Voices of the Caucasus: mapping knowledge production on the Caucasus region

ABSTRACT

There is growing recognition that diversity and representation matter to the intellectual health of fields and disciplines. This article takes stock of knowledge production on the Caucasus region, paying particular attention to the question of who has “voice” in academic debates on the North and South Caucasus. Through analysis of publications in, and the editorial boards of, “leading” International Relations (IR) and Area Studies journals, we examine the biographies of scholars, the topics covered, and citation levels. We demonstrate the marginality of the Caucasus within IR and limited representation for scholars educated and employed in the region within Area Studies, as well as distinct differences according to background in the topics covered. This research provides a foundation for further exploring disciplinary inequalities and their consequences in relation to the Caucasus.

KEYWORDS:

• Knowledge production
• Caucasus region
• academic debates
• International Relations discipline
• Area Studies
• disciplinary inequalities

Introduction

There is growing awareness that questions of diversity and representation matter in scholarship. Across institutions, countries, and disciplines, scholars are paying greater attention to who has “voice” in academic debates, which topics are given preference, and which methods are employed. Often, these conversations are taking place under the broad banner of “decolonizing” the curriculum and knowledge production more broadly and seek to challenge “longstanding biases and omissions that limit how we understand politics and society” (Muldoon 2019). There is recognition that certain voices occupy structurally privileged positions, allowing them to dominate publications, curricula, and gatekeeping roles. Merit is not the sole, or even the primary, determinant of success and impact. Uneven access, in turn, shapes the overall development of scholarship, with privileged actors deciding what knowledge is amplified to broader audiences and even what is worth knowing in the first place. The exclusion of voices, issues, and approaches can, meanwhile, be damaging both to individual careers and the intellectual health of disciplines and the academy as a whole. Reflection on entrenched hierarchies of power and the way that some voices are privileged over others is a necessary prerequisite to efforts to dismantle them and improve the health of fields. In the case of scholarship on Eurasia, debates about the state of knowledge production and the broader applicability of a decolonization agenda to Russia have been accelerated by the conflict in Ukraine—as demonstrated by a recent special issue of Post-Soviet Affairs (Lankina and guest editor of the Special Issue 2023).

This article contributes to these debates by taking stock of English-language research on the Caucasus region within the fields of International Relations (IR) and Area Studies. It explains why the region warrants particular attention, and how it is marginalized within existing efforts to redress inequalities between a “Global North” and a “Global South.” It examines articles that have been published on both the North and South Caucasus in 14 leading IR and eight Area Studies journals over a six-year period (2016–2021), assessing the extent to which research on the region contributes to broader disciplinary debates, the biographical characteristics of those who participate in conversations about the region, and the topics and methodologies that are represented in these conversations. It finds that the Caucasus is marginal within IR, and it demonstrates the limited representation for scholars educated and employed in the region within Area Studies—with a Western education heavily influencing the likelihood of publishing English-language scholarship and thereby contributing to knowledge production on the region. The study also reveals distinct differences in the topics covered according to the background of the scholars producing the work. This research provides a foundation for further exploring disciplinary inequalities and their consequences in relation to the Caucasus.

In the first part of the article, we consider the debates that have emerged in recent years within IR and Area Studies around questions of voice, diversity, and representation in scholarship—and the consequences of structural privileging that have been identified. The second section situates the Caucasus within these debates, demonstrating both its marginalization and the contribution that it can nevertheless make to disciplinary knowledge. The third section explains our methodological approach to mapping existing research on the region. The fourth section presents the results of this mapping exercise. The final part discusses the implications of these findings and identifies research that is necessary to address existing inequalities.

Voice and silencing in IR and Area Studies

In this research, we conduct an analysis integrating publications from International Relations (IR) and Area Studies. We have made this choice with the purpose of delving into the intersection of these distinct knowledge domains and addressing critical issues within these fields. In the realms of IR and Area Studies, recent debates have revolved around issues of diversity, representation, and the decolonization of knowledge production. This convergence allows us to shed light on the dynamics of knowledge creation and its relationship with power structures, as well as to critically assess the influence of geographic specificity in shaping scholarly discourse. By delving into both disciplines, we provide a comprehensive view of the voices contributing to the discourse on the Caucasus region.

IR: an Anglo-American social science?

This article focuses on the fields of IR and Area Studies. We chose these fields because of the disciplinary expertise of several of the contributors, and because they allow us to explore the intersection between different domains of knowledge. As La Lova (2023, 27) argues, area-specific journals shape our thinking about specific geographic areas and the political processes that take place within them, whereas disciplinary journals communicate beyond regional specialisms to the “outside world.” Both IR and Area Studies have, in recent years, seen the emergence of vibrant debates around diversity and representation, often under the broad banner of “decolonizing” knowledge production. Within IR, concerns about the representativeness of scholarship surged to the fore in the 1970s, when Hoffman (1977) labeled it an “American social science.” Scholars have repeatedly demonstrated that the discipline is “dominated by the U.S. academic community in much the same way as the U.S. dominate[s] world politics” (Smith 2002, 67–68). Such preponderance is particularly pronounced in the matter of theory building (Lohaus and Wemheuer-Vogelaar 2021) and has become sufficiently widely acknowledged that it has been described as a “disciplinary truism” (Kristensen 2015, 246). Others, however, have contended that the problem is simultaneously narrower and broader than this framing suggests. On the one hand, US dominance is privileged towards certain elite institutions, rather than representing the full diversity of the American Academy. On the other, a similar elite institutional dominance can be seen elsewhere, particularly in Western Europe (Kristensen 2015). As a result, as Kaczmarska and Ortmann (2021, 821) note:

Much of the knowledge produced in IR remains profoundly Eurocentric [sic], abstracting from Western, and more precisely Anglo-American, contexts and concerns. There is a growing awareness that this is a problem for a discipline purporting to produce knowledge about “the international” and claiming to have global relevance.

