [46] whereas this was not the case in the United States. [47] Today, political scientists still have to compete with lawyers, [48] the result of which is a particular conception of the discipline where it is seen not as the preserve of political scientists but rather as a “crossroad discipline”, [49] whose distinctive feature is its multi- and interdisciplinary nature. [50] In a sense, the problem of defining a single autonomous French IR discipline, a problem that has existed since Aron in the 1960s, would still not be resolved in the 1990s, [51] especially as many French IR scholars justify this multidisciplinarity by the particular nature of the object that this discipline studies, the study of “international relations” requiring numerous tools taken from sociology, law, political science, psychology, economics, history, etc. [52]

24As a result of this multidisciplinarity no consensus can be reached on the very definition of what an IR scholar is in France. There are many who oppose the classifying of IR in the field of political science in the strict sense, or who incorporate into IR any research concerning politics in a foreign country – including when it touches on an issue of domestic policies. The line between IR and comparative politics is thus much more blurred than in other countries, and area studies along with comparative politics feature prominently within French IR. [53] Several commentators stress for example that changing the name of the CERI – one of the main centres of IR research in France – is not insignificant. From the Centre for Studies in International Relations, in 1976 it became the Centre for International Studies and Research in order to encompass area studies and comparative politics. [54] All these elements are sometimes seen as impediments to the emergence of a fully-fledged French IR, even if some stress that this multidisciplinary nature is a specificity, and therefore, potentially, an “asset” for France. [55]

25The TRIP survey results are ambiguous on these questions. Half of the respondents consider IR to be a discipline (22% very much agree, 31% somewhat agree), and the other half does not (36% somewhat disagree, 11% very much disagree) (Q 374). As regards international relations as an object of study (Q 375), respondents are almost unanimous in saying that IR falls within several social sciences (40% very much agree, 53% somewhat agree, 7% somewhat disagree). A link between these two results can be established: because nearly all of the French respondents consider that IR falls within several social sciences, the process that could lead to IR becoming a discipline in its own right is impeded – even though, of course, there are other causes for this impediment.

26There is a relatively good self-identification of the respondents as IR scholars (Q 17), as above all they describe their primary field of study as IR or a field linked to IR (foreign relations, international affairs, international studies, global studies) (54% in France compared to 60% on average). Nonetheless, in France a greater proportion of respondents indicate that their primary field of study is political science (19% compared to 14% on average) or area studies (14% compared to 10% on average). A certain number of respondents (4%) also chose to put down “international political sociology”.

27Q 17. Which of the following best describes your primary field of study?

Table 4

Primary field of study of IR scholars (in %)

Primary field of study All United States France International relations 38 41 40 Political science 14 17 19 Area studies 10 10 14 Foreign relations 5 5 7 Global studies 5 4 4 International political sociology ** ** 4 International studies 6 5 2 International affairs 6 6 1 Other fields 17 12 9

Primary field of study of IR scholars (in %)

28France distinguishes itself by the strong presence of international relations of a particular region/country (11% compared to 7% on average) and comparative foreign policy (7% compared to 4% on average) as main areas of research within IR (Q 22). As regards secondary areas of research within IR (Q 23), the French respondents, as in the other countries, divide into a large number of categories, which is a sign of a growing fragmentation and specialisation of the discipline. This said, however, a particularly large number of the French respondents chose the study of the international relations of a particular region/country (24% compared to 17% on average) and comparative foreign policy (29% compared to 15% on average). This is a sign of the vigour of area studies in France. On the other hand, international political economy (5% compared to 12% on average), and international security (14% compared to 19% on average) as main areas of research within IR are noticeably lacking in France. However, the weak presence of international security as a main area of research in IR is offset by the fact that 29% of the French respondents (compared to 18% on average) make it one of their secondary areas of research. Furthermore, of the six European countries in which this survey was conducted (Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden being the others), France has the lowest proportion of respondents considering European integration to be their main area of research within IR.

29Q 22. What is your main area of research within IR?

