SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2020 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

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

Nathan ANDREWS
Pages
267–282
Publication Date
2020-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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).
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:IR course syllabi · pedagogy · dialogue

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

ANDREWS, N. (2020). International Relations (IR) Pedagogy, Dialogue and Diversity: Taking the IR Course Syllabus Seriously. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 267–282. https://ajindex.com/articles/119702

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. 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.
  2. Ake, Claude. Social Science As Imperialism: The Theory of Political Development. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1979.
  3. 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.
  4. Amsler, Sarah S., and Chris Bolsmann. “University Ranking as Social Exclusion.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 33, no. 2 (2012): 283–301.
  5. 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.
  6. Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin, eds. Widening the World of International Relations: Homegrown Theorizing. Routledge, 2018.
  7. 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.
  8. Bilgin, Pinar. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?.” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5–23.
  9. 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.
  10. Brown, Chris. “The Future of the Discipline?” International Relations 21, no. 3 (2007): 347–50.
  11. 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.
  12. De Carvalho, Benjamin, Halvard Leira, and John M. Hobson. “The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths that You