200 Years of International Relations in Brazil: Issues, Theories, and Methods

200 Years of International Relations in Brazil: Issues, Theories, and Methods Dawisson Belém Lopes, Federal University of Minas Gerais, João Paulo Nicolini, Federal University of Minas Gerais, and Thales Carvalho, Federal University of Minas Gerais https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.744 Published online: 18 May 2022 Summary The Brazilian field of international relations (IRs) has evolved over the course of two centuries. Since Brazilʼs independence in 1822, international topics have deserved attention from local practitioners and scholars. The emergence of Brazilian standpoints about international a airs and of a Brazilian IR scholarship developed a er the consolidation of similar fields in other Western countries. Multiple schools of thought held sway over local understandings, thereby leading to the formation of a di erent field as compared to characteristics of the AngloAmerican mainstream. The institutionalization of the area has come about through the creation of scholarly departments and national government agencies. It all led to a unique combination of methods, theories, and issues being currently explored in the Brazilian branch of IR scholarship. Keywords: Subjects: international relations, Brazil, IR theories, methods, topics Foreign Policy, International Relations Theory Introduction National perspectives about international relations (IRs) have ourished in Brazil after the South American country gained its independence from Portugal in 1822. Previously, the lion’s share of Brazilian academic works revolved around its incorporation in the Western capitalist system of power and trade via colonialism (Vizentini, 2004). As a former colony of Portugal, the Brazilian territory became a source of debates on international law and geopolitics. For instance, Alexandre de Gusmão, a diplomat at the service of Portugal who was born in Brazil, heavily engaged in negotiations for the signing of the Madrid Treaty (1750)—which was all about Portugal’s colonial borders with Spain—and mobilized for this the Roman principle of uti possidetis in international issues. During imperial times, politicians, military o cials, and diplomats deeply in uenced studies about international a airs in the country (Oliveira, 2017; Sá Pimentel, 2013). They prioritized understanding the ties between great powers and Brazil, foreign a airs with La Plata basin states, trade dynamics, and the consolidation of Brazil’s territorial integrity and identity. This scenario remained quite stable until the early 1940s and the advent of World War II (Barasuol & Silva, 2016; Belém Lopes, 2014; Fonseca Junior & Uziel, 2019; Milani, 2021; Miyamoto, 1999; Pinheiro & Vedoveli, 2012; Ricupero, 2017). Brazilian IR scholarship is a latecomer, considering the development of other social science disciplines in the country. This area developed after the consolidation of similar elds in other Western countries. For example, Anglo-American IR studies established the rst department for international politics studies back in 1919 at Aberystwyth University, Wales. Since then, many analysts acquiesced to the idea that IR conformed to political science (PS) standards and paradigms. These philosophical orientations provided grounds for the rst theoretical frameworks in IR—i.e., classical realism and Wilsonian liberalism (Acharya, 2014; Booth, 2019; Mignolo, 2002; Viotti & Kauppi, 2012). In light of this, IR mainstream debates took place mostly in Anglo-American territories. These factors set the methodological bar and led to developments that made the eld look more “scienti c” in a certain way (Carvalho et al., 2021a). About 50 years later, in 1974, the rst IR undergraduate course in Brazil nally came to life. The IR eld in Brazil has gone through a robust institutionalization process during the last three decades, and it became a “trendy” scienti c area in the country. According to data retrieved from the Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão (FUNAG) website (Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão, 2021), there were, in 2021, 134 active IR undergraduate courses and 30 IR graduate programs in Brazil. It represents a considerable increase since, during the 1990s, these numbers hinged, respectively, on 20 courses and 2 graduate programs (Carvalho et al., 2021a, 2021b). Likewise, the interest in international a airs has sharply risen among Brazilian youth. In some cases, students who are keen to enroll in prestigious IR courses have to score some of the highest cuto marks in the Brazilian national entrance exam (Alejandro, 2019; Vigevani et al., 2016). Given these trends, some questions should be raised in order to understand the current state of Brazil’s IR scholarship. Is IR in Brazil actually a sub eld of PS, as allegedly is the case in the United States (Ho mann, 1995; Maliniak et al., 2018; Robles, 1993)? What are its most addressed topics? What are the epistemological origins of this eld? What are the most taught theories and research methods by Brazilian academics? Scholars have been trying to answer these questions. This emerging literature analyzed a broad range of areas, such as research questions, use of theories and methods (Alejandro, 2019; Barasuol & Silva, 2016; Carvalho et al., 2021a, 2021b; Moura et al., 2019; Pereira & Belém Lopes, in press), the IR job market (Monteiro, 2021), teaching practices (Loureiro & Guimarães, 2019; Ramanzini & Lima, 2017), and epistemological/historical origins (Alejandro, 2019; Cruz & Mendonça, 2010; Herz, 2002; Lessa, 2005; Milani, 2021; Vigevani et al., 2016). We address most of them by relying on existing evidence about the development and the current state of Brazil’s IR scholarship. Our aim is to depict the process of consolidation and expansion of this eld. Likewise, we provided a picture of the main characteristics of IR in Brazil in theoretical, methodological, and thematic terms. We divided this article into six parts (apart from this introduction). In the following section, we brie y discuss what we call the “prehistory” of this scholarship, while describing the emerging professionalization of international studies in Brazil during the 20th century and the creation of the rst IR academic departments in the country. Then, we examine the expansion of Brazilian IR scholarship after the emergence of its rst graduate program, and the claim that Brazil turned out to be a pluralist academic environment. In the third section, we explore this diversity in terms of the topics approached by the Brazilian scholarship. Fourthly, we discuss theoretical choices among Brazilian scholars. Fifthly, we present the methodological state of this scholarship. Finally, we o er some concluding remarks. From the “Prehistory” to the Consolidation of Brazilian IR Scholarship Politicians, military o cials, and diplomats were the main drivers of Brazilian political thinking at least until the mid-20th century. Indeed, the role played by the Brazilian foreign policy “founding fathers”—the Baron of Rio Branco, Joaquim Nabuco, and Ruy Barbosa—should be cited in a positive light as they enhanced the technical sophistication of Brazil’s diplomacy (Ricupero, 2018). But it was not before the professionalization of the Brazilian diplomatic corps, during the long Getulio Vargas presidency (1930–1945), that diplomats were allowed to fully develop their international views. Not just by a mere coincidence, Brazil’s rst proto-IR courses emerged in the 1940s. An example worth mentioning is that of the Polytechnical School of Rio de Janeiro in 1947, under the leadership of an engineer named Everaldo Backheuser (Lima et al., 2017). He pioneered in promoting the teaching of international relations in Brazil during a period when these subjects did not deserve due attention from national scholars. Geopolitics was a key topic explored by all scholars who re ected on Brazil from an international angle at the time. These studies relied on theoretical frameworks by authors such as Friedrich Ratzel, Nicholas Spykman, Alfred Mahan, and Halford Mackinder (Baracuhy, 2021). In undertaking historicaldescriptive analyses, scholars approached topics such as the Brazilian regional neighborhood, foreign policy, and global warfare (Herz, 2002; Milani, 2021; Santos, 2005). Concomitantly, military o cials elaborated normative plans to ensure national investments in industrialization and scienti c development (Milani, 2021). Elite members convinced President Vargas to establish the National Council for Scienti c and Technological Development (CNPq) in 1950. Admiral Álvaro Alberto played a crucial role in coaxing national administrations to set up this institution in order to sustain the nationalization of raw materials while developing nuclear indigenous policies (Patti & Spektor, 2020). It is worthwhile to mention that discussions in the United Nations, during the mid-1940s, required a more assertive approach from Brazil on scienti c issues. For example, the 1946 Baruch Plan drawn by the United States defended that an international agency had to be created to preserve peace by restricting the use of atomic energy and controlling all sources of materials. Brazil ercely opposed this plan because it refused to transfer the ownership of national mines to international