The article analyses the development of English-language scholarship on Russia and wider Eurasia from the 1990s onwards. It is particularly concerned with the combined effects of the marketisation of higher education and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 for language-based inter-disciplinary Russian and East European area studies, which in the past generated in-depth knowledge on different aspects of life in the USSR. It argues that advancing market fundamentalism and, especially, the collapse of Communism interpreted by Western political elites as the end of global bi-polarity and the triumph of USled political and cultural universalism led to a drastic reduction in funding of Russian and Eurasian Studies and their increasing dispersal within a number of mono-theoretical academic disciplines. Consequently, we now witness the academic dominance of political scientists who tend to detach research phenomena from their historical and cultural contexts and to ‘dissect’ them so as to fit whatever monotheoretical determinist model they happen to favour. They also prioritise deductive quantitative research methods over qualitative ones and rely on secondary sources in English as well as non-academic analytical reports, largely available online. A corollary has been a considerable overall deterioration in the epistemological quality of English-language scholarship on Russia and other countries of Eurasia, as well as its increasing politicisation.
1. Arendt, Hannah. Origins of Totalitarianism. London: Penguin, 1958.
2. Allison, Roy. Russia, the West, and Military Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
3. Bellamy, A.J. Global Politics and the Responsibility to Protect. London: Routledge, 2011.
4. Buzan, B. Peoples, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations. Hertfordshire: Hervester Wheatsheaf, 1991.
5. Brzezinski, Z. The Permanent Purge: Politics in Soviet Totalitarianism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956.
6. Collini, Stefan. Speaking of Universities. London: Verso, 2017.
7. Davies, R. Soviet Economic Development from Lenin to Khrushchev. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
8. Friedrich, C., Brzezinski, Z. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958.
9. ‘Gaza: Nakba Day Protests as Palestinians Bury Those Killed in Embassy Unrest. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/may/15/gaza-israel-nakba-day-protests-as-palestiniansbury-those-killed-in-embassy-unrest-live-updates (accessed: 22.05.2018).
10. Hofstadter, R. The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.
11. Hosking, G. Rulers and Victims: The Russians in the Soviet Union. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2006.
12. Hough, J.F. The Soviet Prefects: Local Party Organs in Industrial Decision-Making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.
13. Jackson, R. The Global Covenant. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
14. Keohane, R.O. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
15. Oskanian, K. Fear, Weakness and Power in Post-Soviet South Caucasus: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. London: Palgrave, 2013.
16. Read, C. War and Revolution in Russia, 19141922: The Collapse of Tsarism and the Establishment of Soviet Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013.
17. Sakwa, R. Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. London: I.B. Tauris, 2015.
18. Sperling, J., Cottley, A. Handbook of Governance and Security. Surrey: Edward Elgar, 2014.
19. Veblen, Thorstein. The Higher Learning in America. New York: Huebsch, 1919.
20. Waltz, K. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Waveland Press, 1979.
21. Webber, M., Hyde-Price, A. (eds.) Theorising NATO: New Perspective on the Atlantic Alliance. London: Routledge, 2016.
22. Wheeler, N. Saving Strangers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000.
23. Yemelianova, Galina M. Western Academic Discourse on the post-Soviet De Facto State Phenomenon, in: Caucasus Survey. 2015. Vol. 3 (3). Pp. 219–238.