سازهانگاری نوین: تحلیل هویت، روایت، هنجار و روششناسی در روابط بینالملل
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظری
زهرا احمدی
1
,
محمدرضا دهشیری
2
*
1 - دانشجوی دکتری گروه روابط بینالملل، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
2 - استاد گروه روابط بینالملل، دانشکده روابط بینالملل وزارت امور خارجه، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: سازهانگاری, قدرت روایی, امنیت هستیشناختی, منازعه هنجاری و روششناسی زمینهای سازهانگارانه. ,
چکیده مقاله :
سازهانگاری طی سه دهه اخیر به یکی از رویکردهای مسلط در روابط بینالملل بدل شده است. اما بیشتر پژوهشها بر ابعاد کلاسیک آن تمرکز داشته، تحولات متأخر این سنت فکری، کمتر به طور منسجم بررسی شده است. این مقاله با هدف برطرف کردن این خلأ نظری، به واکاوی چهار شاخۀ نوظهور سازهانگاری میپردازد: قدرت روایی، امنیت هستیشناختی، منازعۀ هنجاری و نظریۀ زمینهای سازهانگارانه. هر یک از این شاخهها، ابعاد تازهای از سیاست جهانی را برجسته میسازند؛ از نقش روایتها در مشروعیتبخشی تا اهمیت تداوم هویت برای دولتها، پویایی مناقشات هنجاری در نظم بینالمللی و بازاندیشی روششناختی در مطالعه سازهانگاری. روش مقاله، کیفی و نظری است و بر پایه تحلیل مفهومی و مرور نظاممند ادبیات تنظیم شده است. در هر بخش، ضمن معرفی متفکران اصلی و آثار شاخص، سیر تکاملی ایدهها ترسیم و ظرفیتهای تحلیلی آنها برای فهم تحولات معاصر نظام بینالملل بررسی شده است. یافتهها نشان میدهد که این چهار شاخه، با عبور از چارچوبهای ایستا و مادیگرا، توانایی بالایی در تبیین بحرانهای هویتی، منازعات هنجاری و پیچیدگیهای سیاست جهانی دارند. بدین ترتیب مقاله حاضر، تصویری یکپارچه از سازهانگاری متأخر ارائه میدهد و افقهای تازهای برای پژوهشهای هویتی- هنجاری در روابط بینالملل میگشاید.
Neo-Constructivism: An Analysis of Identity, Narrative,
Norms, and Methodology in International Relations
Zahra Ahmadi*
Mohammadreza Dehshiri**
Over the past three decades, constructivism has become one of the dominant approaches in International Relations. However, most studies have focused on its classical dimensions, while the more recent developments of this intellectual tradition have received less systematic attention. Aiming to address this theoretical gap, this article examines four emerging strands of constructivism: Narrative Power, Ontological Security Framework, Norm Contestation Theory, and Constructivist Grounded Theory. Each of these strands highlights new dimensions of global politics, ranging from the role of narratives in legitimization, to the importance of identity continuity for states, the dynamics of normative conflicts within the international order, and methodological rethinking in constructivist scholarship.The article adopts a qualitative and theoretical approach, based on conceptual analysis and a systematic review of the literature. In each section, the main thinkers and key works are introduced, the evolution of ideas is traced, and their analytical capacities for understanding contemporary transformations in the international system are assessed. The findings indicate that by moving beyond static and materialist frameworks, these four strands possess strong explanatory power for identity crises, normative contestation, and the complexities of global politics. Accordingly, this article offers an integrated picture of late constructivism and opens new horizons for identity- and norm-oriented research in International Relations.
Keywords: Constructivism, Narrative Power, Ontological Security, Normative Conflict, and Contextual Constructivist Methodology.