Recognition of these issues has stimulated the emergence of a “Global IR” paradigm, which seeks to “challenge IR’s existing boundary markers set by dominant American and Western scholarship and encourage new understandings and approaches to the study of world politics” (Acharya 2016, 1–2). Scholars operating within this paradigm often accept that greater diversity is normatively desirable (Lohaus and Wemheuer-Vogelaar 2021). To date, however, these efforts have had only limited success, for a variety of reasons. Some scholars have challenged the idea that pure non-Western theories exist, waiting to be brought into the fold (Bilgin 2008). Socialization into disciplinary norms often results in national practices replicating the dominant patterns of American IR (Eun 2019). Indeed, much of the diversity that has been achieved has come as a result of scholars receiving their education in North America, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, and Australia (Lohaus and Wemheuer-Vogelaar 2021). Rather than treat non-American scholarship as a kind of “ghetto,” insulated from Anglo-American knowledge production, Wang and Zhang (2020) caution that we should instead pay attention to the uneven flow of information between the two domains.

Area Studies: hierarchies of power

Area Studies scholars have expressed many of the same concerns about representativeness among contributors to the field, and about the often-problematic relationship between knowledge production and political power structures (Aris 2021; Kaczmarska and Ortmann 2021). Some knowledge has been produced directly for colonial powers and their heirs, as a means of advancing their agenda; in other contexts, one group clearly dominates another, creating a form of “intellectual or academic imperialism” (Alatas 2003, 600). Within Area Studies, a paradoxical situation has emerged. On the one hand, the discipline finds itself in a much stronger position with regards to diversity than IR: Area Studies journals are more likely than their IR counterparts to publish work by scholars from the region under discussion and have achieved broader representation in the composition of journal editorial boards (Kaczmarska and Ortmann 2021, 837–838). On the other, numerous scholars have drawn attention to the exploitative nature of the relationship between Western and non-Western scholars. Although this appears to vary by geographic area, it seems particularly pronounced in engagement with the post-Soviet world.¹ Marat and Aisarina (2021), for example, complain with regard to scholarship on Central Asia that:

Academic discourse on the region has long been dominated by Western scholars who produce knowledge for Western audiences, while routinely ignoring rich contributions by their Central Asian counterparts. Local scholars have often lacked the resources and skills to publish in Western outlets—but even when publicising their work, they have been denied recognition.

Indeed, in the post-Soviet space, the uneven division between empirical, cultural, and theoretical knowledge has even been lauded. Bonnell and Breslauer (2004, 24) talk positively about how Western scholars contribute theories and methods, while local scholars bring “native linguistic skills, a ‘feel’ for the situation on the ground—a sensitivity to unique cultural meanings and privileged access to sources.” Some of their points relate to the different contributions that people with different life experiences can bring, and some have a distinct historical explanation—namely the isolation of Western and Soviet scholarship from one another and the different emphases placed on empirical versus theoretical knowledge (Sergounin 2009). However, that Bonnell and Breslauer praise Western scholars for having “gone so far as to learn new languages” and acquire on-the-ground knowledge—rather than viewing this as a minimum requirement for studying a region— points to a distinct unevenness in expectations.

Area Studies scholars have also highlighted issues arising from the field’s subordinate position vis-à-vis IR. Kaczmarska and Ortmann (2021, 820) point to an oft-recognized distinction that exists between IR as a site of theory and Area Studies as a producer of empirical knowledge. They contend that this “binary creates structural pressures and reinscribes hierarchies for local scholars.” Agathangelou and Ling (2004, 30–31) evoke the image of a colonial household, where “the House of IR treats those who labor in the fields of Area Studies or comparative politics as ‘servants’” who do little more than produce data for much more “important” theories. Indeed, it is common to encounter articles that justify their contribution through a sneering dismissal of case studies that, their authors allege, fail to address broader—and by implication more valuable—theoretical questions. The exchange of information between the two fields is highly uneven, with Area Studies citing IR with greater frequency than the reverse (Aris 2021).

Processes of privileging and silencing

These overlapping debates, in combination with insights from similar conversations in other disciplines, shed light on the problem of how opportunities to participate in knowledge production are unevenly spread —resulting in the privileging of some voices and the marginalization or silencing of others. Several processes work to reinforce what Aalbers (2004) labels “Anglo-Saxon hegemony.” The peer review system plays a crucial role in policing access, compelling authors to situate their contributions within established parameters—parameters that have invariably been set mostly by US- and UK-based scholars. In order to meet reviewer expectations, authors are expected to cite “appropriate” theories, irrespective of their relevance and whether they strengthen or weaken the argument presented (Aalbers 2004). Anglo-American scholars usually set the research agendas for the field as a whole (Aalbers and Rossi 2007), while local researchers often find themselves relegated to the role of “de facto ‘native informers,’ located on the outside, excluded from central disciplinary debates around theory development” (Kaczmarska and Ortmann 2021, 827–828). Scholars are expected to keep abreast of developments in English-language literature, with no reciprocal expectation for other languages; indeed, US-based scholars often neglect even English-language material produced in other countries (Aalbers 2004; Aalbers and Rossi 2007). Authors trained at US, UK, and Australian institutions enjoy a professional cultural advantage, which means their work is more likely to align with the expectations of editors and reviewers (Aalbers and Rossi 2007).

