BISA at 50: Reflections and perspectives - Shaping a global IR to respond to global challenges

In our previous article citing the wisdom of former BISA chairs, we noted BISA’s role in developing working groups, fostering early career scholars’ research, and pitching a big tent for a pluralist discipline. We also noted that past chairs preferred sunny conferences and warm showers…. Here, we present further reflections from some of our past chairs – in particular, their thoughts on BISA’s role in the development of the discipline, away from a more parochial introspection and towards greater engagement with the rest of the world in turbulent times. A global IR equipped to respond to global challenges. 

Contributors:

• Ruth Blakeley
• Barry Buzan
• Christopher Hill
• Inderjeet Parmar
• Paul Rogers
• Mark Webber
• Richard Whitman

Global IR – development of the (global) discipline

Most BISA members are likely to be reasonably well versed in the discipline’s various origin stories. Two are noteworthy here. First, IR’s liberation from the prism (prison?) of Political Science. First, IR, and International Studies more broadly, is a field that is distinct from the field of Political Science (and hence the need for International Studies to have its own professional association).

“[BISA began] nurturing a community of scholars and scholarship that identifies with International Relations (or should I say, ‘Studies’) rather than Political Science.” (Mark Webber)

Supporting the desire for disciplinary independence, BISA is also credited with having contributed to creating:

“an environment for UK scholars and practitioners of International Relations to broaden, from what was a small group of scholars in a limited number of institutions, into a scholarly community that encompasses people working right across the UK higher education sector.” (Richard Whitman)

Second, BISA’s early years coincided with an era wherein IR’s centre of gravity was being contested. Not only was BISA located in the discipline’s mythological heartland, it would come to find itself occupying something of a disciplinary crossroads, between US and European variants.

“In the late 80s, when I was chair, I discovered almost from day one, ISA was at that time embarked on a subtle, but definite, plan to make itself the centre of the discipline globally. It was both drawing non-Americans into its governing bodies, and making itself the leader of a global federation of ISAs. The first thing that landed on my desk was a demand for BISA's annual report. This led to the BISA Executive undertaking, with the support of the membership, to resist this development. That in turn led to a rebellion against the project within ISA, and to a BISA-led initiative that resulted in what is now the European ISA and the World International Studies Committee (WISC) as the global confederative body. John Groom played a major, and I think under-appreciated, role in both, including getting EJIR up and running. BISA made a significant difference to how the global discipline unfolded.” (Barry Buzan)

Naturally, BISA also drew on and nurtured theoretical developments more indigenous to the British Isles – the English School of IR and the Welsh School of Security Studies, for example. BISA’s early development was inevitably a product of its time and the intellectual exchanges of the day, with the organisation at the heart of efforts to reimagine the discipline – broadening and deepening its focus.

“As a scholar who has drawn heavily on Critical Security Studies, I would also say that the close ties of the Welsh School with BISA has been really significant to BISA's broader contribution. I think it inspired very many new avenues of research among scholars who took seriously the calls of its founders to consider security from the perspective of those to whom security is often 'done', rather than simply through the gaze of the state. These legacies within BISA have resulted in a diversification and pluralisation of the discipline of International Studies in the UK and beyond. Many of the working groups that have emerged over the years have been motivated by these commitments to take seriously the dynamics of state power and global capital, and to look at the inequalities and suffering this has often produced, while giving voice to those marginalised and oppressed by these power dynamics, whether across gender racial, class or gender lines. This makes BISA a dynamic and vibrant community, and importantly, one where pressing global challenges are constantly on the agenda.” (Ruth Blakeley)

In recent years, with IR “Steadily moving away from a western ethnocentric ethos” (Paul Rogers), BISA has facilitated and encouraged the development of a more global IR. Former chairs spoke of the progress made, while noting that this is an ongoing task:

“IR’s expansion has been accompanied by greater openness to new theories and demographics as well as to ideas from other fields applied to world politics. Postcolonial thinkers have made great contributions through BISA, for example, and impacted university curricula as well. The study of race and gender has greatly expanded which was absolutely necessary. There are also developments that suggest strong moves towards IR becoming a more global discipline, taking more seriously voices from the margins - but there is a long way to go in this respect.” (Inderjeet Parmar)