Introduction
According to constructivist theory, political reality is socially constructed through intersubjective processes. This perspective highlights the limitations of classical theories that focus narrowly on material power and instrumental rationality when addressing identity crises, normative conflicts, and competing narratives in the contemporary world. Constructivism, as an approach that treats meaning, identity, norms, and discourse as foundational elements of international order, emerged in the late twentieth century in response to the deadlocks of positivism and rationalism. Its development has been shaped by the works of Wendt, Onuf, Finnemore, Sikkink, and Adler. Despite conceptual and methodological expansion, much of the literature remains focused on classical formulations, while more recent constructivist branches have been less systematically developed. This study therefore asks how four emerging strands of constructivism—narrative power, ontological security, normative conflict, and contextual constructivist methodology—are addressed in contemporary literature and how they relate to new phenomena such as digital globalization, the role of non-state actors, and narrative-driven politics. The study aims to provide a framework for reviewing, comparing, and analytically structuring these strands in relation to foreign policy, normative developments, and global order without presupposing a specific explanatory claim.
Research Methodology
This study employs a qualitative, theoretical, and analytical approach, using conceptual-developmental analysis and systematic literature review to investigate the four emerging strands of constructivism. Through conceptual inquiry, the study extracts foundational components and developmental trajectories for each strand. The review focuses primarily on literature from 2000 to 2024, using critical engagement with foundational and developmental works to construct a conceptual map of recent transformations. The primary analytical strategy is “theoretical content analysis,” in which key concepts are coded, inter-conceptual relationships are identified, and the explanatory capacity of each strand is evaluated within a comparative-analytical framework. Given the exploratory nature of the research question and the lack of prior integrated frameworks, this approach enables a deeper understanding of the internal evolution of constructivism and its capacity to explain contemporary global political dynamics.
Findings
Theoretical and Epistemic Foundations of Constructivism
Constructivism rests on the premise that social reality, identities, norms, and interests are constructed through intersubjective, discursive, and historical processes. It stands in contrast to materialist and rationalist approaches, which treat structures and interests as given. Within this framework, structures and actors are mutually constitutive, and norms are not external constraints but core elements shaping actors’ identities and preferences. Interests emerge from social identities, and political action follows a logic of appropriateness rather than pure utility. Language and discourse are instruments for shaping reality, and power extends beyond material resources to include the capacity to generate meaning, legitimacy, and norms. Accordingly, identities, interests, norms, and even boundaries of self/other are dynamic and mutable; global political transformation requires shifts in dominant interpretive frameworks, providing the analytical foundation for the emerging constructivist strands of narrative power, ontological security, normative conflict, and contextual methodology.
Classical Branches of Constructivism
From its inception, constructivism has been a pluralist tradition rather than a unified theory, with diverse strands and epistemic positions. Wendt categorized constructivism into modern, postmodern, and feminist currents, while subsequent scholars, including Hough, conceptualized it in terms of conventional versus critical constructivism. Conventional constructivism employs limited positivist principles to produce conditional empirical generalizations and attempts to bridge rationalist and interpretivist approaches. Critical constructivism, drawing on critical theory, emphasizes power, inequality, subordination, and the historical contingency of knowledge, positioning the researcher as part of the meaning-making process. These strands differ in their treatment of identity, knowledge, and methodology: conventional approaches treat identity as a dependent variable, while critical approaches view it as socially constructed, fluid, and power-contingent. Methods vary from data-driven quantitative approaches to discourse- and genealogy-based analyses. Yet all constructivist strands share commitments to the social nature of institutions, the intersubjectivity of meaning, and the dialectical actor-structure relationship. Late developments have shifted focus from stabilized norms to the dynamics of meaning, narrative construction, and discursive power, enhancing the theory’s analytical capacity in understanding contemporary global complexity.
Narrative Power Approach
Narrative power, as a late development of constructivism, posits that narratives are central mechanisms for producing meaning, shaping identity, and directing political action in international relations. Inspired by constructivist emphasis on social construction, narratives are seen not as mere reflections of reality but as discursive frameworks through which political actors interpret the past, present, and future, formulate interests, and legitimize actions. Power is thus not confined to material resources but resides in the capacity to produce, stabilize, and contest dominant narratives, which influence public perception, national identity, foreign policy, and even international order. Global politics is understood as a field of narrative competition, where states and non-state actors use storytelling, representation, and persuasion to define reality, legitimacy, and position within the international system.