We can identify several further factors that reinforce structural inequalities. Considerable weight is given within the academy to the reputation and prestige of journals. However, such determinations are invariably biased, such that “what are considered to be ‘relevant’ or ‘influential’ international journals are almost exclusively English-language journals in which predominantly native English speakers publish” (Aalbers and Rossi 2007, 284). The dominance of US- and UK-based scholars on the editorial boards of these journals—and the powers this affords them as gatekeepers—is well established. Scholars in different locations have highly varied access to funding and resources, creating an uneven terrain when it comes to ability to produce knowledge (Kolosov 2017). Problems of unequal access apply even to the non-Anglo-American scholars’ ability to listen to the conversation from which they are excluded, since much knowledge is held behind paywalls and many of the most “prestigious” international conferences take place in the US or Europe (Trubina et al. 2020). We can also talk of a form of “self-colonization,” whereby non-English scholars and, in particular, institutions, consciously choose to embrace and replicate a system in which they are structurally disadvantaged.² Aalbers (2004) asks why, if the structural obstacles to publishing are so great, non-Anglo-American scholars do not simply eschew English-language publishing. Answering his own question, he points not only to the intellectual impoverishment of the discipline that would result, but also to the way that institutions in non-English speaking countries place a lower value— for example, in deciding on promotions—on native language publications than their English-language equivalents. The corporatization of US and UK academia has driven the quantification of knowledge production and supposed “excellence,” leading other countries to follow suit in an effort to compete in a global market (Kitchin 2005). In Russia, this process was further institutionalized in 2013, when the government “introduced publications and citations in indices such as Scopus or the Web of Science as key metrics in the assessment of Russian universities”—although this was suspended in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine (Zavadskaya and Gerber 2022, 109). Non-Western scholars are therefore pressured into subordinating themselves to this system (Kitchin 2005; Kolosov 2017). In fact, when talking about the future of Area Studies, Jeremy Morris (2023) points out that “the very people (mobile and international Easterners) who could break the gate-keeping of Westerners are now forced to choose. They can become those very ‘Westerners’ and assimilate to the market in knowledge as it circulates in anglophone (and German and Scandinavian) rich universities, or they can entrench behind the new Cold War curtain.”

Finally, we can also point to self-censorship, or what Dotson (2011) calls “testimonial smothering,” to consider the ways in which local scholars may choose to avoid certain topics for fear of reinforcing negative stereotypes about communities. Cumulatively, these different processes produce what Trubina et al. (2020, 637) call the “Realpolitik of the geopolitics of knowledge,” which means that “scholars in different parts of the world have very different chances of being heard.” Thus, the questions of “what scholarship does and does not get published” and subsequently, “who gets to produce knowledge that is read and cited” remain very much open (Morris 2023).

The Caucasus between “Global North” and “Global South”

Debates around (in)equality and voice have often taken place under the banner of “decolonization.” Yet the Caucasus occupies an awkward place within such debates and is consequently marginalized in efforts to redress the inequalities they highlight. The region belongs neither to the Global North nor the Global South—the dominant conceptualization of structural disparities. The North Caucasus—the republics of Adygea, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachayevo-Cherkessia, and North Ossetia, as well as Krasnodar Kray and Stavropol Kray—is part of the Russian Federation. Russia, however, is itself a paradox: an imperial power in its own right (Wilhelmsen 2018), but one that occupies a subordinate position within the global system—or, to borrow Morozov’s (2015) characterization, a “subaltern empire.” This duality is as true in knowledge production as it is in geopolitics.

Externally, Russia has sought to overcome its Soviet-era isolation from international scientific communities and the theoretical and methodological retardation that this produced. This problem has been particularly pronounced in the social sciences (Zavadskaya and Gerber 2023). Internally, there are equally large structural inequalities, with elite institutions—usually in Moscow or St. Petersburg—monopolizing resources (Zavadskaya and Gerber 2023) and dictating topics, methods, and in some cases even conclusions. Regional scholars, therefore, find themselves doubly disadvantaged. The independent states of the South Caucasus—Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia—have arguably advanced further in their efforts to integrate with the international scholarly community. At the same time, they are often overshadowed by their northern neighbor. Within IR, they suffer from the same “Denmark problem” famously identified by Kenneth Waltz: the perception that small states do not matter (Bilgin 2008, 10).

Within Area Studies, Russia dominates the field and regional developments are often viewed through the lens of what they mean to Moscow and its geopolitical position. Koplatadze (2019) argues that within debates over Russian colonial identity and the applicability of postcolonial theory to Russia—a debate that is much broader than we can adequately cover here—the Caucasus and Central Asia have been “critically neglected” in favor of a focus on internal colonization and Russia’s position vis-à-vis the West. Neither North nor South Caucasus belong to the hegemonic Global North, nor are they imagined within conceptualizations of the disadvantaged Global South. Kolosov (2017) further points to the suspicion by regional authorities, particularly in regard to the North Caucasus, of research that is either supported by Western foundations or that does not align with official positions, which encourages local scholars to self-censor and eschew international collaborations.

The Caucasus: relevance and research

The Caucasus region nevertheless warrants attention. It is “a cradle of ancient civilisations” with “centuries-long traditions of statehood”; is home to over 30 million people speaking more than 100 different languages; and of significant geopolitical importance given its strategic location (Kemoklidze et al. 2012, 1612). A special issue of Europe-Asia Studies published more than a decade ago sought to take stock of the biases and deficiencies of scholarship into the region. Much has changed since then—particularly in relation to the South Caucasus, but also as a consequence of deteriorating Russia-West relations—and scholarship into the region has expanded considerably in volume and scope. Nevertheless, many of the questions raised in that issue remain relevant today. For example, it asked:

Is it possible to examine, assess and interpret the region from the local perspective? Can research draw on Russian studies, while also reflecting the complex local and regional dynamics which have done much to shape the recent history of the Caucasus? Can researchers who study the region adopt approaches which are not shaped by popular themes, or orthodox discourses? And can studies of the region draw on inter-disciplinary approaches, or at least prompt a conversation between disciplines?. (Kemoklidze et al. 2012, 1615)

At the time, the contributors complained about the lack of “local perspective,” the “disengagement of local scholars” and “local narratives,” and the dominance of Moscow-centered Russian Area Studies. It sought—before “decolonization” narratives assumed their current popularity—to draw attention to the “double colonization” of Caucasus Studies as a distinct field of study, subordinated to both Russian Studies and fields such as IR. It then called for “further dialogue with the local writers, academics and researchers” and efforts “to recover local voices” (Kemoklidze et al. 2012, 1615–1616).

