Abstract
Abstract Over the last 40 years, investigations have shown the discipline of International Relations to reproduce the American influence on its methods, paradigms, and institutional dynamics. This article explores the case for the Latin American community, based on the survey data from the Teaching, Research, and International Politics project (TRIP) 2014 developed by the Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations of the College of William and Mary, Virginia (USA). TRIP evaluated International Relations communities in 32 countries around the world. The article aims to answer two main questions: (i) is American influence still dominant over epistemological, methodological, paradigmatic, and institutional representative terms in Latin American International Relations communities, as has been considered in the past? (ii) Is there in the region any contestation to this supposed influence? Primarily, the present article shows an affirmative answer for the first issue. Therefore, and most importantly, the data analysis shows upcoming local pressures rooted in American influence, especially on its epistemic and paradigmatic terms. The data strengthens the miscegenation tendency on its epistemological and paradigmatic aspects, which underlines a lack of consensus over the structure of American dominance over the discipline of International Relations in Latin America, especially if one observes the most numerous and structured group in the region: the Brazilian International Relations community.
Highlights
There are few academic articles regarding the way peripheral countries deal with both central production and the perception of American hegemony in the discipline
The main assumption continues to be based on the research of Hoffman (1977), who asserts that the discipline of International Relations is basically an American social science; it is normally associated with the belief that international knowledge produced in the United States is spread and reproduced around the world, wherever the discipline is practiced
Tickner and Weaver detect the lack of deeper research with a global perspective in International Relations theory, stating: “a limited number of studies have emerged on the contrast between the field of International Relations in the United States and Western Europe, but within a global perspective this is a ridiculously narrow view” (Tickner & Weaver, 2009, p. 1)
Summary
There are few academic articles regarding the way peripheral countries deal with both central production (including the epistemological and paradigmatic) and the perception of American hegemony in the discipline. [t]he reflection on the history and nature of the discipline, which was so important for the development of the post-positivist debate in International Relations circles, did not take root in the region [Latin America]. One more important question should be addressed: how is American influence perceived among Latin America communities of International Relations scholars with regard to both ideational and institutional influences and publications and contributions from American authors? The TRIP project has been in progress since 2004 and is hosted by the Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, William & Mary College Today it includes more than 33 International Relations communities around the world. Latin American communities of International Relations scholars in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico were included (Maliniak et al, TRIP 2011). The five communities investigated in Latin America totaled 445 respondents’ researchers
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
