The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program
Abstract
Studies in this issue show that the epistemic communities approach amounts to a progressive research program with which students of world politics can empirically study the role of reason and ideas in international relations. By focusing on epistemic communities, analysts may better understand how states come to recognize interests under conditions of uncertainty. According to this research program, international relations can be seen as an evolutionary process in which epistemic communities play meaningful roles as sources of policy innovation, channels by which these innovations diffuse internationally, and catalysts in the political and institutional processes leading to the selection of their shared goals. The influence of epistemic communities persists mainly through the institutions that they help create and inform with their preferred world vision. By elucidating the cause-and-effect understandings in the particular issue-area and familiarizing policymakers with the reasoning processes by which decisions are made elsewhere, epistemic communities contribute to the transparency of action and the development of common inferences and expectations and thereby contribute to policy coordination. International cooperation and, indeed, the development of new world orders based on common meanings and understandings may thus depend on the extent to which nation-states apply their power on behalf of practices that epistemic communities may have helped create, diffuse, and perpetuate.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games
Putnam, R. D. (1988) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300027697 · Cited by 7,475
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009 · Cited by 4,649
Bias and error in human judgment
Kruglanski, A. W., & Ajzen, I. (1983) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420130102 · Cited by 346
Forecasting in International Relations: One Quest, Three Approaches
Schneider, G., Gleditsch, N. P., & Carey, S. (2011) · Conflict Management and Peace Science · doi:10.1177/0738894210388079 · Cited by 52
Cited by
The Structuring of a World Environmental Regime, 1870–1990
Meyer, J. W., Frank, D. J., Hironaka, A., Schofer, E., & Tuma, N. B. (1997) · International Organization · doi:10.1162/002081897550474 · Cited by 580
A New Statecraft? Supranational Entrepreneurs and International Cooperation
Moravcsik, A. (1999) · International Organization · doi:10.1162/002081899550887 · Cited by 517
(2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491207 · Cited by 461
The questioning theory of policy practice: Outline of an integrated analytical framework
Turnbull, N. (2013) · Critical Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/19460171.2013.776501 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Adler, E., & Haas, P. M.
- Venue
- International Organization
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1992
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 367-390
- ISSN
- 0020-8183 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5088
- OpenAlex
- W2150195288
- Cited by
- 1,037
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 46.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0020818300001533
- The paper
- Adler, E., & Haas, P. M. (1992). Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300001533
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.