Ontological Security Framework
The ontological security approach assumes that states, like
individuals, require continuity and coherence in their identity to act effectively and sustainably in foreign policy. Identity threats can provoke ontological anxiety. Unlike materialist perspectives, which focus on survival and physical resources, this approach emphasizes meaning, narrative, and identity as central to security and interprets foreign policy behavior as identity-driven and discursively mediated. States maintain ontological security by reproducing established narratives and obtaining legitimacy from others, a process that can foster either stability or crisis. Key concepts include identity, meaning, narrative, and intersubjective interaction, with applicability extending to institutions and societies. Ontological security thus provides an analytical lens for understanding actions that traditional rationalist and materialist theories cannot fully explain, particularly under crisis conditions.
Normative Conflict Approach
The normative conflict approach focuses on the dynamics and reinterpretation of norms in international relations. Norms are not imposed, fixed structures but products of interactions among actors within socio-political contexts. Implementation, violation, and interpretation of norms are always contested; negotiation, resistance, adaptation, and localization drive their reproduction and legitimation. Historically, this strand traces back to Kratochwil and the critical development of Wiener, with further contributions by Brune, Risse, and Lantis, and recent operationalization by Bettiza, Lewis, Gadinger, and Niemann. Normative conflict reveals that even accepted norms are subject to reinterpretation, challenge, and local and international influence, highlighting the role of power in shaping and transforming meaning and norms. This approach enables analysis beyond simple rule compliance or violation, emphasizing the interplay of meaning, power, and context as drivers of normative evolution.
Contextual Constructivist Methodology (CCM)
Contextual constructivist theory (CCM) is a qualitative, reflexive approach that views knowledge as socially constructed through interactions between researchers and participants, rather than discovered. Building on Charmaz’s reinterpretation of classic grounded theory, CCM emphasizes contextual dependence, co-construction of meaning, and the cyclical nature of data collection and analysis, with theoretical sampling linking data to theory. CCM allows multi-layered analysis of norms, identities, and political-social interactions, integrates digital data and interdisciplinary or indigenous methods, and enables study of complex identity and cultural phenomena in international relations and beyond. Its key advantage lies in analytical richness through interactive meaning-making, bridging the gap between researcher and subject, though coding and analysis require rigorous methodological frameworks to maintain coherence and validity. CCM offers a flexible, innovative tool for understanding socio-identity phenomena and global politics, treating meaning and knowledge as products of interactive processes rather than objective realities.
Conclusion
This study examined late constructivist strands to provide insight into the internal evolution of the tradition and its capacity to address contemporary global political complexity. These strands demonstrate that constructivism is no longer solely a classical identity-focused theory but a network of analytical approaches capable of capturing diverse levels of political action—from meaning-making and narrative construction to identity anxiety and normative conflict. The study argues that current global political dynamics, including narrative competition, identity polarization, normative legitimacy challenges, and evolving knowledge production, require approaches that integrate fluidity of meaning, historicity of identity, and context-dependence of political action. Late constructivist strands offer a broader analytical horizon, enabling a move beyond reductionist materialist explanations. Limitations include a focus on four selected strands at the expense of others, and the analysis remains largely theoretical. Future research can enrich this framework through empirical studies in specific foreign policy contexts, especially non-Western societies, and by linking these approaches to technological developments, digital data, and new discourse analysis methods. The value of this research lies in providing a conceptual framework for understanding the less visible layers of global politics, where meaning, identity, and norms are not peripheral but constitute the core of political action. This framework can help scholars understand contemporary world order not only as a distribution of power but as an ongoing process of social construction and redefinition.
