The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods
Abstract
The field of security studies has been the subject of considerable debate in recent years. Attempts to broaden and deepen the scope of the field beyond its traditional focus on states and military conflict have raised fundamental theoretical and practical issues. Yet, adherents to the prevailing neorealist approach to security studies have often reacted to these challenges in ways that preclude a recognition of the issues raised by alternative understandings. An examination of the debates over “rethinking security” in particular reveals an unfortunate tendency to foreclose debate between scholars taking critical and neorealist approaches. Coming to terms more fully with the foundations of these debates allows both a better view of the positions within the field and a clearer assessment of their relevance for understanding the dynamics of contemporary security.
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
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
Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases
Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1994) · International Security · doi:10.2307/2539147 · Cited by 1,701
The security dilemma and ethnic conflict
Posen, B. R. (1993) · Survival · doi:10.1080/00396339308442672 · Cited by 1,420
The Other in European self-definition: an addendum to the literature on international society
Neumann, I. B., & Welsh, J. M. (1991) · Review of International Studies · doi:10.1017/s0260210500112045 · Cited by 373
Cited by
The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations
Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (1999) · International Organization · doi:10.1162/002081899551048 · Cited by 2,113
Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics
Williams, M. C. (2003) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00277.x · Cited by 1,152
Self-citationGlobal Health Diplomacy as a Tool of Peace
Chattu, V. K., & Knight, W. A. (2019) · Peace Review · doi:10.1080/10402659.2019.1667563 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Krause, K., & Williams, M. C.
- Venue
- Mershon International Studies Review
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-10
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 229
- ISSN
- 1079-1760 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2184555326
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 63.90
- 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: Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/222776
- The paper
- Krause, K., & Williams, M. C. (1996). Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods. Mershon International Studies Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/222776
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.