International Relations (IR) Pedagogy, Dialogue and Diversity: Taking the IR Course Syllabus Seriously

Year 2020, , 267 - 282, 30.06.2020

Nathan Andrews

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.716687

Cited By: 7

Abstract

The field of International Relations (IR) has experienced different waves of ‘great debates’ that have often maintained certain theoretical and methodological frameworks and perspectives as core to the field whereas others are seen as peripheral and merely a critique of the former. As a result of this segregation of knowledge, IR has not become as open to dialogue and diversity as we are made to believe. To be sure, aspects of the extant literature speak of IR as being ‘not so international’, a ‘hegemonic discipline’, a ‘colonial household’, and an ‘American social science’, among other derogatory names. Informed by such characterizations that depict a field of study that is not sufficiently diverse, the paper investigates the relationship between pedagogical factors and dialogue in IR. In doing so, it provides preliminary results from a pilot study in February-April 2019 that sought to examine different graduate-level IR syllabi from leading universities in the global North and South (Africa in particular). In particular, the objective was to decipher as what extent course design including required readings and other pedagogical activities in the classroom tells us about dialogue and the sort of diversity needed to push IR beyond its conventional canons.

Keywords

IR course syllabi, pedagogy, dialogue, diversity, Western/non-Western

References

• Acharya, Amitav. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West.” Millennium 39, no. 3 (2011): 619–37.
• ¬¬¬–––. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2014): 647–59.
• Ake, Claude. Social Science As Imperialism: The Theory of Political Development. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1979.
• Ala, Jacqui, and Rod Alence. “INTR4018: International Relations Applied Theory and Research Methods.” University of Witwatersrand, 2019. Copy of document in author’s possession.
• Alatas, Syed Farid. “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in Social Science.” Current Sociology 51, no. 6 (November 2003): 599–613
• ––––. “Academic Dependency in Social Sciences: Reflections on India and Malaysia.” American Studies International 38, no. 2 (2000): 80–96.
• Amsler, Sarah S., and Chris Bolsmann. “University Ranking as Social Exclusion.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 33, no. 2 (2012): 283–301.
• Andrews, Nathan, and Eyene Okpanachi. “Trends of Epistemic Oppression and Academic Dependency in Africa’s Development: The need for a new intellectual path.” Journal of Pan African Studies 5, no. 8 (2012): 85–104.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin, eds. Widening the World of International Relations: Homegrown Theorizing. Routledge, 2018.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1, no. 3 (2000): 289–303.
• Bilgin, Pinar. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?.” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5–23.
• Boafo-Arthur, Kwame. “POLI626: Theories of International Relations.” University of Ghana, 2014. Copy of document in author’s possession.
• Bond, Patrick. “The ANC’s ‘Left Turn’ & South African Sub-imperialism.” Review of African Political Economy 31, no. 102 (2004): 599–616.
• Brown, Chris. “The Future of the Discipline?” International Relations 21, no. 3 (2007): 347–50.
• Colgan, Jeff. “Gender Bias in International Relations Graduate Education? New Evidence from Syllabi.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50, no. 2 (2017): 456–60.
• Compaoré, WR Nadège. “Rise of the (Other) Rest? Exploring Small State Agency and Collective Power in International Relations.” International Studies Review 20, no. 2 (2018): 264–71.
• De Carvalho, Benjamin, Halvard Leira, and John M. Hobson. “The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths that Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919.” Millennium 39, no. 3 (2011): 735–58.
• Eun, Yong-Soo. “Beyond ‘the West/non-West Divide’ in IR: How to Ensure Dialogue as Mutual Learning.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 11, no. 4 (2018): 435–49.
• –––. “Opening up the Debate Over ‘Non-Western’ International Relations.” Politics 39, no. 1 (2019): 4–17.
• Hobson, John M. “Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a Post-Racist Critical IR.” Review of International Studies 33, no. S1 (2007): 91–116.
• Hoffman, Stanley. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106, no. 3 (1977): 41–60.
• Inayatullah, Naeem, and David L. Blaney. International Relations and the Problem of Difference. New York: Routledge, 2004.
• Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London and New York: Routledge, 2011.
• Jordan, Richard, Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney. “One Discipline or Many? Survey of International Relations Faculty in Ten Countries.” Teaching, Research and International Policy (TRIP) Project. Williamsburg, VA: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, 2009.
• Kertzer, Joshua. “Government 2710: Field Seminar on International Relations.” Harvard University, 2018. Copy of document in author’s possession.
• Kim, Hun Joon. “Will IR theory with Chinese characteristics be a powerful alternative?” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 9, no. 1 (2016): 59–79.
• Leeds, Brett Ashley, J. Ann Tickner, Colin Wight, and De Alba-Ulloa. “Power and Rules in the Profession of International Studies.” International Studies Review 21, no. 2 (2019): 188–209.
• Levine, Daniel J., and David M. McCourt. “Why does Pluralism Matter When We Study Politics? A View From Contemporary International Relations.” Perspectives on Politics 16, no. 1 (2018): 92–109.
• Maliniak, Daniel, Ryan Powers, and Barbara F. Walter. “The Gender Citation Gap In International Relations.” International Organization 67, no. 4 (2013): 889–922.
• Maliniak, Daniel, Susan Peterson, Ryan Powers and Michael J. Tierney. TRIP 2014 Faculty Survey. Williamsburg, VA: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, 2014.
• Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, Samantha Lange, and Holly Brus. “Gendered Citation Patterns in International Relations Journals.” International Studies Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2013): 485–92.
• Morrow, Jim. “Political Science 660: Proseminar on World Politics.” University of Michigan, 2018. Copy of document in author’s possession.
• Mngomezulu, Bheko. “POL 730/840: International Relations Theory.” University of the Western Cape, 2018. Copy of document in author’s possession.
• Odoom, Isaac, and Nathan Andrews. “What/Who is Still Missing in International Relations Scholarship? Situating Africa as an Agent in IR Theorising.” Third World Quarterly 38,no. 1 (2017): 42–60.
• Schmidt, Brian C. “Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline: American International Relations, Pluralist Theory and the Myth of Interwar Idealism.” International Relations 16, no. 1 (2002): 9–31.
• –––. “Lessons from the Past: Reassessing the Interwar Disciplinary History of International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 42, no. 3 (1998): 433–59.
• Shilliam, Robbie, ed. International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity. London: Routledge, 2011.
• Smith, Karen. “Has Africa got Anything to Say? African Contributions to the Theoretical Development of International Relations.” The Round Table 98, no. 402 (2009): 269–84.
• –––. “Reshaping International Relations: Theoretical Innovations from Africa.” All Azimuth 7, no. 2 (2018): 81–92.
• Smith, Steve. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 2, no. 3 (2000): 374–402.
• Teschke, Benno. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations. London: Verso, 2009.
• THE Rankings. “World University Rankings 2019: Methodology.” Accessed February 28, 2019. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology-world-university-rankings-2019.
• Tickner, Arlene B. “Latin American IR and the Primacy of lo práctico 1.” International Studies Review 10, no. 4 (2008): 735–48.
• –––. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium 32, no. 2 (2003): 295–324.
• Vitalis, Robert. White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015.
• Wæver, Ole. “The Sociology of a not so International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 687–727.
• Wemheuer-Vogelaar, Wiebke, Nicholas J. Bell, Mariana Navarrete Morales, and Michael J. Tierney. “The IR of the beholder: Examining global IR using the 2014 TRIP Survey.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 16–32.
• Yew, L. The Disjunctive Empire of International Relations. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.