References
Emam-Jomehzadeh, Seyyed Javad, et al. (2013) “A Comparative Study of the Concept of Identity from the Perspective of the English School and Constructivist Theory in International Relations.” Political Research Quarterly (Scientific–Specialized Journal), Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 128–144.
Acharya, A. (2004) How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International organization, 52(8), 239–275.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024.
Ceydilek, E. (2023) not necessarily existential threats: identity-constitutive role of the foreign policy discourse on distant humanitarian crises. Alternatif Politika, 15(3), 445-470.
https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2023.17
Deitelhoff, N. (2020) what is in a name? Contestation and backlash against international norms and institutions. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(4), 715–727.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120945906.
Ejdus, F. (2020) Conflict, Peace, and Ontological Security. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_126-1
Falomir‐Pichastor, J., Muñoz‐Rojas, D., Invernizzi, F. & Mugny, G. (2004). Perceived in‐group threat as a factor moderating the influence of in‐group norms on discrimination against foreigners. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.189.
Gadinger, F. & Niemann, H. (2025) Normativity in practice: Ordering through enactment, learning, and contestation in global protests. Review of International Studies, 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210525000142.
Hopf, T. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23, 171–200.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267.
Isaacs, R. (2017) The micro-politics of norm contestation between the OSCE and Kazakhstan: square pegs in round holes. Third World Quarterly, 39(9), 1831-1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1357114
Jackson, C. & Subotić, J. (2024) The ontological security-seeking paradox: domestic and international effects of public architecture in North Macedonia’s ‘Skopje 2014’ project. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 53(1), 3–30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298241231742
Keohane, R. O. (1988) International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379-396.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589
Levinger, M. & Roselle, L. (2017) Narrating Global Order and Disorder. Politics and Governance, 5(3), 94–98.
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i3.1174
McSweeney, B. (2009) Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99011332.pdf.
Mitzen, J. (2006) Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346.
Onuf, N. G. (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, United States: University of South Carolina Press.
Persaud, I. (2019) Insider and Outsider Analysis: Constructing, Deconstructing, and Reconstructing Narratives of Seychelles’ Geography Education. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919842436.
Risse, T., & Wiener, A. (1999) Something Rotten” and the Social Construction of Social Constructivism: A Comment on Comments. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(5), 775–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343379.
Saltnes, J. & Thiel, M. (2021) The politicization of lgbti human rights norms in the EU-Uganda development partnership. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13141.
Theys, S. (2017) Constructivism. In M. Stephen, International Relations Theory (pp. 36–41). Bristol, UK: E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-constructivism-in-international-relations-theory.
Walker, R. J. (2019) East Wind, West Wind: Civilizations, Hegemonies, and World Orders. In Culture, Ideology, and World Order (pp. 1–21). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429044878-1/east-wind-west-wind-civilizations-hegemonies-world-orders-walker
Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. https://www.amazon.com/Theory-International-Politics-Kenneth-Waltz/dp/0075548526.
Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858.
* Ph.D. Student, Department of International Relations, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2696-4409
** Corresponding Author: Professor, Department of International Relations, School of International Relations, Tehran, Iran.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8223-3358
امامجمعهزاده، سید جواد و روحالله زمانیان و علی حجت سعادت (1392) «مطالعه تطبیقی مفهوم هویت از منظر مکتب انگلیسی و تئوری سازهانگاری در روابط بینالملل»، فصلنامه علمی- تخصصی پژوهشهای سیاسی، سال سوم، شماره 8، صص 128-144.
https://ensani.ir/file/download/article/1598853538-10295-1-17.pdf.
متقی، ابراهیم و حجت کاظمی (1386) «سازهانگاری، هویت، زبان و سیاست خارجی جمهوری اسلامی ایران»، مطالعات فرهنگی و سیاسی، سال سی¬وهفتم، شماره 4، صص 209-237.
https://jpq.ut.ac.ir/article_19248.html?lang=fa.
