What does this research mean for the field?

German foreign and security policy's recent missteps were significantly influenced by the dominance of peace, governance, and constructivist research in German political science, highlighting an urgent need to strengthen realistic security and strategic studies. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.CONTRADICTORY. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.CHALLENGES_CONSENSUS.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To examine disciplinary trends in German International Relations scholarship and evaluate their policy relevance during geopolitical crises.

September 3, 2026SIRIUS - Zeitschrift für Strategische Analysen

„Follow the Science“? Die Blindstellen der (deutschen) Politikwissenschaft in Fragen von Krieg und Frieden

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

GGGerlinde Groitl

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Disciplinary analysis reveals institutional biases in German international relations scholarship, highlighting the urgent need for realist security and strategic studies.

Key Points

To examine disciplinary trends in German International Relations scholarship and evaluate their policy relevance during geopolitical crises.
Conducted a structural and theoretical analysis of the International Relations discipline within the German academic ecosystem.
Evaluated the institutional predominance of peace and conflict research, governance frameworks, and constructivist approaches relative to strategic and realist security studies.
Identified a strong institutional concentration in peace, conflict, and governance research characterized by an optimistic emphasis on international cooperation.
Found that German foreign and security policy missteps coincided with adherence to academic recommendations rooted in these cooperative paradigms.
Identified critical institutional deficits in realist security studies and strategic analysis required to address modern geopolitical crises.

Cite This Study

Gerlinde Groitl (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a993612636c6408cfa7eec5 https://doi.org/10.1515/sirius-2026-3007

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 3, 2026SIRIUS - Zeitschrift für Strategische Analysen

„Follow the Science“? Die Blindstellen der (deutschen) Politikwissenschaft in Fragen von Krieg und Frieden

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

GGGerlinde Groitl

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Disciplinary analysis reveals institutional biases in German international relations scholarship, highlighting the urgent need for realist security and strategic studies.

Key Points

To examine disciplinary trends in German International Relations scholarship and evaluate their policy relevance during geopolitical crises.
Conducted a structural and theoretical analysis of the International Relations discipline within the German academic ecosystem.
Evaluated the institutional predominance of peace and conflict research, governance frameworks, and constructivist approaches relative to strategic and realist security studies.
Identified a strong institutional concentration in peace, conflict, and governance research characterized by an optimistic emphasis on international cooperation.
Found that German foreign and security policy missteps coincided with adherence to academic recommendations rooted in these cooperative paradigms.
Identified critical institutional deficits in realist security studies and strategic analysis required to address modern geopolitical crises.

Cite This Study

Gerlinde Groitl (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a993612636c6408cfa7eec5 https://doi.org/10.1515/sirius-2026-3007

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark