Ontological Security Research in International Politics: Assessing the Evolution of a Research Tradition

Abstract

Ontological security has become one of the most dynamic and theoretically rich bodies of scholarship in International Relations (IR), guiding research across levels of analysis and diverse domains of world politics. Given its flexibility, inclusiveness, and epistemological and methodological plurality, however, scholars have raised questions about its coherence and analytical distinctiveness. Existing reviews have thoughtfully mapped its richness and scope, but they have been less able to address a central puzzle: How can ontological security research remain theoretically coherent while becoming increasingly plural? This article addresses this puzzle by drawing on Larry Laudan’s philosophy of science. It explains why Laudan’s framework, rather than the more familiar alternatives—Kuhnian paradigms and Lakatosian research programmes—is better suited to capturing this kind of plural scholarly formation. It argues that ontological security scholarship is best understood as a developing research tradition and theory complex: an open and plural formation that connects different theoretical strands, remains anchored in a relatively stable conceptual core, and evolves through empirical and conceptual problem-solving. Viewed through this lens, the plurality of ontological security research should not be read as fragmentation, but as evidence of a productive research tradition whose development depends on synthesizing theories, integrating concepts, and opening new analytical pathways. The article shows that ontological security scholarship contributes to IR by generating alternative accounts of empirical phenomena, connecting levels of analysis, and bridging epistemological approaches. By tracing this development, the article demonstrates why ontological security research remains coherent despite its diversity and how it equips scholars with conceptual tools to pose and address significant questions in world politics. In doing so, it highlights both the overlooked relevance of Laudan’s framework to IR and the broader disciplinary contribution of ontological security research.