مسعودی، حیدرعلی (1401) «نظم بینالمللی در حال گذار از منظر سازهانگاری: بررسی نقش ایدهها، هنجارها و هویتها»، سیاست خارجی، سال سی¬وششم، شماره 4، صص 5-28.
https://fp.ipisjournals.ir/article_702296.html .
یوسفیان، نوید و میر سعید موسوی کریمی (1389) «سازهانگاری معرفتی و برساختگرایی اجتماعی»، جامعه¬پژوهي فرهنگي، پژوهشگاه علوم انساني و مطالعات فرهنگي، سال اول، شماره ۱، صص 129-143.
https://socialstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_131.html.
Acharya, A. (2004) How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International organization, 52(8), 239–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024.
Adler, E. (1997) Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Relations, 26(2), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298970260021101.
Akkaya, B. (2023) Grounded theory approaches: a comprehensive examination of systematic design data coding. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 10(1), 89-103 .
https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1188910 .
Appel, H. (2024) Competing narratives of the Russia–Ukraine war: Why the West has not convinced the rest. Global Policy, 15, 559–569. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13431 .
Araujo, R. (2019) Grounded theory with online multimodal data: the case study of online collaborative mind maps .
https://doi.org/10.3102/1428874 .
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1991) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Penguin Adult .
https://amstudugm.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/social-construction-of-reality.pdf .
Bettiza, G. & Lewis, D. (2020) Authoritarian powers and norm contestation in the liberal international order: Theorizing the power politics of ideas and identity. Journal of Global Security Studies, 5(4), 559–577 .
https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz075 .
Birdsall, A. (2016) But we do not call it ‘torture’! Norm contestation during the US War on Terror. International Politics, 53(2), 176–197 .
https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.42 .
Bobulescu, R. (2011) Critical realism versus social constructivism in international relations. Journal of Philosophical Economics, 4(2), 37-64 .
https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10611 .
Browning, C. S. & Joenniemi, P. (2016) Ontological security, self-articulation and the securitization of identity. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 31–47 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716653161 .
Brummer, K. and Oppermann, K. (2024). 4. Social constructivism. 64–87 .
https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780192857453.003.0004 .
Česnakas, G. (2021) You shall not pass: the strategic narratives defining Russia’s soft power in Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 14(2), 1-25 .
https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2021-0008 .
Ceydilek, E. (2023) Not necessarily existential threats: identity-constitutive role of the foreign policy discourse on distant humanitarian crises. Alternatif Politika, 15(3), 445-470. https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2023.17 .
Chamberlain Salaun, J., Usher, K., & Mills, J. (2020) Outsiders in the experts’ world: a grounded theory study of consumers and the social world of health care. Sage Open, 10(1) .
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020903423 .
Checkel, J. T. (1999) Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 83–114 .
https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00112 .
Collin, F. (2002) Social Reality. London: Taylor & Francis .
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203047927 .
Cortell, A. P. & Davis Jr, J. W. (1996). How do international institutions matter? The domestic impact of international rules and norms. International Studies Quarterly, 40(4), 451–478 .
https://doi.org/10.2307/2600887 .
Croft, S. (2012) Constructing ontological insecurity: the insecuritization of Britain’s Muslims. Contemporary Security Policy, 33(2), 219–235 .
https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2012.693776 .
Deitelhoff, N. (2020) What is in a name? Contestation and backlash against international norms and institutions. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(4), 715–727 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120945906 .
Ding, M. (2014) Symbiotic theorization. Customer Needs and Solutions, 1(3), 200–213 .
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-014-0019-7 .
Dück, E. (2019) The international model citizen and the Syrian war: Canadian identity from a civilian power perspective. International Journal Canada S Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 74(3), 387–404 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702019875965 .
Ejdus, F. (2020) Conflict, Peace, and Ontological Security. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham .
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_126-1 .
Essen, H. & Danielson, A. (2023) A typology of ontological insecurity mechanisms: Russia's military engagement in Syria. International Studies Review, 25(2), viad016 .
https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad016 .
