Bridging Theory and Diplomatic Practice: A Survey of Diplomats on the Relevance of International Relations Theories

The relevance of International Relations (IR) theory to policymaking has been a subject of ongoing scholarly debate. A widespread yet problematic assumption persists in policy discourse that theories are purely abstract constructs, lacking practical applicability. Addressing this assumption, the article critically evaluates the extent to which IR theories hold practical value and significance for policymakers engaged in international politics.

To substantiate this analysis empirically, the authors conducted a field survey involving 50 active and retired diplomats representing 32 countries across five continents. The survey examined respondents' perceptions of the utility, applicability, and limitations of IR theories in the context of their diplomatic and policymaking practices. Complementing these primary findings, the article integrates scholarly discussions and casebased examples from international politics, thereby providing a comprehensive assessment of how IR theories serve as analytical tools for both practitioners and scholars. The study identifies central arguments underpinning the perceived limitations of IR theories, while simultaneously emphasizing their practical strengths. According to survey results, the majority of diplomats affirmed the continuing relevance of IR theories, noting their utility in diagnosing international events, elucidating causal relationships, assessing impacts, and informing strategic analysis. Furthermore, the findings highlight the inherent international applicability of dominant IR paradigms, which broadly encompass contemporary global political developments.

Respondents advocated for stronger interaction between academia and policymakers, underscoring the necessity of making IR theories more accessible and comprehensible for diplomatic practitioners. Additionally, the diplomats suggested that IR theorists should pursue greater intellectual and ideological neutrality to enhance the practical value of their analytical frameworks.

In conclusion, the field survey and subsequent analysis demonstrate that characterizing IR theories as merely abstract constructs is inaccurate. On the contrary, IR theories constitute indispensable analytical instruments enabling policymakers to interpret, assess, and effectively navigate the complexities of contemporary international politics.

1. Alsari I.G.A. 2016. The Impact of Satellite Programs on Forming the Religious Awareness among Individuals with Motor and Visual Disabilities in Jordan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 6(11). P. 90–98.

2. Avey P.C. & Desch M.C. 2014. What Do Policymakers Want from Us? Results of a Survey of

3. Current and Former Senior National Security Decision Makers. International Studies Quarterly. 58(2). P. 227–246. DOI: 10.1111/isqu.12111

4. Avey P.C., Desch M.C., Parajon E., Peterson S., Powers R. & Tierney M.J. 2021. Does Social Science Inform Foreign Policy? Evidence from a Survey of US National Security, Trade, and Development Officials. International Studies Quarterly. 66(1).

5. Bacharach S.B. 1989. Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of Management Review. 14(4). P. 496–515.

6. Barnett M. 2011. Social Constructivism. J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press.

7. Basu R. 2012. Realism. In Basu, Rumki (ed.). International Politics: Concepts, Theories and Issues. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

8. Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P. 2011. The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford University Press.

9. Chin C. 1998. In Service and Servitude: Foreign Female Domestic Workers and the Malaysian ‘Modernity Project’. Columbia University Press.

10. Devetak R. 2005. Critical Theory. S. Burchill, A. Linklater, D. Devetak, , M. Paterson, C. ReusSmit, and J. True. Theories of International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan.

11. Dunne T. & Schmidt B.C. 2011. Realism. J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press.

12. George A.L. 1993. Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press.

13. Heywood A. 2011. Global Politics. Palgrave Macmillan.

14. Jahn B. 2018. Theorizing the Political Relevance of International Relations Theory. International Studies Quarterly. 62(1). P. 172–183.

15. Jentleson B.W. 2002. The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance back in. International Studies Review. 4(1). P. 157–163.

16. Keohane R.O. & Nye J.S.Jr. 2008. Power and Interdependence. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy. 15(4). P. 158–165.

17. Kumar M. 1967. Theoretical Aspects of International Politics. Agra: Shiva Lal Agarwala & Company.

18. Lamy S.L. 2011. Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism. J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press.

19. Landell K. 1997. Management by Menu. London: Wiley and Sons Inc.

20. Lepgold J. & Nincic M. (eds.). 2001. Beyond the Ivory Tower. International Relations Theory and the Issue of Policy Relevance. Columbia University Press.

21. Lepgold J. 1998. Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and the Problem of Policy Relevance. Political Science Quarterly. 113(1). P. 43–62.

22. Maliniak D., Peterson S. & Tierney M.J. 2015. Bridging the Theory-Practice Divide in International Relations. Georgetown University Press.

23. 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(3). P. 427–457. DOI: 10.1177/1354066113494320

24. Mills C.W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25. Mingst K. 2004. Essentials of International Relations. New York: W.W. Norton.

26. Nasidi Y., Makera A.U., Kamaruddeen A.M. & Jemaku I.M. 2019. Assessing the Impact of Work Environment on Employee Engagement among Non-Academic Staffs of the University. SEISENSE Journal of Management. 2(1). P. 57–68.

27. Nye J.S.Jr. 2008. Bridging the Gap between Theory and Policy. Political Psychology. 29(4). P. 593–603.

28. Saari H.A. & Rashid A.M. 2013. Competency Level of Employability Skills among the Apprentices of the National Dual Training System: A Comparative Analysis of Industry Perception by Company Status. International Journal of Education and Research. 1(11). P. 1–12.

29. Sheehan M. 2008. The Changing Character of War. J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press.

30. Smith S. & Owens P. 2008. Alternative Approaches to International Theory. J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press.

31. Smith S., Baylis J. & Owens P. 2008. Introduction. J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press.

32. Sylvester C. 2011. J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press.

33. Tickner J.N. 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Colombia University Press.

34. Walt S.M. 2005. The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science. №8. P. 23–48. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104904

35. Whitworth S. 1998. Gender, Race and the Politics of Peacekeeping. A Future for Peace Keeping, Edward Moxon-Browne (ed.). Springer. P. 176–191.