30Q 23. What are your secondary areas of research within IR? Select all the areas that apply.

Table 5

IR scholars’ areas of research (in %)

Area of research Main area Secondary area All United France All United France States States Comparative foreign policy 4 5 7 15 14 29 Development studies 4 5 2 12 13 6 Global civil society 1 2 1 8 8 8 History of the international relations < 1 < 1 1 5 3 8 discipline Human rights 2 3 0 10 11 4 Human security 1 2 0 9 7 6 International environment 2 2 1 5 6 3 International ethics 1 < 1 0 5 3 4 International history 2 < 1 4 9 7 9 International law 2 3 0 8 10 5 International organisation(s) 5 6 7 19 20 26 International political economy 12 13 5 15 17 13 International relations of a particular 7 4 11 17 12 24 region/country International relations theory 7 6 7 20 16 19 International security 19 21 14 18 18 29 International health < 1 < 1 1 1 1 3 Philosophy of science < 1 < 1 1 3 3 5 US foreign policy 5 8 5 17 22 22 Country X foreign policy 3 4 9 15 Conflict and violence analysis 6 1 Other 9 8 7 11 11 14 European studies / European 6 4 11 9 7 23 integration I am not an IR scholar 6 6 4

IR scholars’ areas of research (in %)

31In summary, the precise outlines of a possible French IR approach are yet to be determined. Even if some specificities are emerging and a certain consensus exists regarding the important position of the sociology of IR in France, [56] there are differences between French IR scholars in terms of method, theoretical approach and epistemology. French IR scholars are relatively more oriented towards non-comparative qualitative methods, at a time when quantitative and/or comparative methods are experiencing a revival in other countries, and particularly in the United States, thus confirming French IR’s trend to disconnect from global IR. If a large proportion of French IR scholars consider IR to be their primary field of study, the IR in question is multidisciplinary in nature – in line, this time, with a recent trend in the global discipline [57] – but with a strong flavour of political science, area studies and comparative politics.

How do global IR and French IR influence each other?

32According to certain observers, French specificities mean that French debates do not follow the same lines as the discipline’s debates, particularly those in America. [58] More generally, they claim that French IR scholars do not take any notice of international academic production: almost no seminal work in the IR discipline has been translated into French. [59] In so doing, the French IR scholars suffer less than elsewhere in the world from “American imperialism” because they do not feel as if they are being “dominated”. [60]

33The structural weakness of French IR is also said to result in their absence from global IR. Thus, for some, French IR scholars are not read and cited by their counterparts in other countries. [61] They primarily publish articles or works in French that have practically no impact internationally. They play little part in European calls for tender, are absent from international conferences, and very few of them sit on the editorial boards of the discipline’s principle journals. [62] Aside from the causes already mentioned, other institutional reasons are sometimes put forward to explain this: French academe, which divides teaching and research in too strict a fashion, [63] does not provide adequate funding or allow enough time to attend international conferences and conduct field studies. [64]

34Once again, however, it is argued that there has been a recent trend towards internationalisation with, in particular, an increasingly strong French presence at international conferences and in foreign research centres, participation in pan-European calls for tender and interuniversity discussions, the translation into English of certain works and their publication in international journals, a better knowledge of the theoretical debates taking place on the other side of the Atlantic, the translation into French of articles written by Americans, and so forth. [65] It is also important to highlight the publication in French during the 2000s of two textbooks on international relations theory – one authored by Dario Battistella and published by the Presses de Sciences Po; the other, a work edited by Alex Macleod and Dan O’Meara, bringing together IR scholars from Quebec, and published by Éditions Athéna. These two works are seen to have contributed to raising many French IR scholars’ awareness of the debates concerning the discipline taking place elsewhere in the world.

