The Practice of International Relations Discipline in India: Obstacles and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of International Relations (IR) in India dates back to the 1950s and the establishment of the Indian School of International Studies (ISIS). Despite an early start, IR in India struggled to establish itself as a discipline due to domestic and institutional issues. Prominent criticisms of Indian IR include a lack of methodological rigour, an absence of theory, and low contributions to high-ranking journals. While engagement with questions of post-colonialism and decolonization is not new to IR, its impact on India continues to be limited. This essay explores the issues and challenges associated with the practice of IR in India by taking a de-parochial and decolonial outlook. I argue that IR in India developed as a received discourse from the West with little to no engagement with India’s past, statist assumptions, and imperial underpinnings of the discipline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".