We can ask about the extent to which such calls were heeded. The suspicion is that the answer is hardly resoundingly positive. Prior to the escalation of conflict in Ukraine, the study of both Russia specifically and Eurasia more broadly had been in long-term decline since the end of the Cold War. As George Hewitt, a renowned scholar of the Georgian and Abkhaz languages at the respected SOAS in London, notes, Caucasian Studies at his institution “never attracted large numbers of students” either before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and even after “1991 and the (relative) opening up of the Caucasian regions … , interest did not blossom in the way that had been hoped” (Abkhaz 2015).

In 2013, after celebrating its 50^th anniversary, the renowned Centre for Russian and Eastern European Studies (CREES) at the University of Birmingham was absorbed into a larger and more disciplinary unit—the Department of Politics and International Studies—and lost much of its unique identity. This reflected a broader trend, in UK and US universities at least, of downgrading Area Studies and moving towards more generic teaching and research profiles. Generally lower student numbers in Area Studies programs and a lack of funding have created a vicious circle that has resulted in the closure of many language-based Area Studies departments or their merging into other departments, something that long-term has often led to the same destination. Even after the 2008 Russia-Georgia war—when signs of escalating international tensions were already visible—there remained a growing sentiment in the US and elsewhere “that area studies in general should be sustained by the universities now [as in self-financed, rather than supported by federal funding], and that post-Soviet studies in particular is obsolete” (Adams 2013, 1). In 2021, the French Society for Russian and Eastern European Studies in the Social Sciences (SFERES) conducted a series of webinars, one of which addressed the current state of Caucasus Studies. It highlighted the “implications of peripheral location and often marginal status of the Caucasus region” that local scholars often struggle against (Reisner 2021). We do not, however, have a reliable snapshot of the current state of research into the region—and it is to this question that this article now turns.

Method

This study examines academic journal articles published on the Caucasus region in “leading” IR and Area Studies journals between 2016 and 2021. This timeframe is sufficiently broad to allow for a snapshot of the current state of knowledge production on the region without being overly burdensome (our project was initiated in late 2021). There is, of course, no consensus as to what constitutes a leading journal, and assessments of those that are most significant to their field consequently vary. To identify relevant IR journals, we drew on three lists: Scimago’s Journal Rankings for the category of “Political Science and International Relations,” which are based on the SCOPUS database; the Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports, which draws on the Web of Science; and the 2011 Teaching, Research, and International Policy project, which surveyed IR scholars (Arena 2014). We included 14 journals that featured in the top 20 for at least two of the three lists. For Area Studies, we used the expertise of the research team to identify eight relevant journals, of which seven were included in the study (one was discontinued before the queried time period). The final list of journals included in the study can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Journals included in the study.

Field	Journal	Publisher
IR	American Political Science Review	Cambridge University Press
IR	American Journal of Political Science	Wiley
IR	British Journal of Political Science	Cambridge University Press
IR	European Journal of International Relations	Sage
IR	International Affairs	Oxford University Press
IR	International Organization	Cambridge University Press
IR	International Security	MIT Press
IR	International Studies Quarterly	Oxford University Press
IR	Journal of Conflict Resolution	Sage
IR	Journal of Peace Research	Sage
IR	Review of International Organizations	Springer
IR	Review of International Political Economy	Taylor and Francis
IR	Review of International Studies	Cambridge University Press
IR	World Politics	Cambridge University Press
Area Studies	Caucasus Survey	Brill
Area Studies	Communist and Post-Communist Studies	University of California Press
Area Studies	Eurasian Geography and Economics	Taylor and Francis
Area Studies	Europe-Asia Studies	Taylor and Francis
Area Studies	Journal of Eurasian Studies	Sage
Area Studies	Post-Soviet Affairs	Taylor and Francis
Area Studies	Problems of Post-Communism	Taylor and Francis

For each journal, we used Web of Science to identify how many original research articles were published overall in the journals, filtering by publication name, year, and “article” document type. We then compiled details on the composition of journal editorial boards, using the journal publishers’ websites. We recorded the names and listed employing institutions for each editorial board member; additionally, we searched on institution websites, personal/professional websites, and LinkedIn for information on where they received their higher education (more specifically, their PhD degrees). Finally, we searched a combination of the publishers’ websites, Scopus, and the Web of Science Core Collection to identify articles within the time period that referenced the territorial entities of the Caucasus region: the three countries of the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) and the North Caucasian regions of Russia. We included only research articles, and only those that mentioned at least one of these geographic entities within either the title, abstract, or keywords. We counted the number of articles that satisfied the search criteria. We then compiled a list of all the authors of those articles, recording their employing institution, as detailed in the article itself, and the institution where they received their PhD, using the same tools as for the editorial boards. For both editorial board members and authors, we classified countries of employment and education as belonging to one of nine regional groups. Using the title and abstract of each article, we identified nine main topic groupings (not mutually exclusive) to which the articles could belong, and seven different geographic areas or coverages (mutually exclusive) that reflected the primary focus of the text (see Table 2 for a list of regional groupings, topics, and coverage areas). We initially collected data in Excel, cleaned and coded it, and then imported it into IBM SPSS Statistics Software for further analysis and visualization.

Table 2. Codes used for editorial board members, authors, and articles.