35Some of the data provided by the TRIP survey prompts us to qualify this idea of French openness: on certain aspects, France remains in fact only slightly open when compared to other countries, or is somewhat out of step with them. Only 30% of the French respondents are members of a non-French professional association primarily for IR scholars (Q 378). This is confirmation of the, at best, partial opening up of French IR, and of the small number of connections between French IR and global IR. It is also interesting to note the predominance of French universities, both in the undergraduate studies of the respondents (88%) (Q 13) and the institutions where they received their highest degree (93%) (Q 12). Of the French respondents, 82% specified France as their country of origin (Q 16), which positions it as a fairly closed country – as, it is worth noting, are the United States (76%), Canada (82%) and Israel (93%). How advantageous do the French respondents think a PhD completed in an American university is on the French job market, compared to a PhD completed in a French university (Q 45)? Confirming the relatively closed nature of France, 52% of the French respondents replied that it is not advantageous (compared to 35% on average) – after Finland (83% of negative responses), France is the second most closed country from this perspective. The reason for this closure probably lies in the recruitment traditions: it is generally necessary to have completed a PhD in France in order to be considered by the selection boards.

36Another disconnect can be observed in relation to the IR scholars considered to have produced the most interesting research over the past five years: the first four researchers considered in France – namely, in alphabetical order, Bertrand Badie, Dario Battistella, Jean-François Bayart, and Didier Bigo – all work in France, and none of them are listed by respondents from other countries. Only three researchers (Barry Buzan, Alexander Wendt and Joseph Nye) are considered both in France and the other countries in the survey to have produced the most interesting research over the past five years. In other words, the French respondents as a whole consider the most interesting research over the past five years to be French productions.

37Our data also confirms, to a large extent in any case, that French IR is absent from global IR. At global level, no French researcher, journal, publishing house or university are cited as being among the most influential. Two exceptions must however be noted. One, a priori surprising, is the presence of Le Monde diplomatique: this monthly periodical, translated into more than twenty languages, with numerous editions in foreign countries, is considered as one of the most influential periodicals in the world, but not in France (Q 46). This paradox is linked to its very great influence in Latin America: the Brazilians, Argentinians, Colombians and Mexicans all consider it to be influential, which is not the case anywhere else. The other, more understandable, exception concerns the French academic institution Sciences Po Paris, considered by 4% of respondents in the world as having one of the best masters programmes (Q 54). Here too, the influence of both Latin and Central America plays a preponderant role, as 12% of Brazilian respondents, 17% of Colombian respondents, and 20% of Mexican respondents consider this programme as one of the best. Furthermore, Sciences Po Paris finds itself in seventeenth position on the list of institutions from which the respondents received their highest degree (Q 12), after being listed by eight respondents outside France (in addition to the 25 respondents within France). On the other hand, Sciences Po Paris does not feature in the twenty top responses where undergraduate studies are concerned (Q 13), nor for the best doctoral programmes (Q 55). In short, and with the exception of Le Monde diplomatique and Sciences Po Paris for the aforementioned reasons, French IR never reaches the top of the world rankings. [66]

38Regarding articles in journals, the results obtained confirm the ambiguous situation of French IR in respect of the degree to which it is open or closed to global IR: 41% of the French respondents would like to be published in what is considered the discipline’s leading journal in the world, International Organization (Q 379). Their second preferred journal is however the Revue française de science politique (22% of French respondents), then International Security (19%), Études internationales (16%), World Politics (16%), European Journal of International Relations (13%), Politique étrangère (13%) and Foreign Affairs (13%). International journals and French or French-language journals (Études internationales) alternate therefore in the esteem of French IR scholars, again highlighting that the specificity of French IR competes against the desire to decisively connect up with global IR. Similarly, in undergraduate Introduction to IR courses, French IR scholars make students read slightly fewer American authors than the average (43% compared to 58% on average), and slightly more local, in this case French, authors (27% compared to 25% on average), although, from this perspective, they are no different really from many other countries (Q 5).

39Q 379. Rank the top three journals in which you would like to be published.