Falomir Pichastor, J., Muñoz Rojas, D., Invernizzi, F. & Mugny, G. (2004). Perceived in group threat as a factor moderating the influence of in‐group norms on discrimination against foreigners. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 135–153 .
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.189 .
Fierke, K. (2021) Constructivism. In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (pp. 166-184). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press .
https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.003.0009 .
Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917 .
https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789 .
-------------------------------- (2001). Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391–416 .
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.391 .
Flockhart, T. (2016) The problem of change in constructivist theory: ontological security seeking and agent motivation. Review of International Studies, 42(5), 799–820 .
https://doi.org/10.1017/s026021051600019x .
Forough, M. Dahbi, K. Waterman, A. & Woertz, E. (2023) Narratives of global order and re-ordering from the global south. Antíteses, 16(31), 292–325 .
https://doi.org/10.5433/1984-3356.2023v16n31p292-325 .
Fox, C. (2008). Postcolonial dilemmas in narrative research. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 38(3), 335–347 .
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920802066634 .
Gadinger, F. & Niemann, H. (2025) Normativity in practice: Ordering through enactment, learning, and contestation in global protests. Review of International Studies, 1-20 .
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210525000142 .
Guetterman, T., Babchuk, W., Smith, M., & Stevens, J. (2017). Contemporary approaches to mixed methods–grounded theory research: a field-based analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 179–195 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817710877 .
Guzzini, S. & Leander, A. (2006) Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and his critics. London, UK: Routledge .
Hagström, L. & Gustafsson, K. (2019) Narrative power: how storytelling shapes East Asian international politics. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(4), 387–406 .
https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1623498 .
Hansen-Magnusson, H., Vetterlein, A., & Wiener, A. (2018) The problem of non-compliance: knowledge gaps and moments of contestation in global governance. Journal of International Relations and Development, 23(3), 636–656 .
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0157-x .
Hassan, O. (2020) Crisis, narratives, and the construction of US-Middle East relations: continuity and change in world history and Trump’s America First. Global Affairs, 6(1), 121–141 .
https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2020.1745084 .
Hensengerth, O. (2015) Global norms in domestic politics: environmental norm contestation in Cambodia’s hydropower sector. The Pacific Review, 28(4), 505–528. .
https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.1012107 .
Hopf, T. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23, 171–200. .
https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267 .
Hurd, I. (2008) Constructivism. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal, The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (pp. 299–316). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hussein, A. & Nye, E. (2024) Beyond the narrative: Colombia and the Venezuelan migrants. Global Policy, 15(Suppl. 3), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13351 .
Inayatullah, N. & Blaney, D. (1996) Knowing Encounters: Beyond Parochialism in International Relations Theory. In The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (pp. 65–84). Boulder, Colorado, United States: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Retrieved December 10, 2024 .
https://discovered.ed.ac.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=44UOE_INST:44UOE_VU2&docid=alma9924635962902466&lang=en&context=U .
Iommi, L. (2019) Norm internalisation revisited: norm contestation and the life of norms at the extreme of the norm cascade. Global Constitutionalism, 9(1), 76-116. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381719000285 .
Isaacs, R. (2017) The micro-politics of norm contestation between the OSCE and Kazakhstan: square pegs in round holes. Third World Quarterly, 39(9), 1831-1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1357114 .
Jackson, C. & Subotić, J. (2024) The ontological security-seeking paradox: domestic and international effects of public architecture in North Macedonia’s ‘Skopje 2014’ project. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 53(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298241231742 .
Johansson Nogués, E., Vlaskamp, M., & Barbé, E. (2019) EU foreign policy and norm contestation in an eroding Western and intra-EU liberal order. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33238-9_1 .
Keohane, R. O. (1988) International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379-396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589 .
Kinnvall, C. & Mitzen, J. (2016) An introduction to the special issue: ontological securities in world politics. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716653162 .
Klotz, A. & Lynch, C. (2007) Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. (A. Klotz, & C. Lynch, Eds.) Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Retrieved December 10, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315700571 .