bodies (Patti & Spektor, 2020). By the same token, in the 1950s, after the onset of the Cold War, the aforementioned elite members re ected on how Brazil should act in a scenery of emerging bipolarity, together with religious leaders, attorneys, intellectuals, and journalists. Diplomats such as Afonso Arinos de Mello Franco and San Tiago Dantas would ask how Brazil should approach the United States. Military o cers at the recently created ESG (Brazil’s National War College), such as Golbery do Couto e Silva and Carlos Meira Mattos, proposed a vital connection between geopolitics, development, and national security. They provided the ideological basis for the Brazilian National Security Doctrine (NSD), which would be applied in the 1960s, after the beginning of the military rule in Brazil (Herz, 2002; Miyamoto, 1999; Pion-Berlin, 1989; Ricupero, 2017; Tickner & Herz, 2012). Military analysts portrayed the Amazon rainforest and the rivers as international assets, thereby triggering debates on how to economically explore this region. Likewise, some questions were raised about the Brazilian international identity. Practitioners extensively debated whether Brazil really is a full- edged Western country, taking into account not only its geographical location but also political and cultural components (Belém Lopes, 2020). Scholars from areas as diverse as sociology, economy, and law assumed a prominent role in producing knowledge about international issues, using conceptual, methodological, and theoretical approaches from their own areas. By drawing on elements from center-periphery approaches, they tackled puzzles about economic development, dependence, and autonomy (Lessa, 2005; Miyamoto, 1999; Vizentini, 2004). Against this backdrop, some local pundits arguably started academic studies about foreign policy in Brazil (Guimarães & Estre, 2021). Authors such as Hélio Jaguaribe, Nelson Weneck Sodré, and Candido Mendes worked for the creation of the Instituto Superior de Estudos Brasileiros (ISEB) and the Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI) (Lima & Cheibub, 1983; Milani, 2021; Vigevani et al., 2016). The latter launched, in 1958, the rst IR journal in the country, the Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI). It was openly inspired by international outlets such as Chatham House’s International A airs and the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign A airs (Carvalho et al., 2021a; Lessa, 2014). This journal also cultivated close ties with the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign A airs (Almeida, 1998; Casarões, 2019; Dulci, 2013; Vizentini, 2004). The inauguration of the rst political science department and graduate program in Brazil, at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), back in 1966 (see Belém Lopes & Soares, 2017), followed by the foundation of the graduate program in political science at the University Institute for Research in Rio de Janeiro (IUPERJ) in 1969, not to mention the Center for Afro-Oriental Studies at the Federal University of Bahia (launched in 1959), joined the existing academic production in areas such as sociology and economics in producing the bulk of scholarly literature on international relations (Casarões, 2019; Milani, 2021; Santos & Fonseca, 2009). Many of these programs were in uenced and nancially supported by Western scholars and institutions (e.g., the Ford Foundation). Many of their professors held PhDs from U.S. or European institutions of higher learning, a trait that reinforced the absorption of Western epistemologies, theories, and methodologies (Fonseca Júnior, 2012; Milani, 2021; Vigevani et al., 2016). U.S. scholars, such as Roger Fontaine and Stanley Hilton, also delved into Brazilian foreign policy, which reinforced connections between the mainstream IR scholarship and the Brazilian academy (Fonseca Junior & Uziel, 2019). During this period, new international settings, such as the détente, the rise of “Third Worldism,” oil shocks, and economic crises demanded that Brazilian IR scholarship critically scrutinized the international role of Brazil. It also reframed Brazilian trade policy and strategic thinking, as this new context demanded reassessments to provide a better understanding of the world (Fonseca Junior, 2012; Lessa, 2004). Fonseca Junior and Uziel (2019) go as far as to a rm that, at the time, scholars realized the need to learn new theoretical and methodological frameworks. The 1964 military coup provoked key changes in this trajectory. Whereas ESG became a more prominent center for coining Brazil’s “o cial” international thinking, several civilians went into exile or were harassed by the Brazilian government. Yet, these intellectuals enrolled in foreign (European and U.S.) universities and almost accidentally helped to renew the Brazilian IR milieu, bringing new discussions to the eld. Academics like Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Celso Furtado, and Theotônio dos Santos elaborated structural theoretical frameworks to unveil the unequal distribution of power and re ne the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean’s development models (Carvalho et al., 2021a). Oliveiros Ferreira extensively debated the concept of hegemony according to a Gramscian perspective. Even some liberal free-market thinking emerged, particularly through the contribution of career diplomats such as Roberto Campos and José Guilherme Merquior (cf. Campos, 2004). Scholars developed abundant research work about the history of Brazilian foreign policy, namely José Honório Rodrigues, Gerson Moura, Amado Cervo, Clodoaldo Bueno, José Carlos Brandi Aleixo, Maria Regina Soares de Lima, Celso Lafer, Sônia de Camargo, Luiz Moniz Bandeira, Sebastião Velasco e Cruz, Tullo Vigevani, and Shiguenoli Miyamoto—to cite just a few names. From an IR theory point of view, the English school o ered valuable insights, together with other kinds of approaches. Additionally, foreign-trained analysts introduced more rigorous methodological techniques into this area. Qualitative methods, like case studies, gained momentum because of the tendency of in-depth historical investigations, mainly based on a French tradition—e.g., the works by Pierre Renouvin and Jean-Baptiste Duroselle (Alejandro, 2019; Casarões, 2019; Fonseca Júnior, 2012; Sombra Saraiva, 2012). Foreign-born structural approaches assumed a prominent role in IR studies in Brazil. Ideas derived from liberalism and realism were also relevant to those scholars because Anglo-American schools of diplomatic thought revolved around these theoretical paradigms. The national thinking about autonomy and the peripheral condition in the global order (Moura, 1989) lost some ground to these “alien” assumptions among scholars. Notwithstanding, Hélio Jaguaribe’s theoretical analyses about Brazilian IR indigenous perspectives, for example, meant an important leap forward (Jaguaribe, 1979). Ambassador Araújo Castro also conveyed his ideas on how international politics and foreign policy were intertwined analytical levels that worked in consonance (Castro, 1972). Cardoso, likewise, conducted some Weberian sociological studies that addressed global issues, “dependency theory” being a consolidated byproduct of his academic endeavor (Tickner, 2009). As Alejandro (2019) claims, while the military rule repressed social scientists who criticized the Brazilian government, it also created and supported some IR institutions during the 1970s. FUNAG, for example, which is a governmental think tank, beefed up research within the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign A airs and supported the establishment of a commission to foment a program of international relations at the University of Brasília (UnB). This initiative led to the creation of the rst IR undergraduate course, in the year 1974, aimed to support state policies. Five years later, in 1979, another course emerged, this time at the Ponti cal Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio) (Alejandro, 2019; Barasuol & Silva, 2016; Carvalho et al., 2021a; Lessa, 2004; Miyamoto, 1999). Other initiatives allowed for increased scholarly dialogues on IR issues, such as a group for strategic studies from University of Campinas (UNICAMP); and the Working Group on International Relations and Foreign Policy (GRIPE) at the National Association of Graduate Programs in Social Sciences (ANPOCS), which lasted from 1980 to 1994 (see Milani, 2021). Then, in 1984, the rst IR graduate program emerged in Brazil, at UnB. After that, it is fair to contend that the Brazilian IR eld has left the “prehistoric period,” as it embraced institutionalization and found new channels for academic dialogue overseas. The Emergence and Expansion of a Brazilian IR Scholarship Three years after the inauguration of the rst IR graduate program, the second program emerged at PUC-Rio. Then, in 1994, the rst PhD course in Brazil was brought to life at UnB, focusing on the history of international relations. Both PUC-Rio and UnB would remain the only venues where IR graduate programs were o ered in Brazil until 2001. As a consequence, they have become prominent poles for IR knowledge production in the country (Carvalho et al., 2021b; Lessa, 2005). However, even if the number of graduate programs did not expand during the late 1980s and 1990s, the same does not