Table 6

Ranking of preferred journals for publication (in %)

Rank Journal % 1 International Organization 41 2 Revue française de science politique 22 3 International Security 19 4 Études internationales 16 4 World Politics 16 6 European Journal of International Relations 13 6 Politique étrangère 13 6 Foreign Affairs 13

Ranking of preferred journals for publication (in %)

40However, TRIP survey data also show that French IR scholars are well aware of global trends. The data confirms for example that they read and know American authors. Respondents had to list four scholars who have had the greatest influence on the field of IR in the past twenty years (Q 43). The results obtained reveal a certain closeness of France to the rest of the world, as ten out of the fifteen scholars considered in France as the most influential also feature among the twenty considered the most influential in the world. These are: Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane, John Mearsheimer, Joseph Nye, Barry Buzan, James Rosenau, Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Walt, Susan Strange and Samuel Huntington. These scholars are considered as essential reading by a large number of IR scholars the world over. The majority of them are American which shows that IR remains an American discipline. The top two authors listed in France (Wendt and Keohane) are also the leading names in the world which, from this perspective, illustrates France’s connection with the rest of the world. As has been shown, this finding is qualified when influence exerted over the past five years is taken into account instead of the most important production of the past twenty years. Comparison of these two results could be cause for optimism, given that the recognition afforded French IR scholars over the past five years tends to indicate that, lately, French IR scholars have been seen as having something to say, which had rarely been the case in the past. [67] It must however be noted that this result is perhaps due to the fact that the French respondents first read the research produced by their French colleagues: this research is published in French, in journals published in France, often by individuals with whom they work together often. We know that it takes longer for foreign authors to be assimilated in France, and can therefore infer a kind of time lag: in the short-term, national logics dominate, while in the long-term, what could appear to be a global consensus on the most influential scholars emerges.

41Concerning the percentage of IR literature devoted to different paradigms (Q 41), France estimates the presence of constructivism to be greater (31% of the literature compared to 20% on average), and that of liberalism to be lesser (22% compared to 28% on average), however there is little or no difference to speak of concerning the French respondents’ estimations of realist approaches (29% compared to 33% on average), Marxism (6% compared to 9% on average), feminism (7% in France and 7% on average) and the English School (12% compared to 9% on average). Moreover, there is no French distinctiveness as regards the extent to which these paradigms feature in undergraduate Introduction to IR courses (Q 6): the French give each of the principal IR paradigms approximately the same weight as their colleagues in other countries.

42Q 41. What percentage of IR literature do you estimate is devoted to each of these paradigms today?

Table 7

The paradigms in IR literature (in %)

Constructivism Realism Liberalism Marxism Feminism English Non-paradigmatic Other School All 20 33 28 9 7 9 17 13 United 17 32 29 7 7 6 19 13 States France 31 29 22 6 7 12 18 5

The paradigms in IR literature (in %)

43Q 6. Approximately what percentage of your undergraduate Introduction to IR course do you devote to the study and/or application of each of the following IR paradigms? (If you have multiple answers for “other”, only record the most prominent other paradigm).

Table 8

The paradigms in undergraduate Introduction to IR courses (in %)

Constructivism Realism Liberalism Marxism Feminism English School Transnationalism Non-paradigmatic Other All 13 24 21 11 7 8 ** 18 15 United States 11 25 22 10 7 5 ** 19 17 France 15 25 22 9 4 9 1 23 8

The paradigms in undergraduate Introduction to IR courses (in %)

44Of the eleven publishing houses which, according to the French respondents, publish the most influential works, all are English-language university presses, with the notable exception of the Presses de Science Po (Q 48). The same is true for the best doctoral programmes in the world for a student who wants to pursue an academic career in IR (Q 53) and for the best masters programmes in the world for those who want to pursue a policy career in IR (Q 54): all are either English or American with the exception of Sciences Po Paris. These results are comparable with those obtained from IR scholars from the other countries, except for the presence of the Presses de Sciences Po and Sciences Po Paris that only the French take into consideration. Here too therefore exists a closeness between French IR scholars and other IR scholars.