Kowert, P. & Barkin, J. (2024) Foreign policy analysis and constructivism. 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198843061.013.4 .
Kratochwil, F. (1996) Is the Ship of Culture at Sea or Returning? In The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (pp. 201-222). Boulder, Colorado, United States: Lynne Rienner Publishers .
https://discovered.ed.ac.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=44UOE_INST:44UOE_VU2&docid=alma9924635962902466&lang=en&context=U .
Lantis, J. S. (2016) Agentic constructivism and the proliferation security initiative: modeling norm change. Cooperation and Conflict, 51(3), 384-400 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716640831 .
----------- (2017) Theories of international norm contestation: structure and outcomes, Oxford research encyclopedia of politics .
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.590 .
Lassig, C. (2022) Attributes of rigorous grounded theory research and reporting: illustrations from a grounded theory of adolescent creativity. Educational Researcher, 51(2), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x211069571 Levinger, M. & Roselle, L. (2017) Narrating Global Order and Disorder. Politics and Governance, 5(3), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i3.1174 .
Lincoln, Y., Lynham, S.A., Guba, E. (2000) Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd .
https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1286469 .
Linklater, A. (Ed). (2000) International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: Routledge .
https://www.routledge.com/International-Relations/Linklater/p/book/9780415201377 March, J. & Olsen, J. (1998) The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943–969 .
https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550699 .
Mattern, J. B. (2004) Ordering International Politics: Identity, Crisis and Representational Force. London: Taylor & Francis .
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203998014 .
Maurer, H. & Wright, N. (2021) How much unity do you need? Systemic contestation in EU foreign and security cooperation. European Security, 30(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1947800 .
McCall, C. & Edwards, C. (2021) New perspectives for implementing grounded theory. Studies in Engineering Education, 1(2), 93 .
https://doi.org/10.21061/SEE.49 .
McCourt, D. M. (2022) Introduction: What Is Constructivism? In The New Constructivism in International Relations Theory (pp. 1–24). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529217858.int001 .
McSweeney, B. (2009) Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99011332.pdf .
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500103 .
Miskimmon, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2019). Narratives of the EU in Israel/Palestine: narrative “stickiness” and the formation of expectations. European Security, 28(3), 268–283 .
https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2019.1648258 .
Mitzen, J. (2006) Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346 .
Mitzen, J., & Larson, K. (2017). Ontological security and foreign policy. Oxford research encyclopedia of politics .
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.458 .
Neklyudov N.Y., Baykov A.A., Shchekin A.S (2023). Crisis as practice: routinizing Russia–U.S. security rivalries", Polis. Political Studies: 66–82. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.06.06 .
Nye, J. S. (2009) Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics. PublicAffairs. https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/joseph-s-nye-jr-soft-power.pdf .
Olczak, N. (2023) From revolutionary to stakeholder: looking at identity discourses to understand the 2016 short-term change in China’s North Korea policy. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 28(4), 593-618 .
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-023-09847-1 .
Onuf, N. G. (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, United States: University of South Carolina Press .
------------ (2012) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Retrieved December 8, 2024 .
https://www.routledge.com/World-of-Our-Making-Rules-and-Rule-in-Social-Theory-and-International-Relations/GreenwoodOnuf/p/book/9780415630399 Osazuwa, S., & Moodley, R. (2023) “Will there be a willingness actually to engage with it?”: Exploring attitudes toward culturally integrative psychotherapy among Canada’s African community. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 33(1), 68–85 .
https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000289 .
Persaud, I. (2019) Insider and Outsider Analysis: Constructing, Deconstructing, and Reconstructing Narratives of Seychelles’ Geography Education. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919842436 .
Pouliot, V. (2004) The Essence of Constructivism. Journal of International Relations and Development, 7(3), 319-336 .
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800022 .
Pratt, S. (2016). A relational view of ontological security in international relations. International Studies Quarterly, sqw038. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqw038 Price, R. M., & Reus-Smit, C. (1998) Dangerous liaisons? Constructivism and critical international theory. European Journal of International Relations, 4, 259-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/135406619800400300 .