Regional groups	Topics	Coverage
Zone 1: North America	Civil society	Entire Caucasus region
Zone 2: UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand	Conflict and violence	North Caucasus
Zone 3: Western Europe	Foreign policy	South Caucasus (two or more countries)
Zone 4: Scandinavia	Governance	Armenia
Zone 5: Eastern Europe	History	Azerbaijan
Zone 6: Russia (excl. North Caucasus)	Methodology	Georgia
Zone 7: North Caucasus	Political economy	Other countries
Zone 8: South Caucasus	Religion and culture
Zone 9: Other	Other
Zone 10: Not known

Results

The data reveal the Caucasus region to be peripheral to the study of IR, as represented by the leading journals within the field. Across all 14 IR journals, only 17 publications (0.29% of the total number of research articles published) referenced the territorial entities of the Caucasus region during the time period. To re-evaluate this pattern and draw some preliminary comparisons, a subsequent analysis was conducted to assess the representation of the three Baltic states plus Denmark (as a smaller European nation) in IR journals during the same timeframe. The results of this examination revealed that the number of research articles on the Baltics in IR journals amounted to just five between 2016 and 2021, constituting a mere 0.1% of the total research articles published within these journals. In contrast, the number of research articles pertaining to Denmark reached 17, accounting for 0.3% of the total research articles in IR journals during the same period (see Table 3).

Table 3. Publications on the Caucasus, Baltics, and Denmark in IR journals in 2016–2021.

Journal	Total number of research articles	Number of research articles on Caucasus	%	Number of research articles on Baltics	%	Number of research articles on Denmark	%
American Political Science Review	431	3	0.7	0	0.0	5	1.2
American Journal of Political Science	483	0	0.0	1	0.2	2	0.4
British Journal of Political Science	388	1	0.3	0	0.0	6	1.5
European Journal of International Relations	291	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
International Affairs	1,589	2	0.1	2	0.1	1	0.1
International Organization	215	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
International Security	179	2	1.1	0	0.0		0.0
International Studies Quarterly	457	1	0.2	0	0.0	0	0.0
Journal of Conflict Resolution	468	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
Journal of Peace Research	404	4	1.0	0	0.0	1	0.2
Review of International Organizations	224	0	0.0	1	0.4	0	0.0
Review of International Political Economy	417	2	0.48	1	0.2	0	0.0
Review of International Studies	269	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
World Politics	119	2	1.7	0	0.0	2	1.7
Total	5,934	17	0.3	5	0.1	17	0.3

These findings call attention to the broader question of regional representation within the discipline, suggesting a need to establish a normative baseline for desirable levels of research attention to various regions in the field of IR. Such norms could contribute to a more equitable and comprehensive understanding of global affairs, shedding light on factors influencing research imbalances, and ultimately enhancing the scholarly integrity of the discipline.

This result should not be considered surprising: La Lova (2023) found that coverage of Russia—a significantly larger country both in terms of the territory and the population, in 10 leading IR journals ranged from 0.46 to 4.92%. Thus, one would expect the number of articles on the Caucasus to be much lower than for Russia. Equally unsurprisingly, the Caucasus received more coverage in Area Studies journals: between 4.66 and 7.66% of articles focused on the region—with the exception of the Caucasus Survey, which naturally is an outlier by virtue of its remit (see Table 4).

Table 4. Publications on the Caucasus and Baltics in Area Studies journals in 2016–2021.

Journal	Total number of research articles	Number of research articles on Caucasus	%	Number of research articles on Baltics	%
Caucasus Survey	93*	85	93.6	1	1.1
Communist and Post-Communist Studies	193	9	4.7	4	2.1
Eurasian Geography and Economics	222	16	7.2	1	0.5
Europe-Asia Studies	444	34	7.7	22	4.6
Journal of Eurasian Studies	99*	7	7.1	0	0.0
Post-Soviet Affairs	158	9	5.7	2	1.3
Problems of Post-Communism	260	13	5.0	11	4.2
Total	1,469	175	11.9	41	2.8

* Caucasus Survey is only indexed by Web of Science from 2019 onwards, and Journal of Eurasian Studies is not indexed at all. These figures are therefore based on manual counts of research articles, as listed on the table of contents on the publishers’ websites.

The analysis of regional representation in Area Studies journals offers insights into the varying degrees of attention given to different regions within the academic discourse. Specifically, for the period between 2016 and 2021, findings indicate that the Caucasus region has received significantly more coverage, with a total of 175 articles dedicated to it. This figure accounts for 11.9% of the total research articles in Area Studies journals. In contrast, while featuring a certain degree of representation with 41 articles, the Baltic states constitute only 2.8% of the total research articles in these journals.

Taking the above into account, we can claim that the “peripheral” status of the Caucasus region in IR journals (0.3%) may not be solely due to its size, since despite its relatively modest size and population, the region has garnered substantial attention in Area Studies journals (11.9%). This comparative element offers some insights into the intricate nature of regional representation within academic scholarship. It highlights that regional marginality is influenced by diverse factors, extending beyond mere regional size, and that a region’s visibility in academic discourse is not solely tied to its physical dimensions. This comparative element also sheds more light to our understanding of regional representation in academic journals and the complexities of knowledge production in the field of IR.

The contrast in regional representation between the two categories of journals raises important questions about the criteria and focus of different academic fields. It appears that Area Studies journals are more attentive to the nuanced and in-depth exploration of specific regions, with the Caucasus region being a notable example. This deeper engagement with region-specific research suggests that regions that are relatively underrepresented in IR journals may find a more prominent place in the Area Studies journals.

The composition of editorial boards is also significant because they act as important gatekeepers influencing what is sent out for review as well as final publication decisions. For IR journals, we find no representation for scholars either working in or having received their doctoral education from institutions in the Caucasus region – or even from Russia. Instead, we find confirmation of the well-documented domination by North American scholars in particular, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Composition of editorial boards for IR journals, based on employment/education.