45The ranking of journals in France (Q 46) also follows the global logic: ten of the fourteen journals considered in France as being the most influential feature in the list of the twenty most influential journals according to IR scholars from the twenty countries surveyed, and in approximately the same order. They are: International Organization, International Security, Foreign Affairs, World Politics, Foreign Policy, European Journal of International Relations, Review of International Studies, International Studies Quarterly, American Political Science Review and Global Governance. The four other journals are French-language journals to which global influence is attributed due to distortionary effects. These four journals (Critique internationale, Cultures et conflits, Études internationales, and Politique étrangère) feature among what are considered to be the five most influential French-language journals, the fifth being the Revue française de science politique (Q 369).

46Q 46. Rank the four journals that publish articles with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think about IR. These can include IR journals, general political science journals and/or non-political science journals.

47Q 369. Rank the three French-language journals that publish articles with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think about IR. These can include IR journals, general political science journals and/or non-political science journals.

Table 9

Journals considered to be the most influential in IR (in %)

Rank Title of journal % Rank Title of French-language journal % 1 International Organization 67 1 Critique internationale 57 2 International Security 39 2 Cultures et conflits 49 3 Foreign Affairs 31 3 Études internationales 46 4 World Politics 19 4 Politique étrangère 38 4 Foreign Policy 19 4 Revue française de science politique 38 6 Critique internationale 17 6 European Journal of International Relations 17 8 Review of International Studies 14 8 Études internationales 14 8 International Studies Quarterly 14 11 American Political Science Review 8 11 Politique étrangère 8 11 Global Governance 8 11 Cultures et conflits 8

Journals considered to be the most influential in IR (in %)

What place for theory and its application?

48Could the absence of French IR be linked with the poor theoretical contribution of French IR scholars? Theory dominates the global discipline, starting with the United States. Logically then, as Stephano Guzzini stresses, in order to avoid remaining on the “periphery”, it is necessary to do theoretical work. [68] The multi-disciplinary nature of French IR has meant that theorisation has played a marginal role in the discipline, [69] when law and history do not attach a lot of importance to theory. French IR scholars – with a few exceptions – have not involved themselves in the development of theory, and some are openly sceptical about it, preferring the sociology of IR instead, [70] with the result that even journals such as Cultures et conflits and Critique internationale make an insignificant theoretical contribution. [71]

49In fact, the results obtained show that IR theory is not particularly neglected in France: 7% of French respondents consider it to be their main area of research (as many as the global average) (Q 22), and 19% consider it to be one of their secondary research areas (compared to 20% on average) (Q 23). The same is true for the perception of the importance of IR theory in understanding IR (Q 383): almost all of the French respondents consider that theories are important (35% very much agree and 46% somewhat agree), and only 17% of the French respondents disagree (and 2% very much disagree). Our data indicates therefore that the cause of today’s disconnect lies elsewhere than in a lack of regard for theorisation in France.

50Is the disconnect attributable then to the absence of links between IR theory and practice? Some – namely those French IR scholars not having access to decision-makers and not being heard – concentrate on teaching at the expense of research whose impact would be negligible. [72] Once again, the TRIP survey is more nuanced. More French IR scholars than the overall average of IR scholars in the twenty countries surveyed are tempted by consulting or working in a paid capacity for international organisations (23% compared to 11% on average), for think tanks (23% compared to 15% on average) and for their country’s government (25% compared to 20% on average), even if they collaborate less often with nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) (7% compared to 12% on average). There are fewer French IR scholars who do not consult or work in a paid capacity for any organisation (41% compared to 53% on average) (Q 51). French IR scholars also collaborate relatively well with these same organisations without being paid (Q 52).

51It remains true however that French IR is more basic than applied: the majority of French IR scholars consider their research to be “primarily basic” (29% compared to 21% on average) or “both basic and applied, but more basic than applied” (again 29%, compared to 38% on average), whereas only 6% (compared to 11% on average) consider that their research is “primarily applied” and 23% (compared to 15% on average) consider it to be “both basic and applied, but more applied than basic” (Q 31). [73] When compared to the average of the other countries, it appears that the focus of French IR scholars is more on basic research.

