The ‘State of the Art’ in EU Studies: From Politics to Interdisciplinarity (and Back Again?)

Abstract

This article explores the disciplinary (political) and interdisciplinary characteristics of the field of EU studies from a UK perspective. It makes the claim that, although EU studies has been dominated by political/IR approaches, it has not been well integrated into the discipline of politics. However, one cannot assume that this is because EU studies is an interdisciplinary research area. Retaining, at least in the UK, much of its original ‘area studies’ character, which has built upon the UK academic culture of empiricism, EU studies remains somewhat inward looking. The article argues that addressing this problem by strengthening EU studies' ties to the discipline may not be helpful if the aim is to create a more outward-looking research field. Rather, interdisciplinarity, or even a post-disciplinary approach, may be a preferable way forward.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aspinwall

and Schneider

(2000), ‘Same Menu, Separate Tables: The Institutionalist Turn in Political Science and the Study of European Integration’, European Journal of Political Research 38(1), pp. 1–36.

Bates

(1997), ‘Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy?’, Political Science and Politics 30(2), pp. 166–169.

Calhoun

(2003), ‘European Studies: Always Already There and Still In Formation’, Comparative European Politics 1(1), pp. 5–20.

Cini

and Bourne

(eds.) (2006), Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Garrett

and Weingast

(1993), ‘Ideas, Interests, and Institutions: Constructing the European Community's Internal Market’ in Goldstein

and Keohane

(eds.), Ideas & Foreign Policy. Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hix

(1994), ‘The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics’, West European Politics 17(1), pp. 1–30.

Hoffman

(1966), ‘Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation State and the Case of Western Europe’, Daedalus 95(2), pp. 862–915.

Jupille

Caporaso

and Checkel

(2003), ‘Integrating Institutions: Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union’, Comparative Political Studies 36(1/2), pp. 7–41.

Moravscik

(1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, London: UCL Press.

10.

Peterson

(1995), ‘Decision-making in the EU: Towards a Framework for Analysis’, Journal of European Public Policy 2(1), pp. 69–93.

11.

Peterson

(2001), ‘The Choice for EU Theorists: Establishing a Common Framework for Analysis’, European Journal of Political Research 39(3), pp. 289–318.

12.

Pollack

(2001), ‘International Relations Theory and European Integration’, Journal of Common Market Studies 39(2), pp. 221–244.

13.

Radaelli

(2006), ‘Europeanization: Solution or Problem?’ in Cini

and Bourne

A.K.

(eds.), Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

14.

Schimmelfennig

and Sedelmeier

(2006), ‘The Study of EU Enlargement: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Findings’ in Cini

and Bourne

(eds.), Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

15.

Sjursen

(2002), ‘Why Expand? The Question of Legitimacy and Justification in the EU's Enlargement Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(3), pp. 491–513.

16.

Verdun

(2003), ‘An American/European Divide in European Integration Studies: Bridging the Gap with International Political Economy’, Journal of European Public Policy 10(1), pp. 84–101.

17.

Warleigh

(2006), ‘Conceptual Combinations: Multilevel Governance and Policy Networks’ in Cini

and Bourne

(eds.), Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

18.

Wiener

and Diez

(eds.) (2003), European Integration Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.