	Zone 1 (North America)	Zone 2 (UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand)	Zone 3 (Western Europe)	Zone 4 (Scandinavia)	Zones 5–9 (Eastern Europe, Russia (inc. North Caucasus), South Caucasus, Other)	Zone 10 (Not known)
American Political Science Review	52/50	3/5	1/2	6/4	2/1	0/2
American Journal of Political Science	80/91	21/15	10/8	0/0	8/2	0/3
British Journal of Political Science	29/39	24/12	4/4	1/0	0/0	0/3
European Journal of International Relations	21/27	7/2	2/1	1/1	1/0	0/1
International Affairs	11/11	1/1	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0
International Organization	20/26	1/1	8/6	3/0	4/2	0/0
International Security	45/44	6/7	2/0	1/1	1/0	0/2
International Studies Quarterly	37/44	22/19	2/3	10/5	3/1	0/1
Journal of Conflict Resolution	20/20	7/6	1/2	0/0	2/0	0/2
Journal of Peace Research	29/29	5/8	5/2	1/1	3/0	0/2
Review of International Organizations	20/19	6/5	0/1	0/0	0/0	0/1
Review of International Political Economy	7/7	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0
Review of International Studies	31/33	3/4	3/3	0/0	3/0	0/0
World Politics	24/27	1/2	5/2	8/7	1/0	0/0

As with the volume of publications, from a global perspective, Area Studies journal editorial boards are more diverse than IR ones, as shown in Table 6. However, only two journals – Caucasus Survey and Communist and Post-Communist Studies—contain members who either work in or received their education at institutions based in the North or South Caucasus. All of the Russian institutions represented in the dataset are located in either Moscow or St. Petersburg, demonstrating the lack of regional diversity in representation from across the country.

Table 6. Composition of editorial boards for Area Studies journals, based on employment/education.

	Zone 1 (North America)	Zone 2 (UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand)	Zone 3 (Western Europe)	Zone 4 (Scandinavia)	Zone 5 (Eastern Europe)	Zone 6 (Russia (exc. North Caucasus)	Zone 7 (North Caucasus)	Zone 8 (South Caucasus)	Zone 9 (Other)	Zone 10 (Not known)
Caucasus Survey	10/8	9/8	6/4	0/0	0/0	0/2	0/0	4/1	2/0	0/8
Communist and Post-Communist Studies	14/18	8/7	1/3	2/1	8/7	3/2	0/0	1/1	1/0	0/0
Eurasian Geography and Economics	34/40	12/12	3/2	2/2	2/1	1/2	0/0	0/0	10/2	0/3
Europe-Asia Studies	5/6	33/24	0/3	0/0	2/1	1/1	0/0	0/0	1/0	0/6
Journal of Eurasian Studies	12/12	4/4	1/1	1/0	0/0	3/4	0/0	0/0	3/1	0/2
Post-Soviet Affairs	22/20	3/5	0/0	0/0	0/0	1/1	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0
Problems of Post-Communism	15/16	3/2	2/2	0/0	2/1	1/2	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0

Moreover, all of the institutions from this subset are in Georgia. Given the space limitations, we cannot engage in a detailed discussion of why this might be the case. Obviously, the reasons for a more prevalent representation of Georgia over other South Caucasus countries and the North Caucasus are varied but one important reason that could play an important role and is worth pointing out is Georgia’s increased internationalization efforts in higher education in recent decades. The rapprochement to the EU, and the West in general, has been a foreign policy priority for the country for much of the past two decades, more so than either in Armenia or Azerbaijan, and as Pusa Nastase (2020, 92) correctly points out, “higher education was considered as a tool to achieve this goal.” As a result, Georgia was attracting far more funding, whether for international mobility (Nastase 2020, 93)³ or research funding (European Research Ranking 2020)⁴ than its regional neighbors.

We also examined the profiles of the authors who produced research articles on the Caucasus, asking the same questions about where they are employed and from where they have received their education. For IR journals, the results can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Distribution of authors writing about the Caucasus in IR journals by country.

The biographies of authors producing work in Area Studies warrant more in-depth examination, given that they are making a more voluminous contribution to scholarship. It can be seen that a majority of authors (52.5%) are employed in Western countries (Zones 1–4) and an even higher number (60.0%) received their doctoral education there. By comparison, 27.5% of authors are employed by institutions based in the Caucasus region; however, only 17.1% received their doctoral education in countries of the South Caucasus and none in the North Caucasus (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Distribution of authors writing about the Caucasus in Area Studies journals by country.

Furthermore, it has been argued that citations matter because they are used at the level of individuals, journals, and institutions as a measure of quality, and because increased citations improve visibility in search engines (Daniel, Powers, and Walter 2013). Mott and Cockayne (2017, 955) describe citations as “an assumed proxy for measuring impact, relevance, and importance, with implications not only for hiring, promotion, tenure, and other aspects of performance evaluation, but also for how certain voices are represented and included over others in intellectual conversations.”

Articles in IR journals were cited a total of 170 times in Web of Science and 592 times in Google scholar—an average of 10.6 and 37 citations per article, respectively. The most cited articles in our dataset were an article by Leslie and Wellhausen (2016) on supply chains and foreign investment and an article by Florea (2017) on de facto states. Area Studies articles were cited much less frequently. The latter received a total of 216 citations according to Web of Science and 1,127 in Google Scholar—an average of 1.2 and 6.4, respectively. The most cited article was by Kolosov, O’Loughlin, and Toal (2016) on attitudes towards the “Russian world.” Articles on Armenia are the most cited, while those on the entire region are least cited (see Figure 3). The articles about Armenia span a wide range of issues, including history, political economy, civil society, foreign policy, and religion and culture. In total, the articles on Armenia received 27 citations on Web of Science and 96 on Google Scholar, with the most cited articles (both on the Web of Science and Google Scholar platforms) being those on political economy. Drnoian et al. (2017) on membership of the Eurasian Economic Union was the most cited article on Armenia.

Figure 3. Average number of citations on Google Scholar by regional focus.

