This is a study of theoretical innovation. Conventional wisdom tells us that the
International Relations discipline (IR) is an ‘American social science’ dominated by U.S. theories. But recent studies show that Chinese IR scholars have begun debating whether and how a Chinese theory of International Relations should be developed. This thesis investigates how and why there has been an innovational drive to develop Chinese IR theory. We challenge the commonsensical link between external events in the subject matter (i.r.)—in this case China’s geopolitical rise—and theorizing (IR). From a sociology of science point of view we open the ‘black box’ of knowledge production and focus on its local setting. We develop a sociological model of IR that combines micro-sociological theory and interactionist methodology to show how ‘sociological’ explanations of scientific innovation should not only incorporate macro-political events, but also the internal social dynamics between scientists. The general structure starts at the micro-level analyzing intellectual ‘moves’ and ‘counter-moves’ made by Chinese IR scholars in conversations with us, working its way out to the meso- and macro-factors. The ‘Chinese innovational drive’, we argue, can be understood as the interplay between three layers: the local academic context of intellectuals pursuing prominence where each intellectual tries to carve out a maximally distinct position in order to receive attention from peers—theorizing a Chinese IRT being one important way of doing this; their institutional environment, where the control over rewards such as research funds, promotion and publications affects what kind of work is done—theorizing is increasingly being rewarded; and lastly, the surrounding environment where power politics and sociopolitical developments affect this process indirectly by providing more research funds and autonomy but demands policy advice in return. The findings are not only relevant to explain developments in Chinese IR, but also add value to the literature on national variations in ways of doing IR. Moreover, the findings provide new insights to the micro-sociological aspects of how and why IR theories develop.