The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations
Open accessAbstract
As presently constituted, the analysis of `ideas' is deficient in two key respects. First, despite presenting itself as an alternative to the dominant rationalist perspective on international relations and foreign policy, the turn to `ideas' represents only a minor modification of that tradition, rather than a serious challenge to it. Second, the retention of the rationalist framework has had problematical implications for how `ideas' are conceptualized. Although explicitly defined as shared beliefs, we argue that the metaphors structuring rationalist analyses lead them to conceptualize `ideas' as objects. As an alternative, we offer a constructivist account of ideas as `symbolic technologies' that enable the production of representations. This different metaphor enables us to address directly the difficulties for analysis stemming from a conception of ideas as objects. It also opens up for examination a range of empirical phenomena overlooked by rationalist analysts.
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
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt, A. (1999) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612183 · Cited by 7,664
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225
Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science
Hacking, I. (1983) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814563 · Cited by 4,814
Perception and Misperception in International Politics
Jervis, R. (2017) · doi:10.1515/9781400885114 · Cited by 3,199
Cited by
Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt, A. (1999) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612183 · Cited by 7,664
Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism
Hemmer, C., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2002) · International Organization · doi:10.1162/002081802760199890 · Cited by 564
Norms and Social Hierarchies: Understanding International Policy Diffusion “From Below”
Towns, A. E. (2012) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818312000045 · Cited by 262
Jackson, P. T. (2009) · The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270439.003.0026 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- LAFFEY, M., & WELDES, J.
- Venue
- European Journal of International Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 193-237
- ISSN
- 1354-0661 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-3713
- OpenAlex
- W2085390566
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 20.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1354066197003002003
- The paper
- LAFFEY, M., & WELDES, J. (1997). Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003002003
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.