apply to the eld itself. The aforementioned GRIPE/ANPOCS initiative allowed IR scholars to meet regularly and discuss their research works. The graduate program in history at the Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ) was identi ed as one of the main spots for the study of IR in Brazil. At the same time, given the Brazilian re-democratization on the march, scholars were able to assess data, previously treated as con dential information by the military regime. Governmental funding was increasingly available, while on the nongovernmental side, companies, trade unions, and civil society organizations were more interested in understanding international relations. Against this surge in the supply of data and funding, the result was a larger number of studies in the eld (Carvalho et al., 2021b; Lessa, 2004, 2005; Miyamoto, 1999; Sombra Saraiva, 2012; Tickner, 2009; Vigevani et al., 2016; Vizentini, 2004). IR students also inaugurated their own association—the National Federation of International Relations Students (FENERI) (Alejandro, 2019). But it was during the 21st century that the IR scholarship e ectively expanded. The main reason for this seems relatively consensual in the analytical literature: governmental funding (Alejandro, 2019; Milani, 2021; Santos & Fonseca, 2009; Vigevani et al., 2016). This was especially relevant in a country where most of the IR academic knowledge is produced in publicly funded universities (Alejandro, 2019). In tandem with an increasing number of scholarships and fellowships provided by Brazilian federal institutions, such as the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and CNPq, as well as in research foundations connected to the Brazilian federal states, there were also policies aimed at expanding the eld. In 2001, the San Tiago Dantas Program for Supporting IR Teaching provided money to create at least three new IR departments in the country: the Federal Fluminense University (UFF), the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), and a tri-campi initiative involving the São Paulo State University (UNESP), the Campinas State University (UNICAMP), and the Ponti cal Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP). Then in 2006, the Renato Archer Program, a nationwide federal project, delivered funds to studies about Brazilian foreign policy. In the following years, the Program for Supporting Scienti c and Technologic Teaching and Research in National Defense (Pró-Defesa), and the Program for Supporting Scienti c and Technologic Teaching and Research in National Interest Strategic Issues (Pró-Estratégia), both run by the Brazilian Defense Ministry and CAPES, delivered grants for international security and defense research projects (Lessa, 2004, 2005; Santos & Fonseca, 2009; Vigevani et al., 2016). More recently, in 2018, CAPES launched the Institutional Internationalization Program for Brazilian Higher Education Institutions (CAPES-PrInt), which helped Brazilian graduate students and faculty to a ord exchange programs in leading universities across the globe. Other research funders at the subnational level (e.g., São Paulo Research Foundation—FAPESP) provided similar nancial aid. In alignment with these grant programs, the Brazilian academic diplomacy strengthened ties with foreign agencies such as the United States’ Fulbright Commission and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Both undergraduate courses and students have bene ted from governmental incentives during the two rst decades of this century. The “University for All” Program (PROUNI) provided fellowships for underresourced students to a ord tuition fees in privately owned universities. When it comes to publicly funded institutions, there was the Program for Restructuration and Expansion of Federal Universities (REUNI), which steered the creation of several courses (including those of IR) across the Brazilian territory. Together with other policies from the Brazilian Ministry of Education—which contemplated other knowledge areas as well—these initiatives led to an expanding number of departments and students of IR in Brazil (Alejandro, 2019; Ferreira, 2016). During this period, there was also new information to be duly analyzed by scholars. International drivers, such as the 9/11 attacks in the United States and the ensuing War on Terror, the advancements of both environment and gender agendas, and the rise of Asian powers needed to be more carefully addressed by Brazilian IR scholarship. Brazil itself reclaimed an increasing role in international relations, as the “post-liberal regionalism” launched a new phase for Latin American a airs (Faria et al., 2013; Riggirozzi & Tussie, 2012; Sanahuja, 2012). Emerging powers assumed ever more prominent roles during the post-Cold War era. Globalization and economic liberalization sparked the settlement of multinational companies and banks in Brazil and beyond (see Lima, 2000). In this sense, international issues became easier to be scrutinized via widespread internet access. Likewise, professional associations for scholars (e.g., the International Political Science Association) incorporated some Global South perspectives and started o ering a summer school in Brazil, since the year 2010, to provide training in Political Science and International Relations research methods. All of that drove to the aggrandizement of Brazilian IR scholarship, especially in comparison with other South American countries. In terms of academic output, there was a surge in journal and book publications on IR (Vigevani et al., 2016). The number of academic journals where Brazilian scholars had their pieces published, which totaled 9 in 2005, soared up to 22 in 2019. The pro le of Brazilian IR reviews changed during this period as it absorbed some international standards, such as the invitation of foreign reviewers, the adoption of electronic platforms for editorial purposes, and the renewed emphasis on papers written in English. Some Brazilian institutions have also actively supported the inclusion of these outlets in international databases, such as Web of Science and SciELO (Alejandro, 2019; Carvalho et al., 2021a; Fonseca Junior & Uziel, 2019; Lessa, 2005, 2014; Sombra Saraiva, 2012). Governmental moves spurred this tendency in the country by establishing an assessment and ranking system for academic journals—known as Qualis (Alejandro, 2019). In connection with the shifting circumstances, Brazilian authors also changed their publication pro les. Instead of heavily focusing on books, they redirected their e orts to get articles published in international peer-reviewed journals. Having said that, articles written by researchers a liated with Brazilian institutions are still uncommon in high-impact factor journals (Lohaus & Wemheuer-Vogelaar, 2020; Noda, 2020). Alejandro (2019) hypothesizes that the use of the impact factor as a criterion to de ne which outlet is appropriate for a given piece of writing might be alien to the Brazilian academic tradition. Another outcome from this increasing professionalization of the eld is the creation of at least two national professional associations: the Brazilian Association of International Relations (ABRI), and the Brazilian Association for Defense Studies (ABED), both in 2005. These groupings enabled the building of a community of researchers and enhanced the level of dialogues between di erent universities and departments (Santos & Fonseca, 2009; Sombra Saraiva, 2012). IR thus has consolidated as a professional specialty in Brazil. The job market started to systematically recruit IR professionals during the last decades, in either the public or the private sector (Lessa, 2004; Vizentini, 2004). The result of these entangled processes is a very diverse scholarship. When we look at faculty members indicators, for example, Barasuol and Silva (2016) note that only 20.5% of them hold a master’s degree in IR. Other shares are made up of political science (20%), history (14.5%), and economics (13%). Scholarly output by diplomats and military o cers also became more in tune with academic standards, especially after the creation of courses (such as the High Studies course within the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign A airs) and the formalization of other courses as graduate programs by Brazilian institutions, particularly the armed forces (Fonseca Júnior, 2012; Santos, 2005; Santos & Fonseca, 2009). There is an increasing gender diversity. In looking at academic publications in Brazil’s two best-ranked IR journals—RBPI and Contexto Internacional— from 1997 to 1998, Coelho et al. (2019) observed an increase in women’s share of authorship. In 1997, 28 men and only 1 woman published works in these journals, while 30 men and 18 women have made an appearance in these outlets in 2018. Furthermore, Coelho et al. (2020) shed some light on both graduate students and faculty members in Brazilian departments. In terms of the studentship, in the 2010s there was already some gender equality, as the number of women enrolled in IR courses attained a similar level to that of men. The same trend, however, did not apply to faculty. Whereas men continue to ll the majority of places in Brazilian IR scholarship, it is possible to observe the surge of a gender parity over the last decades. Still related to major within-case inequalities, Alejandro (2019) and Ferreira (2016) note di erences between departments in di erent regions in Brazil. First, it is important to recall that most of them are located in the southeast region of the country, especially in capital cities (Barasuol & Silva, 2016; Julião, 2012; Lessa, 2004; Santos & Fonseca, 2009). According to Ferreira (2016), it implies a variety of points of departure, making the whole set of higher education institutions hardly comparable. Departments outside of the main economic centers have di culties in attracting both professors and students and tend to present infrastructure gaps. Curricula are also unequal between universities and regions. Departments settled near the Amazon rainforest tend to approach environmental, border, and security issues more directly than the ones based in southern Brazil (Alejandro 2019; Ferreira, 2016). Brazilian IR scholarship, in this sense, is a plural eld with plenty of internal fractures. According to Kristensen (2020), Brazilian scholars usually discuss the origins of their epistemologies, splitting it into Western-leaning authors and Global South advocates who adopt decolonial/postpositivist approaches. The former normalizes—and even openly encourages—the adoption of Anglo-American theories to undertake IR analyses, considering the Anglo-American academy to be a role model for Brazil. The latter emphasizes this Global South belongingness as an inevitable trait of the resulting Brazilian IR scholarship. Therefore, the eld of IR in the country consists of an array of alternative perspectives. But, again, Brazil is not a lost island decoupled from the rest of the world. This great internal diversity can be observed even in the list of topics approached by this scholarship, its theoretical frameworks, and methodologies employed. The following sections aim to assess these factors, which more accurately describe, as far as we are concerned, the current state of Brazilian IR scholarship. High Diversity of Topics Previous literature pointed out that Brazilian IR scholarship focused on understanding the country’s role in the international arena, while also trying to advance new avenues for action. In this sense, topics approached by this national academia tend to be inextricably related to current challenges faced by Brazilian foreign policy, as well as the international context in which this policy is put into action, and the regional settings—which often leads this scholarship to be characterized as “parochial” (Alejandro, 2019; Fonseca Júnior, 2012; Herz, 2002; Milani, 2021; Vigevani et al., 2016; Vizentini, 2004). From the consolidation of the Brazilian IR scholarship onwards, the détente, con icts in Latin (Central) America, economic crises, and the emerging role of international organizations are the main examples of international topics that needed to be addressed by local researchers. At the national level, a more pragmatic foreign policy, the democratic transition, and the redemocratization itself provided more elements to be digested, and additional data to be analyzed, because of the increased access to information. As a result, these topics were all quickly incorporated by Brazilian IR scholarship (Fonseca Junior & Uziel, 2019; Herz, 2002; Lima, 2000; Pecequilo, 2008). After the end of the Cold War, Brazilian IR scholarship paid attention to the emerging process of regional integration, and globalization. Economic blocs, especially the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) (Hirst & Pinheiro, 1995; Malamud, 2011; Ramanzini & Mariano, 2016), became some of the most analyzed issues by these scholars. Within a context of increasing global debate on a wider set of issues, including human rights and the environment, the Brazilian literature also contemplated these matters in a di use way (Alejandro, 2019; Carvalho et al., 2021b; Dall’Agnol et al., 2021; Herz, 2002; Lessa, 2005; Milani, 2021; Miyamoto, 1999). During the mid-2000s, Alejandro (2019) remarked that the consolidation of a Brazilian IR scholarly community arguably produced a new pro le, shifting from a policy-oriented discipline (especially before the 1990s) to an autonomous and increasingly internationalized academic scholarship. This is quite noticeable from the topics addressed by Brazilian scholars. In counting the number of mentions to di erent topics in theses and dissertations defended in Brazil, Carvalho et al. (2021b) claimed that the expansion of Brazilian scholarship was followed by the multiplication of topics approached. Scholars have allegedly tried, for instance, to understand the inclusion of distinct actors in the foreign policy-making process, such as companies, trade unions, nongovernmental organizations, and subnational governments. This process of “opening up Itamaraty’s black box,” which began in the early 1990s, became more intense in the 2000s, as it required a deeper and broader understanding (Faria, 2008; Faria et al., 2013; Salomón & Nunes, 2007; Vigevani, 2006). Other topics, such as trade regimes, international cooperation, refugees, and gender received increased attention as Brazil engaged in these agendas. Brazilian scholars started to analyze the foreign policies of other countries, and the “power politics” put into practice by great powers. Likewise, some analysts also attempted to re ne approaches to delve into the U.S. foreign policy-making processes (Carvalho et al., 2021b). When South (and Latin) American integration processes turned more intense and wider (Riggirozzi & Tussie, 2012; Sanahuja, 2012; Saraiva, 2010), Brazilian scholars tried to understand its various pathways. Changes in Mercosur, not to mention the inception of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), were more and better covered by national researchers. Dall’Agnol et al. (2021) have noted that Brazil has produced the largest number of academic pieces about Latin American integration. The Brazilian academy’s heightened interest in regional integration, however, did not remain con ned to the own region. As Asian powers (especially China) ultimately rose during the 21st century, Brazilian investigators paid special attention to that part of the world. Likewise, there is a diminishing enthusiasm for studies about Europe (Carvalho et al., 2021b; Dall’Agnol et al., 2021). Actually, Carvalho et al. (2021b) observed that, while most theses and dissertations defended in the country from 1987 to 2018 touch on Brazil and its own region, a considerable number of works are related to other regions of the world, or to the re nement of conceptual and theoretical frameworks writ large. Alejandro (2019) claimed that 42% of the articles published by Brazilian scholars in foreign journals do not restrict their scope to the country and its region. In this sense, it is fair to say that, while the Brazilian IR scholarship does tend to focus on national and regional matters, it is de nitely not as parochial as one could have imagined it. Finally, defense studies have also gained momentum in Brazilian scholarship. Grants provided by governmental policies such as Pró-Defesa and Pró-Estratégia, and the accreditation of military institutions as graduate programs, boosted research on security issues. Hence, while Fonseca Junior and Uziel (2019) noted the qualitative improvement in these studies, due to increased civil-military interactions, Carvalho et al. (2021b) have shown that there was also a quantitative increase in the interest in these matters, in a way that “defense” became the most mentioned topic in theses and dissertations defended in Brazil in 2018. Considering all these changes, Carvalho et al. (2021b) claim that, in the last 30 years, the trending topics of Brazilian IR scholarship were Brazilian foreign policy, the international political economy, national defense, regional integration, and the world’s great powers (in Asia, in Europe, or the United States). While it reminds us of the main topics at the inception of this national scholarship (dating back to Brazil’s imperial times), the reason why it became highly diverse over time is the fact that very di erent approaches emerged along the way with these topics. Instead of mostly applying geopolitical lenses to approach these phenomena, Brazilian scholars have adopted multidimensional points of view, including trade, gender, and environmental issues. This scholarship is now also concerned with global phenomena, such as globalization, terrorism, and refugee ows. This increasing diversity was perceived by Brazilian scholars Herz (2002) and Milani (2021), and statistically con rmed in Carvalho and colleagues’ (2021a) piece of work. This scholarship is relatively responsive to Brazilian foreign policy changes and challenges, as well as international trends, in an unstoppable attempt to apprehend the world and the place where the country sits, thus producing a properly local view about international relations (Rodriguez & Malamud, 2020). Theoretical Frameworks and the Epistemological Cleavage Brazilian scholars attribute great relevance to IR theory. According to data from the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Faculty Survey, 77.78% of Brazilian-placed scholars say that IR courses aim more to introduce undergraduates to theoretical discussions than to inform about foreign policy or global issues. According to Barasuol and Silva (2016) and