We also considered the gender of the authors. Breuning and Sanders (2007) found significant problems in gender representation for IR. Although 31.8% of members of the International Studies Association (ISA) and 32.2% of members of the American Political Science Association (APSA) were female, women accounted for only 20.9% of first authors and 20.4% of total authors in eight political science journals over a six-year period. Daniel et al. (2013) found that women in IR journals are systematically cited less than men. We are not aware of comparable studies for Area Studies journals focused on Eurasia. Of the 31 contributing authors to Caucasus-focused publications in IR journals, 51.6% were female—significantly outperforming the field in general. In Area Studies journals, however, the situation was significantly worse. Of the 280 authors, only 87 were female (31.1%). Meanwhile, when we combine this with other biographical data, we see that 59 female authors (69%) are employed by Western institutions, and 62 (71.3%) received their PhD in the West (Zones 1–4).

In terms of territorial entities discussed, we can see that Georgia is by far the most studied (70 articles out of 175), whereas Armenia is the least studied (10 articles out of 175). Few scholars consider the Caucasus region in its entirety, suggesting that cross-border processes are relatively marginalized, and there is a limited collaboration between scholars focused on the northern and southern parts of the region (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Focus of articles by territorial entity.

We can see a relatively even distribution by topic, although conflict and violence represents the dominant category (see Figure 5). However, there is substantial regional heterogeneity in the topics considered. The majority of articles (11 articles out of 29) that focus on the North Caucasus are dedicated to the topic of conflict and violence, whereas the foreign policy of this region is entirely neglected. Articles solely on Armenia, by contrast, do not consider conflict and violence at all; religion and culture are also relatively marginal—whereas political economy, civil society, and foreign policy do garner considerable attention (see Figure 6).

Figure 5. Focus of articles by topic.

Figure 6. Focus of articles by country and topic.

According to analysis of the focus of articles by country and topic, Georgia is the most-researched geographic area, appearing in 70 out of the 175 articles. On the other hand, the entire Caucasus has received the least attention, with only 7 articles out of 175, which includes both the North and South Caucasus as one geographic region. The South and North Caucasus regions received comparable levels of research as geographic areas, with the main variation being in the themes of study, with history being the most examined topic in the South Caucasus and conflict and violence being the most investigated issue in the North Caucasus. The analysis also shows that the subject of conflict and violence has been studied throughout the entire Caucasus, with the exception of Armenia. This can be explained by the method used to code regional areas, i.e. the articles about the Karabakh conflict were coded as South Caucasus (if both names of the countries were referenced) or as Azerbaijan (if Armenia was not mentioned).

We can also observe variations in topical coverage according to the country where authors are employed. North American scholars devote greater attention to the study of conflict and violence and civil society, while interest in other topics is much more evenly distributed. Scholars from the South Caucasus display a more balanced interest in topics overall. They focus much less on conflict and violence and display relatively negligible interest in methodology. They seem to be more interested in the issues of religion and culture—topics that are also deemed important by Western European scholars (except for scholars from Scandinavia). South Caucasus scholars also demonstrate a minimal interest in the processes taking part in the North Caucasus. Russian scholars, on the other hand, display a slight bias towards the North Caucasus but do not examine Armenia and Azerbaijan in isolation from regional processes (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Focus of articles by author’s place of employment and topic.

Discussion and conclusions

Our attempt in this article has been to take stock of knowledge production on the Caucasus region, paying particular attention to the question of who has “voice” in academic debates. In order to do this, we first explored existing debates around voice, diversity, and decolonization across fields, and sought to situate the Caucasus within these debates—showing how it fits awkwardly within the commonly used Global North—Global South framework. We investigated the composition of the editorial boards of leading IR and Area Studies journals and the degree of representation of scholars from the Caucasus region. We also examined articles produced by these journals over a six-year period (2016–2021), considering the educational and professional biographies of the authors; the topics their articles addressed and how these aligned with their biographies; as well as looking at the patterns of citation.

The result of this investigation provides only a snapshot of scholarship in time, limited to two disciplines. Nevertheless, we think it reveals a number of interesting conclusions. It confirms the findings of previous studies about the often hierarchical and deeply unequal playing field between Western scholarship and the rest of the world. IR journals enjoy greater prominence and are held in greater esteem, but the Caucasus region is marginal almost to the point of invisibility within the scholarship that the discipline produces. On those rare occasions that the region is addressed, knowledge is produced exclusively by individuals who are educated and employed at Western institutions (i.e. from Zones 1–4).

Within Area Studies journals, the Caucasus is unsurprisingly far more visible and scholars from the region have a far greater voice. Even here, however, structural inequalities are apparent: a majority of scholars writing about the region are still educated in and employed at Western institutions; the percentage of authors who are employed in the Caucasus is significantly higher than the percentage educated there; and there are huge inequalities within the region, with virtually no representation by North Caucasian scholars, and Georgian scholars more heavily represented than Armenian or Azerbaijani ones. Moreover, Area Studies is more marginalized than IR and work published in Area Studies journals receives significantly lower numbers of citations.

Data on the composition of editorial boards reinforces these observations about inequality of access: gatekeepers of both IR and Area Studies journals are predominantly Western-educated and employed; scholars educated or employed in the Caucasus have no representation whatsoever in IR journals, and the editorial boards of only two Area Studies journals achieve such representation—all of which are Georgian voices. The data that we have collected on diversity of representation in gatekeeping roles and authorship attest to the significance of education and cultural capital in achieving voice within the field. This is particularly important given that place of birth, rather than education, is often used in discussions of diversity, and many of the “global” scholars who succeed and achieve prominent positions within their fields, nevertheless, often receive their education in Western countries. As Kristensen (2015, 265) notes, “if its practitioners continue to behave as American social scientists, it will be an American social science”—and the same point holds for Western scholarship more broadly. This would suggest that there are limited avenues for Caucasian scholars to make a unique contribution through their voice, without conforming to prevailing academic cultural expectations.

