The question of whether IPE journals are boring, in Benjamin Cohen's provocative words, provides us with a useful opportunity to introspect on the state of the field. Briefly, to set the stage, Cohen argues that IPE has begun to mimic the methodological approach of most of the economics field—leading to a focus on mid-level theory—rather than on the big picture that characterized IPE in the early 1970s and 1980s. Cohen argues that journal editors have an important role to play to rectify this lack of imaginative thinking and writing. Specifically, he develops three well-articulated solutions. First, he suggests that the field would benefit from more review essays and that editors should actively solicit such articles. Second, he argues that symposia on various themes could help spice up the debate in the field. And third, he notes that changing submission policies to encourage commentaries and provocative arguments would enhance the prospects for greater creativity. One might simply dismiss these concerns about the obsession with quantitative techniques and large data sets as just another fad. After all, much of political science (particularly the study of international conflict) was dominated by the “scientific” approach to studying conflict in the 1970s. UN voting studies are an example of obsession with quantification. The Correlates of War (COW) data set and analysis are the most prominent exemplars of this phenomenon in conflict studies. Since then, COW data has been extensively used, but at the same time, there has been backlash against the original statistical approaches. Many alternatives, including formal modeling, qualitative techniques, and critical security studies, among others, have been developed to overcome what was often seen as “mindless number crunching.” So maybe it is just a matter of time before the pendulum swings back. This symposium might then be seen as an effort to give …