52In line with this result, policy relevance/current events motivate the research of the French respondents (Q 32) less than they motivate the research of their IR colleagues in the survey as a whole (22% compared to 33% on average). Similarly, if respondents around the world are generally motivated primarily by their issue area, the French respondents are especially so (53% compared to 39% on average). When asked what aspect should primarily motivate research in the IR discipline, the French respondents most favour the issue area (69% compared to 51% on average) and least favour policy relevance/current events (11% compared to 29% on average) (Q 60). As regards the kinds of IR research which can be useful to policy makers, France is no different from the rest of the world with the majority of respondents considering area studies as somewhat useful, even very useful, while theoretical analysis and formal models are not seen as such (Q 57).

53Q 60. Which of the following best describes what you believe should primarily motivate research in the IR discipline? (only one choice possible)

Table 10

Motivation for IR research (in %)

Appeal to popular audience Issue area Methodology Paradigm Policy relevance / current events Region Other All 3 51 2 4 29 2 10 United States 2 54 1 3 29 1 9 France 7 69 0 7 11 4 2

Motivation for IR research (in %)

54From these results it can be deduced that French IR scholars are indeed more focused on basic research, which has no direct policy relevance and no interest in current events. They are however relatively more consulted by policy makers – perhaps this is a way to compensate for the lack of resources available within academe.

The issue of language

55Is language another factor to take into account when looking to explain the isolation of French IR, given that the effects of language help structure the discipline? [74] The fact that the French publish in French, when the discipline is dominated by English and few IR scholars speak several languages, is another of the reasons given to explain the disconnect. [75] This leads, for example, Marie-Claude Smouts to consider it “essential” to adopt a policy for translating French works into English. [76]

56On this subject, the TRIP survey data indicates that French IR scholars are on average more multilingual than the other respondents (Q 36): not one of the French IR scholars speaks only their native language (compared to 22% on average and 30% in the United States), 39% speak one foreign language (compared to 37% on average and 39% in the United States), 37% speak two foreign languages (compared to 26% on average and 22% in the United States), 24% speak three or more foreign languages (compared to 14% on average and 9% in the United States). It must be noted however that when looking solely at those countries for whom English is not the official language (France, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Israel, Turkey, Hong Kong, Singapore, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico), the average number of languages spoken by the French IR scholars is comparable to the number spoken by the IR scholars in these other countries. This is linked to the fact that as English dominates the discipline, it is less of a necessity for those IR scholars whose native language is English to have a good command of other languages, whereas it is an essential requirement for the other IR scholars to have a good command of at least English. These findings are confirmed by the frequency with which respondents use sources and documents that are not in their native language to conduct their scholarly research (Q 37): 93% of the French respondents do so regularly, while the figure stands at only 46% when all the respondents from across the world are taken into account, and 27% in the case of the United States.

57Q 36. Other than your native language, how many foreign languages do you understand well enough to conduct scholarly research?

Table 11

Foreign languages spoken by IR scholars

None One Two Three or more All 22 37 26 14 United States 30 39 22 9 France 0 39 37 24

Foreign languages spoken by IR scholars

58It is interesting to note that despite having a good command of the English language, the majority of the French respondents (71%) in the last three years have not co-written a paper presented at an academic conference with an English-speaking scholar, co-written an article published in an academic journal with an English-speaking scholar, or co-edited a work with an English-speaking scholar. Only 29% of them have collaborated with an English-speaking scholar (Q 380). This is a sign that French IR scholars are relatively closed. However, this low level of collaboration is also due to the fact that in France, compared to other countries, books are more important and articles less so. Regarding the three kinds of research outputs that it is most important for IR scholars to publish in order to advance their academic career, in France, single-authored books (87% compared to 86% on average), but especially co-authored books (32% compared to 19% on average), and edited books (39% compared to 11% on average) are more important, provided that they are published by university presses – single-authored books published by commercial publishing houses being perceived as of particularly low value in France (5% compared to 27% on average) (Q 50). Peer-reviewed articles are relatively less valued, whether they are single-authored (74% in France compared to 88% on average) or co-authored (29% compared to 37%). By contrast, in the United States, articles are more important and books less so. This specifically French feature both explains and reflects the fact that French IR scholars have difficulty penetrating markets in which relatively more importance is attached to peer-reviewed articles, such as the United States. More oriented towards producing books for national reasons, it is logical that French IR scholars be less present internationally, where articles are more valued.