The findings also reveal differences in the topics studied—indicating why lack of diversity in representation matters. Lake (2016, 1112) observes how “different individuals with different life stories will develop different intuitions about how the world ‘works,’ and thus will write different theories to capture those intuitions and, in turn, larger patterns of politics.” Smith (2002) further notes that US-centric perspectives in IR, for example, have led to a heavy focus on political and military inequalities within the global system, compared to a blindness to other forms of inequality, such as gender, migration, the environment, and human rights. Within our data, we find that North American academics focus more on the study of conflict, violence, and civil society, whereas researchers from the South Caucasus demonstrate a more evenly distributed interest in a variety of subjects—and comparatively far less interest in conflict and violence. There is also remarkably little intra-regional interest: scholars from the South Caucasus devote little attention to the North Caucasus, whereas Russian scholars display a slight bias towards the North.

Limitations and future directions

We hope that this article provides a necessary baseline for understanding knowledge on the Caucasus, but we are aware that it also gives rise to a number of important questions that the material provided cannot answer. The broad categories we utilize to depict patterns in the publications prove valuable for our research objectives; nevertheless, we acknowledge that these categories may not capture a significant amount of nuance concerning authors’ education and backgrounds, as well as the nature of the articles. First and foremost, we cannot draw conclusions about why we see the patterns of representation that we do, and why there is such variation within the region. It could, for example, be the case that there is an issue with gatekeeping and access. Pursuing postgraduate degrees abroad appears to allow local scholars to conduct high-quality research on the region, which is in turn more likely to be accepted in the West. But is such work accepted because it conforms to journals’ academic cultural expectations, or is the amount and quality of work produced by locally trained scholars comparatively low, leading to more rejections? Issues with the quality of work produced by lower-ranking universities in the Russian regions, for example, cannot simply be dismissed as irrelevant.

Is the Caucasus marginal within IR because gatekeepers demonstrate limited interest in the region and project that onto their readership, rejecting work associated with the region as “irrelevant” to a wider audience? On the other hand, it could be the case that the problem originates from the publication strategies of scholars themselves. Authors may not, for example, be seeking to publish in and contribute to English-language venues or, alternatively, they could be seeking to make their voices heard in fields other than IR or Area Studies—such as comparative politics, sociology, or history—leaving gatekeepers in the former fields with relatively few decisions to make. Nor are these issues necessarily mutually exclusive: local scholars could, for example, decide not to pursue publication in leading English-language journals because they perceive their chances of success as being impossibly low—placing the problem between one of gatekeeping and one of publication strategies.

Answering all of these questions requires a different, more qualitative approach, namely interviews with local scholars themselves, as well as with editorial gatekeepers. While it is not practical to expand the quantitative evaluation of representation to all possible fields, interviews would provide insights into the valid question of whether the two fields considered here—IR and Area Studies— are representative or distinct. Equally, interviews would provide an opportunity to investigate the degree to which scholars internalize certain practices that could be deemed problematic. Even in writing this article, we encountered significant difficulties in not replicating some of the problems around division of labor and roles that we identified elsewhere in the scholarship—quite independent of any editorial or gatekeeping influence. The next phase of our project will therefore involve conducting these interviews in order to answer these questions and foreground local voices in diagnosing the reasons behind underrepresentation.

Interviews with local scholars will also help us bring into the picture some of the structural issues that are likely to influence representation—either directly or by shaping the publication strategies of authors. The aforementioned issues of institutional variation in the quality of research produced is clearly a structural issue. Another is the question of language barriers, and the degree to which these hamper the dissemination of knowledge from the region. Equally important will be structural incentives. On the one hand, if access to Western education is indeed an important factor determining success in publishing in English, then it needs to be taken into account whether states offer mobility support programs. If, for example, Azerbaijan offers full scholarships to citizens who want to pursue their PhDs abroad and Armenia does not, then this is likely to be reflected in representation of scholars from the two countries.

Overlapping with this, one factor that we have not been able to consider here—and which is almost entirely missing from debates over diversity in scholarship—is the issue of class. Where support programs are lacking, access to Western education is usually limited to those who occupy a privileged economic position vis-à-vis the general population. On the other hand, the research environment has drastically changed since we commenced this project and, in the period subsequent to that covered here—most obviously for Russian scholars. Zavadskaya and Gerber (2023) assert that the war in Ukraine signals the end of independent social sciences in Russia and will inevitably contribute to Russia’s further isolation from international scholarly communities. The potential for improvement in the near term is limited, and so the environment for North Caucasian scholars looking to access English-language knowledge production remains challenging. Equally relevant, the material and career incentives for publishing in English have clearly been eroded, which means that the publication strategies pursued in the past are not necessarily indicative of those that will be pursued in the future. South Caucasian scholarship, by contrast, appears to be on a different trajectory and may potentially benefit from a defocusing of Russia in this field. It will likely take several years before the full impact of these events on the questions considered here are revealed, but interviews can clearly contribute to evaluating this changing picture.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the question of what can be done to rectify the lack of, or disparities in, voice. There are unlikely to be simple solutions to balancing sometimes competing demands of improving access and maintaining quality. Again, however, interviews are crucial to this, to ensure that local scholars have voice in designing the solutions. As such, this paper is intended simply as the starting point of (hopefully) a wider conversation that can and should go in many different directions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. This is not to say that structural inequalities do not influence scholarly production everywhere, only that this influence is likely to vary. Drake and Hilbink (2004, 35), for example, emphasize co-production and equality in their characterization of Latin American scholarship: “Latin American studies is something that North Americans do with Latin Americans, not to Latin Americans. Indeed, much of the knowledge production about the region has always come from Latin Americans.”

2. We thank Akhmet Yarlykapov for this observation and characterization.

3. In 2020, for instance, Georgia attracted 24% of the total budget for Eastern Partnership countries “for international credit mobilities,” while Armenia’s share was 12% and Azerbaijan’s only 8% (Erasmus+ cited in Nastase 2020, 93).

4. According to country statistics, in 2020, for instance, approximately €4,647,000 was allocated to Georgia, with the number of projects standing at nine. Armenia received €518,000 and was involved in three projects, and Azerbaijan—€255,000 with two projects (European Research Ranking 2020).