KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / 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
Sayfa
267–281
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In particular, the objective was to decipher what 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 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez: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.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri: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).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In particular, the objective was to decipher what 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.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

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 what 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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ANDREWS, N. (2022). 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, 267–281. https://ajindex.com/articles/434971

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  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. 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. 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 Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919.” Millennium 39, no. 3 (2011): 735–58.
  13. 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 R