Tickner (2009), traditional theories, such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism, are the most highly cited and taught in IR theory courses, while Latin American approaches, such as dependency theory, are often neglected. These scholars also have a reduced penchant to use paradigmatic approaches as compared to the world average (Guimarães & Estre, 2021; Maliniak et al., 2017). In this sense, Villa and Pimenta (2017) argue that the Brazilian scholarship incorporated Anglo-American elements in a hybrid way. That is, scholars mobilize mainstream theoretical frameworks in tandem with national understandings and multidisciplinary approaches. Brazilian scholars focus neither on producing nor on re ning paradigmatic approaches. Many national studies attempt to reproduce mainstream frameworks (Mignolo, 2002). These authors often prefer to engage in developing other kinds of theoretical approaches, especially midrange theories, and subsidies to understand national and regional situations, such as dependency theory (Alejandro, 2019; Jaguaribe, 1979; Miyamoto, 1999; Vizentini, 2004). It remained this way during most of the 1980s and 1990s. The incorporation of pluralistic critical epistemologies and sociological approaches was increasingly debated in global mainstream IR scholarship (Keohane, 1988). This debate would land in Brazil only during the 2000s. But things have changed fast: Carvalho et al. (2021b) note that mentions to post-positivism increased in theses and dissertations defended in Brazil during the 2000s. Then, the resulting prominence of this theoretical strand can be observed in Figure 1: Brazilians are less positivist than U.S.-based scholars, and score above the world average. Whereas positivism became a hegemonic epistemological option for the mainstream IR academy (Biersteker, 2009; Maliniak et al., 2011; Mearsheimer and Walt, 2013), it is still not possible to posit that any one epistemological choice reaches a majority in the Brazilian IR scholarship, restating from a di erent angle the very diverse nature of this national academy. Figure 1. Epistemological choices. Source: Maliniak et al. (2017) This epistemological diversity also re ects on theoretical choices, as we can see in Figure 2. While the world—especially mainstream IR scholarship—has focused on hypothesis-testing and neglected IR theory to some extent (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2013), Brazilians continue to rely on theories to deductively produce their analyses (Maliniak et al., 2017; Villa & Pimenta, 2017). Constructivism tends to be one of the most-used theories by Brazilian scholars (Barasuol & Silva, 2016; Maliniak et al., 2017; Pereira & Belém Lopes, in press). But there is a remarkable use of two other theoretical sets—realism and liberalism. Marxism also has an important presence in this scholarship. It is often connected to center–periphery approaches and, more recently, to decolonial frameworks. Also, the English School appears as a highly used theory by this scholarship (Barasuol & Silva, 2016; Maliniak et al., 2017; Medeiros et al., 2016). Other approaches have also received considerable attention in the country, as shown in Figure 2. Geopolitical traditions and dependency approaches remain considerably popular in Brazil. Theoretical frameworks from other areas such as political science, sociology, and psychology have been increasingly applied (Alejandro, 2019; Barasuol & Silva, 2016). At the same time, authors such as Barbosa (2021) noted that Indian- and Chinese-born frameworks, although still scarce, are now more frequently evoked in the country. Figure 2. Theoretical choices. Source: Maliniak et al. (2017) Lately, Brazilians have also been focusing on producing more sophisticated middle-range frameworks (Barasuol & Silva, 2016; Guimarães & Estre, 2021; Salomón, 2020). These frameworks can play a relevant role in mainstream debates about IR theories, supporting dialogues with the inclusion of Global South views. For example, Milani et al. (2017) and Belém Lopes et al. (2020) proposed new approaches to scrutinize the role of international mechanisms over Global South countries’ foreign policies and the characteristics of the international system. At the end of the day, some scholars argue that these middle-range theories tend to reduce the level of dependence on Anglo-American theories (Belém Lopes et al., 2016; Guimarães & de Almeida, 2017). This context takes into account new approaches on IR based upon theoretical eclecticism and the need to provide more sophisticated answers to national puzzles. In so being, Brazilian IR scholarship is also very diverse in terms of its theoretical and epistemological choices. As Alejandro (2019) once claimed, Brazilian scholars still show little concern with the adaptation of their frameworks and concepts to foreign audiences. This usually hampers the scholarly aim to propose generalizable and widely acceptable theories. However, it does not mean that theory is not important for this national academic environment. Rather, these scholars use and even propose di erent approaches to understand their subjects. Then, if there is no consensus about whether Brazilian IR scholarship should emulate Anglo-American scholarship or that of their Global South peers (Kristensen, 2020), it is reasonable to accept that these scholars adopt theories based on di erent ways to see the world. Methodological Strategies—or the Lack Thereof The most evoked units of analysis by Brazilian scholars have been their country or their region (Carvalho et al., 2021b; Herz, 2002; Milani, 2021) and qualitative tools became their favorite methodological choices. Since its inception, both American qualitative tools and French historical-descriptive approaches have been the most frequent methodologies in Brazil’s academic world (Fonseca Junior & Uziel, 2019; Herz, 2002; Milani, 2021). Focusing on case studies and comparative analyses was vitally important for Brazilian scholars to meet their research objectives at the time, in such a profound way that these approaches continue to be highly employed (Carvalho et al., 2021a; Medeiros et al., 2016). When the post-positivist debate landed in Brazil, however, its methodologies also arrived in the country. Discourse analysis was increasingly employed, together with other previously existing methodologies, such as ethnography (Medeiros et al., 2016). The use of critical approaches, as well as the research on IR theory, was surging in the country, especially at PUC-Rio (Alejandro, 2019). Once again, considering that Brazilian scholars reached no consensus with regard to their association with the mainstream academy or, alternatively, to the Global South (Kristensen, 2020), positivist, nonpositivist, and post-positivist methodologies have concomitantly been all around the place. While quantitative methods were increasingly employed in the global IR mainstream scholarship (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2013; Sprinz & Wolinsky-Nahmias, 2004), Alejandro (2019) notes that this tradition arrived a bit later to Brazil. The creation and consolidation of the International Relations Institute at the University of Sao Paulo (IRI-USP) in the 2000s, provided a center for training students and researchers in this kind of research tradition. Recently, the Political Science Departments at the Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE) and the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) have also been systematically training IR academics with quantitative methodologies. The three mentioned departments provide speci c courses to improve their students’ skills on research methods on a regular basis (Albuquerque et al., 2020). In this sense, Carvalho et al. (2021a) attempt to provide a picture of the current methodological state of the discipline by assessing articles published in the main Brazilian and mainstream IR journals. According to these authors, Brazilians tend to rely mostly on qualitative tools, and quantitative and multimethod analyses are rather scarce in comparison with mainstream publications such as international organization and world politics—by the way, a similar nding was also presented by Medeiros et al. (2016). Techniques related to the so-called “new inferential adjustment,” such as matching and regression discontinuity (Rezende, 2017), had no use in Brazilian journals until recently. National authors tend to focus mostly on case studies and, more rarely, on comparative analyses. Also, interpretivist methods such as Discourse Analysis and ethnography are more common in Brazilian than in mainstream outlets (Carvalho et al., 2021a; Medeiros et al., 2016). Concurring to the diagnosis of greater prevalence of interpretivist methods (as compared to the mainstream academy), and the historical-descriptive tradition massively found in the country, Carvalho et al. (2021a) and Moura et al. (2019) added that key elements for positivist research designs tend not to be met in Brazilian publications. Moura et al. (2019) show that considering all articles published in Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional from 1994 to 2017, only 30.5% of them identi ed a research question, 29.1% relied on inferences, 6.2% publicly described their procedures, 21.1% relayed their methods, and 24.5% made clear their results. Albuquerque