59Q 50. Rank the three kinds of research outputs that it is most important for you to publish in order to advance your academic career

Table 12

Ranking of the kinds of research outputs it is important to publish in order to advance an academic career (in %)

All United States France Book: SA, UP 86 90 87 Book: SA, CP 27 22 5 Book: CA, UP 19 19 32 Book: CA, CP 2 2 0 Book: E, UP 11 10 39 Book: E, CP 2 < 1 0 Book chapter: UP 11 11 11 Book chapter: CP 2 1 0 Journal article: SA, PR 88 89 74 Journal article: SA, NPR 3 3 3 Journal article: CA, PR 37 41 29 Journal article: CA, NPR < 1 < 1 3 Conference paper 4 4 13

Ranking of the kinds of research outputs it is important to publish in order to advance an academic career (in %)

Note: SA = single-authored; CA = co-authored; UP = university press; CP = commercial press; E = edited; PR = peer-reviewed; NPR = not peer-reviewed

60*

61* *

62Following this analysis of the data gathered through the TRIP survey, an ambivalent picture emerges of the IR discipline in France and its integration within the global discipline. If the French IR scholars who responded in this survey appear open and in step with the global discipline in regard to their theoretical trends, the number of languages spoken, and the methods employed, they notably remain rather closed in regard to their places of study, the scholars who they consider to have been interesting in recent years, and the tendency to publish books rather than articles, among other factors.

63It is no longer possible to say that French IR is isolated from the rest of the world as was the case for a long time; the hope nourished during the 1990s by several commentators is beginning to materialise. However, this emergence remains partial in a number of aspects: French IR scholars continue to feel marginalised in French academe, while the influence of political science and area studies remains strong. Not one French IR scholar or French journal is recognised internationally. The majority of French IR scholars are neither members of a French association for IR scholars only, nor members of an equivalent international association. The picture then is mixed, both in regard to the place of IR in France and the place of French IR in the world. It is as if French IR scholars are hesitating between a desire to differentiate themselves, as evidenced by the debates on a French School of IR, multidisciplinarity and the sociology of IR, and a desire to integrate with the global discipline, as shown by the importance they attribute to American journals and American authors. There is no doubt this paradox explains a number of the results obtained in the survey. Furthermore, the question as to whether several of the trends observed are specific to IR still remains: in particular, we can consider the lack of publications in English, the non-presence in the discipline’s major decision-making centres across the world, and the paucity of quantitative studies as being far from exclusive to IR. It would therefore be interesting to conduct research focusing on a series of French sub-fields of social sciences in order to see whether there are any recurrences and to try to explain them.

64As we highlight in Annex 1, only political scientists were considered IR scholars in this survey and they were the only ones invited to participate in the survey, in accordance with the guidelines provided by the American managers of the TRIP project. Such a definition has undoubtedly influenced the results obtained. However, it is precisely one of the strengths of the research undertaken here that it reveals the existence of French IR scholars who are beginning to be well connected within the global discipline after having spent a long time in the shadow of lawyers, historians and even other political scientists. The best evidence that French IR is evolving is undoubtedly the fact that for the first time the TRIP survey was conducted in France. It is a sign that France is little by little beginning to become part of the global discipline. It is to be hoped that the arms outstretched by global IR to French IR will in the future be grasped by more IR scholars than the solitary third among them who agreed to take part in this survey. This response rate, the lowest of all the countries involved in the TRIP survey, illustrates just how much further there is to go before a genuine community of French IR scholars emerges. [77]