In the wake of the rising popularity of the argument that there might be an end of IR theory" Samuel Barkin and Laura Sjoberg see a world in which IR theorizing is alive and well, and a key part of both disciplinary analysis and disciplinary self-identification. At the same time they recognize, with those who declare theory’s death in the discipline, that things have changed in the structure and function of IR theory. Specifically, they are critical of a new, and increasingly popular, strand of thought: what they call the constructivist-critical school. This new strand is a reaction against the neo-neo synthesis school, which emerged in the 1970s and combines neorealist and neoliberal thought – what are characterized by some as “problem-solving” theories. The constructivist-critical school uses non-traditional methods to analyze global politics and focuses on a politics of emancipation and social justice. But Barkin and Sjoberg contend that the ideas upon which this new constructivist-critical synthesis is founded misconstrue the base assumptions of both constructivism and critical theory in IR"–