et al. (2020) provide a probable explanation for these outcomes: despite there being globally famous authors being studied in IR courses in Brazil, there is little discussion about the role of replication in IR research in Brazilian academic departments. Also, it is important to mention that several papers rely on providing rich descriptions of international phenomena instead of causal inferences. However, Carvalho et al. (2021a) showed how this situation has been changing—at least in what concerns mentioning the methods used in a given study. While conducting a Systematic Literature Review of all articles published in RBPI and Contexto Internacional from 2009 to 2019, the authors remark that more papers have been mentioning their methodological choices, in a way that, in the case of RBPI, more than 50% of the articles published in the outlet did identify their respective methods in 2019. In conclusion, we can observe that, while paying a special tribute to qualitative tools, the Brazilian IR scholarship uses di erent methodological perspectives to produce their analytical pieces. These instruments range from historical approaches to interpretive tools such as discourse analysis and ethnography, also including case studies and comparative analyses adopting either a positivist, or a nonpositivist, or a post-positivist stance. Quantitative and multimethod approaches, despite being considered trendy in the mainstream global academy, remain rare in Brazil, even if there is widespread recognition of the potential gains associated with these methodologies (Carvalho et al., 2021a; Mesquita et al., 2020). Brazilian authors have also been taking important steps for any research design, whichever the epistemological view they embrace, such as explaining procedures in their research work. In methodological terms, we can also consider Brazilian IR scholarship to be a pluralistic one, and in constant evolution. Conclusion Brazil is a Global South country located in the Western Hemisphere. Given this geographic fate, Brazilians have had a hard time when de ning themselves on identity grounds. Likewise, de ning Brazil’s zone of in uence and belongingness has also been a puzzle for the country’s punditry: is it Latin America or South America? Not least important, despite having emerged from a combination of inputs from the Anglo-American mainstream and continental Europe, namely French and German traditions, on history and geopolitics, the Brazilian IR academy keeps trying to nd its own place in the sun. It is against this backdrop that the eld of IR in Brazil became highly institutionalized, and greatly expanded along the 21st century, especially due to state-driven action. From a restricted group of practitioners, IR scholarship in Brazil now attracts thousands of students and researchers, from homeland and abroad, each year. In light of this, the Brazilian IR milieu assumed new characteristics and assimilated the relevance of understanding global phenomena in its own way, leading to a diverse and pluralistic output. This within-case diversity increased as global debates blossomed, especially with the emergence of post-positivist epistemologies, theories, and methodologies. In terms of topics, this scholarship is highly connected with the Brazilian global and regional placement. Most works approach Brazilian foreign policy and regional integration in an attempt to understand the country’s international constraints and possibilities. However, it also draws attention to global changes (i.e., the end of the Cold War, globalization, and the emergence of Asian powers). The salience of topics such as trade, human rights, international institutions, and the environment varied according to international markers, while defense and security studies have witnessed a boom during the 2000s and 2010s—again, mostly due to state-induced policies. Then, when one looks at theoretical and epistemological choices, the aforementioned diversity comes to the surface. Brazilians give emphasis to theory, as compared to the world average. Paradigmatic approaches are highly mobilized in the country. However, these frameworks coexist with local and regional proposals, such as dependency theory. In the pursuit of relevant topics related to the Brazilian international situation, scholars have been choosing the best theories to reach their objectives, whether systemic or midrange approaches. As methodology is regarded, studies in Brazil have lately incorporated foreign perspectives and more sophisticated research designs, attempting to provide either descriptions or more valid inferences on international phenomena. Positivist, nonpositivist, and post-positivist methodologies are all part of the same Brazilian repertoire, which is centered on qualitative rather than quantitative tools. Brazilian scholars have arguably been trying to internationally di use their research work, while pursuing international careers no matter which scienti c views of theirs. At the end of the day, the 200-year-long development of the eld of international relations in Brazil hinges on the merging of historical existential issues and global in uences from di erent spheres. The Brazilian IR scholarship is at the same time a vivid byproduct of the Global Southern, and a proud recycler of the Western academic traditions, as it welcomes both decolonial and colonial perspectives. It is positivist, nonpositivist, and post-positivist all at once. It is international, and it is markedly Brazilian. Further Reading Abdenur, A. E. (2019). Devouring international relations: Anthropophagy and the study of South–South cooperation. In E. Mawdsley, E. Fourie, & W. Nauta, (Eds.), Researching South–South Development Cooperation (pp. 32–48). Routledge. Alejandro, A. (2019). Western dominance in international relations? The internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India. Routledge. Amorim, C. (2007). A diplomacia mutilateral do Brasil: um tributo a Rui Barbosa. FUNAG. Bandeira, L. A. M. (2014). As relações perigosas: Brasil-Estados Unidos. Editora José Olympio. Barasuol, F., & da Silva, A. R. (2017). Challenges and possibilities of empirical international relations theory: Evidence from research in Brazil. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics (pp. 1–20). Oxford University Press. Belém Lopes, D. (2013). Política externa e democracia no Brasil. Editora UNESP. Carvalho, T., Gabriel, J. P., & Belém Lopes, D. (2021a). “Mind the gap”: Assessing di erences in methodological approaches between Brazilian and mainstream IR journals in methodological approaches. Contexto Internacional, 43(3), 461–489. Casarões, G. (2018). The evolution of foreign policy studies: Four perspectives. In B. Ames (Ed.), Routledge handbook of Brazilian politics (pp. 406–429). Routledge. Cruz, S. V., & Mendonça, F. (2010). O campo das Relações Internacionais no Brasil. In C. B. Martins, R. Lessa, & A. M. C. Figueiredo (Eds.), Horizontes Das Ciências Sociais No Brasil. Ciência Política. ANPOCS Instituto Ciência Hoje: Discurso Editorial. Herz, M. (2002). O crescimento da área de relações internacionais no Brasil. Contexto Internacional, 24, 7–40. Lessa, A. C. (2005). Instituições, atores e dinâmicas do ensino e da pesquisa em Relações Internacionais no Brasil: o diálogo entre a história, a ciência política e os novos paradigmas de interpretação (dos anos 90 aos nossos dias). Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 48, 169–184. Lima, M. R. S. D. (2005). A política externa brasileira e os desafios da cooperação Sul-Sul. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 48, 24–59. Malamud, A. (2011). A leader without followers? The growing divergence between the regional and global performance of Brazilian foreign policy. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(3), 1–24. Miyamoto, S. (1987). Geopolítica e política externa brasileira. Universidade Estadual Paulista “Julio de Mesquita Filho,” Campus de Marília. Moura, G. (1991). Sucessos e ilusões. Relações Internacionais do Brasil durante e após a Segunda Guerra Mundial. Ed. Fundação Getúlio Vargas. Oliveira, H. A. (2017). Política externa brasileira. Saraiva Educação SA. Salomón, M., & Pinheiro, L. (2013). Análise de Política Externa e Política Externa Brasileira: trajetória, desafios e possibilidades de um campo de estudos. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 56, 40–59. Teixeira, C. G. P. (2012). Brazil, the United States, and the South American subsystem: Regional politics and the absent empire. Lexington Books. Ventura, D. (2013). Public health and Brazilian foreign policy. SUR—International Journal on Human Rights, 19, 95. Vigevani, T., & Júnior, H. R. (2011). The impact of domestic politics and international changes on the Brazilian perception of regional integration. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(1), 125–155. Viola, E. (1986). O movimento ecológico no Brasil, 1974-1986: do ambientalismo à ecopolítica. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 93(3), 5-26. References Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 647–659. Albuquerque, R., Mesquita, R., & Brito, R. (2020). Obscuridade metodológica: um mapeamento da formação em métodos na pós-graduação em Relações Internacionais e áreas afins na América do Sul [Presented]. 