Rhoads, E. P., & Welsh, J. M. (2019) Close cousins in protection: The evolution of two norms. International Affairs, 95(3), 597–617 .
https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz054 .
Risse, T., & Wiener, A. (1999) Something Rotten” and the Social Construction of Social Constructivism: A Comment on Comments. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(5), 775–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343379 Roselle, L., Miskimmon, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2014). Strategic narrative: A new means to understand soft power. Media, War & Conflict, 7(1), 70–84 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635213516696 .
Rumelili, B. (2013) Identity and desecuritisation: the pitfalls of conflating ontological and physical security. Journal of International Relations and Development, 18(1), 52-74. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2013.22 .
Ryan, K., & Destefano, L. (2001) Dialogue as a Democratizing Evaluation Method. Evaluation, 7(2), 188–203 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890122209621 .
Saltnes, J. & Thiel, M. (2021) The politicization of lgbti human rights norms in the EU-Uganda development partnership. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13141 .
Schlaufer C, Khaynatskaya T, Pilkina M, Loseva V, Rajhans SK. (2021). Problem complexity and narratives in Moscow's waste controversy. Eur Policy Anal. (7). 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1115 .
Searle, J. R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 .
Sebeelo, T. (2024) Methodological confluence: weaving constructivist grounded theory (CGT) and indigenous research methods. Methodological Innovations, 17(2), 88-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991241256794 .
Sigauke, I., Swansi, K., & Tsvara, P. (2020) Oscillating among different traditions of grounded theory. East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 1(1), 72-78. https://doi.org/10.46606/eajess2020v01i01.0008 Soundy, A. (2023) Social constructivist meta-ethnography .
https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.1380.v1 .
Soundy, A. (2024) Social constructivist meta-ethnography – a framework construction. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23 .
https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241244863 .
Steele, B. J. (2005) Ontological security and the power of self-identity: British neutrality and the American Civil War. Review of International Studies, 31(3), 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210505006613 .
------------ (2008) Ontological security in international relations: Self-identity and the IR state (1st Ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203018200 .
Theys, S. (2017) Constructivism. In M. Stephen, International Relations Theory (pp. 36–41). Bristol, UK: E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-constructivism-in-international-relations-theory .
Tsyrfa, I. (2020) Influence of power narratives on the formation of the US foreign policy identity in the 21st century. Innovative Solutions in Modern Science, 7(43), 95. https://doi.org/10.26886/2414-634x.7(43)2020.7 .
Ün, M. (2019) Contesting global gender equality norms: the case of Turkey. Review of International Studies, 45(5), 828-847 .
https://doi.org/10.1017/s026021051900024x .
Vucetic, S (2018). Identity and foreign policy, OSF .
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.435 .
Walker, R. J. (2019) East Wind, West Wind: Civilizations, Hegemonies, and World Orders. In Culture, Ideology, and World Order (pp. 1–21). New York: Taylor & Francis Group .
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429044878-1/east-wind-west-wind-civilizations-hegemonies-world-orders-walker Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. https://www.amazon.com/Theory-International-Politics-Kenneth-Waltz/dp/0075548526 .
Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425 .
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858 .
------------ (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612183 .
Wiener, A. (2004) Contested Compliance: Interventions on the Normative Structure of World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, 10(2), 189–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066104042934 .
Wilden, A. (1980) System and Structure: Essays in Communication and Exchange. Tavistock, United Kingdom: Tavistock .
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315014135 .
Williams, S., & Keady, J. (2012) Centre stage diagrams: a new method to develop constructivist grounded theory – late-stage Parkinson’s disease as a case exemplar. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 218–238.https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111422034 .
Zaidi, S. (2022) Situating sensitizing concepts in the constructivist-critical grounded theory method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211061957 .
Zarakol, A. (2016) States and ontological security: A historical rethinking. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 48-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716653158 .