ABSTRACT
In this conclusion chapter, we revisit the definition of homegrown theorizing and summarize some points of contention around its appropriateness. These are how to locate “the periphery,” how to differentiate theories out of periphery experiences/ideas versus core experiences/ideas, and what constitutes theorizing from a standpoint. We next present some thoughts on the main questions discussed throughout this volume, which we group into three main categories: ways of proceeding with homegrown theorizing; pitfalls to homegrown theorizing; and practical recommendations for addressing the inherent challenges. Clearly questions abound; both fundamental and more pragmatic and definite “answers” to these questions are not easy to agree on. Nevertheless, all of these recommendations seek to create a context in which homegrown theorizing can take place and, ultimately, contribute to global IR scholarship. The most important benefit of homegrown theorizing is that it might serve to free our minds from existing exclusive perspectives, existing exclusive circles, and existing monopolizing questions, definitions, and terminologies. Homegrown theorizing may help us move from a world of franchised IR theorizing along the lines of McDonalds or Starbucks, to one of Michelin-level IR theorizing—wherein the former seek standardization while the latter are open to cultivating local products, tastes, and perspectives.