12o Encontro da Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política. Alejandro, A. (2019). Western dominance in international relations? The internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India. Routledge. Almeida, P. R. de. (1998). Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional: quatro décadas ao serviço da inserção internacional do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 41, 42–65. Baracuhy, B. (2021). Os Fundamentos da geopolítica clássica: Mahan, Mackinder, Spykman. FUNAG. Barasuol, F., & Silva, A. (2016). International relations theory in Brazil: Trends and challenges in teaching and research. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 59, 1–20. Barbosa, P. (2021). O pensamento chinês e a teoria de Relações Internacionais: uma Escola Chinesa de RI? Carta Internacional, 16, e1156. Belém Lopes, D. (2014). Da razão de estado ao republicanismo mitigado: uma narrativa Faoriana sobre a produção da Política Externa Brasileira. DADOS—Revista de Ciências Sociais, 57, 481–516. Belém Lopes, D. (2020). De-westernization, democratization, disconnection: The emergence of Brazilʼs post-diplomatic foreign policy. Global A airs, 6, 167–184. Belém Lopes, D., Casarões, G., & Gama, C. F. P. (2020). A tragedy of middle power politics: Traps in Brazilʼs quest for institutional revisionism. In P. L. M. L. Esteves & M. G. Jumbert (Eds.), Status and the rise of Brazil: Global ambitions, humanitarian engagement and international challenges. Palgrave Macmillan. Belém Lopes, D., & Soares, M. M. (Eds.). (2017). Sonhos e Labores: O Cinquentenário do Primeiro Departamento de Ciência Política do Brasil. Editora UFMG. Belém Lopes, D., Faria, C. A. P. de, & Santos, M. L. (2016). Foreign policy analysis in Latin American democracies: The case for a research protocol. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 59, 1–17. Biersteker, T. (2009). The parochialism of hegemony: Challenges for “American” international relations. In A. B. Tickner & O. Wæver (Eds.), International relations scholarship around the world. Routledge. Booth, K. (2019). International relations: The story so far <https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819851261>. International Relations, 33, 358–390. Campos, R. (2004). A Lanterna na Popa: memórias, 1ª reimpressão. Topbooks. Carvalho, T., Gabriel, J. P., & Belém Lopes, D. (2021a). “Mind the gap”: Assessing di erences in methodological approaches between Brazilian and mainstream IR journals. Contexto Internacional, 43(3), 461–488. Carvalho, T., Santos, V., & Martínez, Y. (2021b). Seguindo a trilha das palavras: mapeando os “trending topics” das pesquisas na pós-graduação em RI no Brasil (1987–2018) <https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.2646> [Preprint – not published]. Casarões, G. (2019). The evolution of foreign policy studies: Four perspectives. In B. Ames (Ed.), Routledge handbook of Brazilian politics. Routledge. Castro, J. A. de A. (1972). The United Nations and the freezing of the international power structure <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300002940>. International Organization, 26, 158–166. Coelho, A., Elias, I., & Santos, V. (2020). As Mulheres na Pós-Graduação nas áreas de Ciência Política e Relações Internacionais no Brasil: um olhar sobre a Formação e a Docência [Presented]. 12o Encontro da Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política. Coelho, A. L., Elias, I. V., & Santos, V. S. (2019). A participação das mulheres na produção acadêmica da ár ea de Relações Internacionais no Brasil | The participation of women in academic production in the field of International Relations in Brazil <https://doi.org/10.12957/rmi.2019.37384>. Mural Internacional, 10, e37384. Cruz, S. V., & Mendonça, F. (2010). O campo das Relações Internacionais no Brasil. In C. B. Martins, R. Lessa, & A. M. C. Figueiredo (Eds.), Horizontes das ciências sociais no Brasil. Ciência política. ANPOCS Instituto Ciência Hoje: Discurso Editorial. DallʼAgnol, A. C., Batista, I. R., & Carvalho, T. L. (2021). Apresentação: A Integração Sul-Americana em Tempos de Cólera <https://doi.org/10.5902/2357797566801>. Revista InterAção, 12, 5–17. Dulci, T. M. S. (2013). Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)/Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI): desenvolvimento e integração do Brasil nas américas (1954–1992) (Doutorado em História Social) <https://doi.org/10.11606/T.8.2013.tde-13092013-115630>. Universidade de São Paulo. Faria, C. A. P. de. (2008). Opinião pública e política externa: Insulamento, politização e reforma na produção da política exterior do Brasil <https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-73292008000200006>. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 51, 80–97. Faria, C. A. P. de, Belém Lopes, D., & Casarões, G. (2013). Itamaraty on the move: Institutional and political change in Brazilian foreign service under Lula da Silvaʼs presidency (2003–2010). Bulletin of Latin American Research, 32, 468–482. Ferreira, M. A. S. V. (2016). The rise of international relations programs in the Brazilian federal universities: Curriculum specificities and current challenges. Journal of Political Science Education, 12, 241–255. Fonseca Júnior, G. (2012). Diplomacia e academia: um estudo sobre as relações entre o Itamaraty e a comunidade acadêmica (2a edição. ed.). Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão. Fonseca Junior, G., & Uziel, E. (2019). Notas sobre o campo das relações internacionais no Brasil no centésimo aniversário da disciplina <https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-3769.2019.55728>. Estudios Internacionales, 51, 145. Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão. (2021). Cursos de Relações Internacionais <http://funag.gov.br/ipri/index.php/cursosde-relacoes-internacionais>. Guimarães, F., & de Almeida, M. H. T. (2017). From middle powers to entrepreneurial powers in world politics: Brazilʼs successes and failures in international crises <https://doi.org/10.1111/laps.12032>. Latin American Politics and Society, 59, 26–46. Guimarães, F., & Estre, F. (2021). Foreign policy analysis in Brazil: The use of middle-range theories <https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.671>. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford University Press. Herz, M. (2002). O Crescimento da Área de Relações Internacionais no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 24, 7–40. Hirst, M., & Pinheiro, L. (1995). A política externa do Brasil em dois tempos. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 38(1), 5–23. Ho mann, S. (1995). An American social science: International relations (1977) <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-34923773-9>. In J. Der Derian (Ed.), International theory. Palgrave Macmillan. Jaguaribe, H. (1979). Autonomía periférica y hegemonía céntrica. Estudios Internationales, 12, 91–130. Julião, T. (2012). A graduação em Relações Internacionais no Brasil. Monções Rev. Relações Int. UFGD 1. Keohane, R. O. (1988). International institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32, 379–396. Kristensen, P. M. (2020). The South in “global IR”: Worlding beyond the “non-West” in the case of Brazil <https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekz029>. International Studies Perspectives, 22(2), 218–239. Lessa, A. C. (2004). O ensino de Relações Internacionais no Brasil. In P. M. P. Coelho & J. F. S. Saraiva (Eds.), Fórum Brasil-África, Política, Cooperação e Comércio: Fortaleza, Brasil, 9–10 de Junho de 2003. Brazil-Africa Forum on Politics, Cooperation and Trade, Instituto Brasileiro de Rela̧cões Internacionais. Lessa, A. C. (2005). Instituições, atores e dinâmicas do ensino e da pesquisa em Relações Internacionais no Brasil: o diálogo entre a história, a ciência política e os novos paradigmas de interpretação (dos anos 90 aos nossos dias). Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 48, 169–184. Lessa, A. C. (2014). Os desafios da publicação em acesso aberto na área de humanidades no Brasil: as estratégias de adaptação da Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional—RBPI. Boletim Meridiano, 47(15), 35–45. Lima, M. R. (2000). Instituições democráticas e política exterior. Contexto Internacional, 22, 265–303. Lima, M. R., & Cheibub, Z. (1983). Relações Internacionais e Política Externa Brasileira: debate intelectual e produção acadêmica. MRE/IUPERJ. Lima, M. R., Milani, C., Duarte, R., Albuquerque, M., Acácio, I., Carvalho, T., Medeiros, J., Novacek, N., Costa, M., Costa, H., & Lemos, J. (2017). Atlas da Política Brasileira de Defesa. CLACSO. Lohaus, M., & Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. (2020). Who publishes where? Exploring the geographic diversity of global IR journals <https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa062>. International Studies Review, 23(3), 645–669. Loureiro, F., & Guimarães, F. D. S. (2019). Multidisciplinariedade e Interdisciplinaridade na Graduação em RI: o ensino de História e Teoria das Relações Internacionais | Multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in international relations: Teaching history and theory of international relations <https://doi.org/10.12957/rmi.2019.37636>. Mural Internacional, 10, e37636. Malamud, A. (2011). A leader without followers? The growing divergence between the regional and global performance of Brazilian foreign policy. