The Practice, Purpose, and Perils of List-Making

Abstract

In spring 2009 issue of International Journal, John Kirton published his of important books on Canadian foreign He framed his as a response to what he believes to be one remaining unanswered question about field: Is Canadian foreign policy really a self-contained field with an intellectually coherent, progressive research tradition, defined by seminal books of creative inspiration and continuing relevance at its core?1 Although Kirton suggests that good reasons to doubt that (554), exercise of producing such a convinces him that there is, at long last, a single field of Canadian foreign policy, reflective of rich diversity that subject itself contains (564). In putting forward his list, Kirton invites others to offer their own suggestions and amendments, presenting as the beginning of a debate about what field is, on what its best books are(556), rather than as definitive statement ofthe best books in field. Despite this, Kirton does go on to argue that virtuaUy all scholars should accept of his selections as clear choices or credible candidates, and where readers' personal favourites have been omitted, these scholars should be able to mount a considered case to explain why personal favourite that has been omitted is better than one or more of Kirton's own personal favourites (555).In responding to Kirton's article, we talcing up invitation to interrogate what constitutes academic field of Canadian foreign policy. In doing so, is neither our intent nor our desire to produce an alternative of books in response to Kirton's top 10. Rather, we want to raise questions about entire enterprise of production, whether those lists of important books, of books, or of scholars.2 The act of defining a field based on what its best books are is an exercise that is inherently political, and not only for reason that Kirton identifies - that it is unlikely that aU scholars currently teaching and researching in [Canadian foreign policy] wul agree with every book on list (555). Whue we may (and wul) query selection of books that Kirton has included on his list, is not choice of individual books that causes us greatest consternation. Rather, our concern is with fact of producing such a in first instance, particularly when objective of effort is to demonstrate supposed self-contained and research existing in field. In this inherently political exercise, Kirton is tracing boundaries of field as he sees it, and in so doing, defining its important theoretical questions and traditions, thereby effectively marginalizing or dismissing other questions and traditions as less significant, perhaps irrelevant, and certainly not consistent with coherent research tradition that he believes now defines field. As such, practice, purpose, and perils ofthe list-making enterprise merit serious discussion, which we propose to undertake by looking both at Kirton's list, and at implicit messages behind list-making.THE PRACTICE OF LIST-MAKINGKirton begins his article by situating his own list-making effort within context of other lists. In particular, he looks at 2009 TRIP survey of top international relations /Canadian foreign policy scholars in order to establish a of scholars of Canadian foreign policy. He supplements this most influential with a of io books appearing on 25 undergraduate Canadian foreign policy 200809 syllabi available to him on web, which he deems most used textbook list. He then presents us with his of 10 important books on Canadian foreign policy. His criteria for selection of 10 important books, aside from being personal favourites, seem to include innovative ideas [that] stand at or near centre of field today (556). …