It is, perhaps, important to note that the development of a more global IR has seen a concomitant shift in the style and governance of BISA itself, with important changes in how BISA is run – from an “old school style of power in the hands of a small mainly male leadership” to a “working body of leaders with each executive committee member leading projects of direct service to members.”  (Inderjeet Parmar)

Responding to global challenges – from 9/11 to the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond

The advancement of a more global IR is important for many reasons, including the practical need to respond to global challenges. Past chairs noted the range of challenges BISA has helped the discipline, and its researchers, respond to. These included economic crises and the problem of global inequalities: 

“Early leaders within BISA, and I think particularly of Susan Strange here, stressed the importance of understanding the interrelationship between state power and the global economy. Strange argued you cannot understand how the world works without understanding international financial markets, and she was highly critical of the failures of those in power to pay attention to inequalities that were being baked in through the lack of oversight of financial markets. This commitment has always been core to BISA, and lives on through IPEG, which has always been one of BISA's largest working groups.” (Ruth Blakeley)

As highlighted by Richard Whitman, the advancement of a more global discipline deeply shaped the UK-based community of IR scholars and their research culture:

“[BISA] has been responsible for ever broadening my mind on the possibilities of studying international relations,  but was also responsible for sustaining conversations with people (who have become friends) on shared interests, controversies and (always courteously conducted) profound differences of opinion.”

Multiple Chairs also referenced the shock of 9/11 directly, as well as BISA’s role in the discipline’s response to the events of the day and subsequent foreign policy. 

“[It was after 9/11 that] security and foreign policy issues re-emerged from the undesirable neglect into which 1990s optimism had cast them.” (Chris Hill)

“[One of BISA's most important milestones was] providing multiple opportunities for analysing and discussing the implications of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent failures in the war on terror... The discussions at the December 2001 annual conference immediately after 9/11 [were particularly memorable].” (Paul Rogers)

Similarly, the relatively recent experience of the COVID-19 pandemic loomed large, both for its intellectual implications but also the personal and professional challenges it gave rise to for BISA as an organisation.

“I was chair of BISA during the COVID pandemic. With the lockdown and forced cancellation of the BISA conference (a trigger for members to renew their membership) we lost two thirds of our members, and the related income, almost overnight. BISA was at real risk of financial ruin if we could not turn this situation around and quickly. The BISA team, staff, trustees, and working group and PGN conveners, at speed, developed a fantastic offering of regular online events, talks, networking sessions and spaces for less formal support, all of which was offered free to members and non-members alike. During the lockdowns we were running several online events every week. Thanks to the fantastic BISA staff, these online sessions were technically excellent (not true of all pandemic online activities), very professionally produced and delivered, and paved the way for the offer of a highly successful, and BISA's first, fully online conference. We had a lot of feedback that BISA responded far better to the lockdowns than many other professional associations. This meant that as we began sending emails out to academics appealing to them to renew their membership, we received a really positive response, and when we returned to the first post-COVID in-person conference, membership was back up and in fact at record levels.” (Mark Webber)

As we look to what might be the next global challenge to dominate our thinking, the working groups offer a clue. While there are many future contenders for most prophetic working group, for now, we note that recent groups, such as the Astropolitics and the International Studies and Emerging Technologies (ISET), reflect the discipline’s growing recognition of space governance, technological competition, and of security dilemmas that extend beyond those we have traditionally explored. BISA’s role in shaping a global IR has always been rooted in its ability to anticipate, adapt to, and critically engage with emerging global challenges. Whether responding to the shifting balance of power and the emergence of new global orders, the rise of new security threats, or the socio-economic inequalities exacerbated by global crises, we continue to foster a research and learning environment that is rigorous, inclusive, and responsive. As we mark 50 years of BISA’s contributions, it is clear that BISA’s legacy is not simply one of reflection, but of active engagement. Looking ahead, the organisation is well placed not only to respond to global challenges, but also to shape the intellectual agenda that will define the future of IR. The questions that will guide the discipline in the next half-century may be uncertain, but one thing is clear: BISA will continue to be at the heart of that conversation.