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(3), 1–24. Maliniak, D., Oakes, A., Peterson, S., Tierney, M. J. (2011). International relations in the US academy <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00653.x>. International Studies Quarterly, 55, 437–464. Maliniak, D., Patterson, S., Powers, R., & Tierney, M. (2017). TRIP 2017 faculty survey <https://trip.wm.edu/>. Teaching, Research, and International Policy. Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers, R., & Tierney, M. J. (2018). Is international relations a global discipline? Hegemony, insularity, and diversity in the field <https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2017.1416824>. Security Studies, 27, 448–484. Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19, 427–457. Medeiros, M. de A., Barnabé, I., Albuquerque, R., & Lima, R. (2016). What does the field of international relations look like in South America? <https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600104> Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 59, 1– 31. Mesquita, R., Figueiredo, D., & Fernandes, A. (2020). Regressão com dados em painel: balanço da utilização na CPRI brasileira e estratégias para maior difusão do método [Presented]. 12o Encontro da Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política. Mignolo, W. D. (2002). The geopolitics of knowledge and the colonial di erence <https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-1011-57>. South Atlantic Quarterly, 101, 57–96. Milani, C. R. S. (2021). The foundation and development of international relations in Brazil <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210521000139>. Review of International Studies, 47(5), 601–617. Milani, C. R. S., Pinheiro, L., & De Lima, M. R. S. (2017). Brazilʼs foreign policy and the “graduation dilemma.” <https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix078> International A airs, 93(3), 585–605. Miyamoto, S. (1999). O estudo de relações internacionais no Brasil: O estado da arte. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 12, 83–98. Monteiro, A. (2021). Entre a academia e o mercado de trabalho: dilemas e perspectivas para o profissional de Relações Internacionais. Moura, G. (1989). Historiografia e relações internacionais. Contexto Internacional, 10(1), 67. Moura, N. S., Schwether, N., & Mesquita, M. (2019). Research design in international relations: Analysis about the methodological culture of RBPIʼs papers (1994–2017) | Desenho de pesquisa em Relações Internacionais: Análise da cultura metodológica nos artigos da RBPI (1994–2017) <https://doi.org/10.12957/rmi.2019.37923>. Mural Internacional, 10, e37923. Noda, O. (2020). Epistemic hegemony: The Western straitjacket and post-colonial scars in academic publishing <https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329202000107>. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 63(1), e007. Oliveira, H. A. (2017). Política externa brasileira. Saraiva Educação SA. Patti, C., & Spektor, M. (2020). “We are not a nonproliferation agency”: Henry Kissingerʼs failed attempt to accommodate nuclear Brazil, 1974–1977 <https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_a_00940>. Journal of Cold War Studies, 22(2), 58–93. Pecequilo, C. S. (2008). A política externa do Brasil no século XXI: os eixos combinados de cooperação horizontal e vertical. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 51, 136–156. Pereira, A., & Belém Lopes, D. (in press). Segurança e instituições internacionais: o Brasil em perspectiva. In As Teorias e o Caso. Anpocs. Pinheiro, L., & Vedoveli, P. (2012). Caminhos cruzados: Diplomatas e acadêmicos na construção do campo de estudos de política externa Brasileira. Revista Política Hoje, 21(1), 211–254. Pion-Berlin, D. (1989). Latin American national security doctrines: Hard and so line themes <https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X8901500305>. Armed Forces & Society, 15(3), 411–429. Ramanzini, H., Jr., & Lima, T. (2017). Editorial—Challenges and pathways of teaching, research and extension in international relations in Brazil. Meridiano 47—Journal of Global Studies, 18, 1–5. Ramanzini, H., & Mariano, M. (2016). A política externa brasileira e as relações com a América do Sul entre 2008 e 2015. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada. Rezende, F. (2017). (Desvendando) A dinâmica do ajuste inferencial nas relações internacionais (2000–2017). Conexão Política, 6, 11–54. Ricupero, R. (2017). A diplomacia na construção do Brasil: 1750–2016 (1a edição [atualizada]. ed.). Versal Editores. Ricupero, B. (2018). A República e a Descoberta da América: Nova forma de governo e mudança identitária no Brasil da década de 1890 <https://doi.org/10.1590/001152582018151>. DADOS—Revista de Ciências Sociais, 61, 213–253. Riggirozzi, P., & Tussie, D. (2012). The rise of post-hegemonic regionalism in Latin America <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2694-9_1>. In P. Riggirozzi & D. Tussie (Eds.), The rise of post-hegemonic regionalism (pp. 1–16). Springer Netherlands. Robles, A. C. (1993). How “international” are international relations syllabi? <https://doi.org/10.2307/419996> PS: Political Science and Politics, 26, 526–528. Rodriguez, J. C., & Malamud, A. (2020). The politics of Brazilian foreign policy. Oxford Bibliographies. Salomón, M. (2020). Exploring Brazilian foreign policy towards women: Dimensions, outcomes, actors and influences <https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329202000101>. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 63(1), e001. Salomón, M., & Nunes, C. (2007). A ação externa dos governos subnacionais no Brasil: os casos do Rio Grande do Sul e de Porto Alegre. Um estudo comparativo de dois tipos de atores mistos <https://doi.org/10.1590/S010285292007000100004>. Contexto Internacional, 29, 99–147. Sanahuja, J. (2012). Post-liberal regionalism in South America: The case of UNASUR <http://hdl.handle.net/1814/20394> [Working Paper]. EUI RSCAS, 2012/05, Global Governance Programme-13, European, Transnational and Global Governance. Santos, N. B. dos. (2005). História das Relações Internacionais no Brasil: esboço de uma avaliação sobre a área <https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-90742005000100002>. História São Paulo, 24(1), 11–39. Santos, N. B. dos, & Fonseca, F. E. (2009). A pós-graduação em relações internacionais no Brasil <https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-85292009000200005>. Contexto Internacional, 31, 353–380. Saraiva, M. G. (2010). Brazilian foreign policy towards South America during the Lula Administration: caught between South America and Mercosur. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 53, 151–168. Sá Pimentel, J. V. de. (2013). Pensamento diplomático brasileiro: formuladores e agentes da política externa (1750–1964) (Vol. 3). Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão. Sombra Saraiva, J. F. (2012). Pesquisa em Relações Internacionais no Brasil: passado, presente e perspectivas <https://doi.org/10.36311/2012.978-85-7983-240-6>. In S. L. Cruz Aguilar & H. Menezes Albres (Eds.), Relações internacionais: Pesquisa, práticas e perspectivas (pp. 67–77). Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências. Sprinz, D. F., & Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (Eds.). (2004). Models, numbers, and cases: Methods for studying international relations. University of Michigan Press. Tickner, A. (2009). Latin America: Still policy dependent a er all these years? In A. B. Tickner & O. Wæver (Eds.), International relations scholarship around the world. Routledge. Tickner, A., & Herz, M. (2012). No place for theory? Security studies in Latin America. In A. B. Tickner & D. L., Blaney (Eds.), Thinking international relations di erently (pp. 92–114). Routledge. Vigevani, T. (2006). Problemas para a atividade internacional das unidades subnacionais: estados e municípios brasileiros <https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092006000300010>. Revista Brasileira Ciências Sociais, 21, 127–169. Vigevani, T., Thomaz, L. F., & Leite, L. A. B. (2016). Pós graduação em Relações Internacionais no Brasil: Anotações sobre sua institucionalização <https://doi.org/10.17666/319104/2016>. Revista Brasileira Ciências Sociais, 31(91), 1–31. Villa, R., & Pimenta, M. C. (2017). Is international relations still an American social science discipline in Latin America? <https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-01912017231261> Opinião Pública, 23, 261–288. Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2012). International relations theory (5th ed.). Longman. Vizentini, P. (2004). A evolução da produção intelectual e dos estudos acadêmicos de relações internacionais no Brasil. In P. M. P. Coelho, J. F. S., Saraiva (Eds.), Fórum Brasil-África, Política, Cooperação e Comércio: Fortaleza, Brasil, 9–10 de Junho de 2003. Brazil-Africa Forum on Politics, Cooperation and Trade, Instituto Brasileiro de Rela̧cões Internacionais. Related Articles Autonomy in Foreign Policy: A Latin American Contribution to International Relations Theory The Latin American Long Peace Foreign Policy Analysis in Brazil: The Use of Middle-Range Theories Copyright © Oxford University Press 2022. Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 02 December 2022