Emma Foster, Peter Kerr, Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Byrne, and Linda Ahall | November 2013
Through mapping the provision of teaching gender and sexuality studies on politics/political science and international relations (IR) programs, this article asserts that the top-ranked politics and IR departments in the UK offer very little provision of such teaching. We argue that this lack of gender and, more so, sexuality teaching is highly problematic for the discipline. Moreover, we suggest that the lack of such provision is not reflective of staff research interests, potentially not reflective of the market (i.e. students), works against the trend of mainstreaming gender, and is problematic in the wider sense in that gender and sexuality are rendered invisible or trivial matters. Overall then, this article contends that curricula in politics and IR departments work to perpetuate the idea that the 'personal is not political,' thereby defining the parameters of the discipline in both a narrow and inaccurate way.
Amir Lupovici | August 2013
A gap is currently growing between the rich theories in International Relations (IR) and how they are presented in classrooms. Although the scholarly literature acknowledges the complexities of international relations, these notions are not fully integrated into IR courses, especially at the introductory level. Lupovici asserts that teaching IR through the framework of relations between different me(s) and other(s) would address this problem. In short, Lupovici asserts that international relations are almost by definition about interactions between a me and an other. Acknowledging this fact will allow us to sharpen a number of important issues and questions in world politics concerning the me(s) (for example, states, ethnic groups, IGOs, NGOs, transnational communities) and their relevant other(s). Vupovici contends that this approach helps to capture the multiplicity of actors, interactions, and practices in IR, and to better connect them to the theories in the field. Lupovici further suggests that this approach not only provides a fruitful method for teaching IR, but it also allows scholars (and students) to rethink and reflect on the field.
Daniel Maliniak, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney | May 2012
How do IR scholars’ views about teaching, research, the discipline, and contemporary policy issues vary across the globe? This report provides descriptive statistics on the responses of IR scholars from 20 countries. This is the 4th such survey that TRIP researchers have conducted since 2004 and the first to break the language barrier, including Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Turkish speaking scholars in the survey. The TRIP survey is one part of a broader effort to explore trends in the academic study of IR and to assess the relationship between IR scholars and practitioners. Previous TRIP survey Reports from 2004, 2006, and 2008 can be found on the TRIP Publications Page.
Read the full article (pdf)
Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney | June 2011
TRIP researchers recently published an article in the June 2011 issue of International Studies Quarterly that addresses a number of questions about the nature and trajectory of the IR field within the United States.
Using two new data sources to describe trends in the international relations (IR) discipline since 1980-a database of every article published in the 12 leading journals in the field and three surveys of IR faculty at US colleges and universities-we explore the extent of theoretical, methodological, and epistemological diversity in the American study of IR and the relationship between IR scholarship and the policy-making community in the United States.
We find, first, that there is considerable and increasing theoretical diversity. Although US scholars believe and teach their students that the major paradigms-realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism-define and divide the discipline, most peer-reviewed research does not advance a theoretical argument from one of these theoretical traditions. There is no evidence, moreover, that realism and its focus on power relations among states dominate, or since 1980 ever has dominated, the literature. Second, although three times as many IR scholars report using qualitative methods as their primary approach, more articles published in the top journals currently employ quantitative tools than any other methodological approach. Third, there exists little epistemological diversity in the field: American IR scholars share a strong and growing commitment to positivism. Finally, there is a disjuncture between what American scholars of IR think about the value of producing policy-relevant work and the actual research they generate: few articles in top journals offer explicit policy advice, but scholars believe that their work is both prescriptive and useful to policymakers.
Read the full article (pdf)
J.C. Sharman and Jacqui True | April 2011
This article examines the results of the world's largest ever survey of international relations (IR) scholars with an eye to establishing the particularities of the discipline in Australia and New Zealand. The survey covered the areas of teaching, research, the structure of the profession and scholars' views on foreign policy. From these results, this paper compares IR in New Zealand and Australia, and discusses the extent to which the discipline in these two countries is distinctive from its overseas counterparts, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. The particular areas of focus include the degree to which the field in Australasia conforms to or differs from US or Commonwealth identities; epistemological and gender divides; the distinctive foci of what IR scholars in both countries teach and research; which publications are favored and disfavored; and the contrasting linkages between academia and the world of government and policy. We conclude with some suggestions about how the field in both countries might be improved.
Michael Lipson, Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney | Spring 2007
How does international relations teaching and scholarship differ across countries? This article reports results from the TRIP survey of international relations faculty at US and Canadian universities conducted in 2006. The article compares trends in the content and methods of college instructors at four year universities as well as their individual research and outlook on foreign policy. Some interesting differences emerge in this portrait of two IR communities. Canadian IR, for instance, appears to be both more internationally born and educated than US IR, as well as more politically liberal, while US professors devote more time to traditional paradigmatic debates. Course content, however, remains remarkably similar. Learn more about the way teaching and research differs between the US and Canada in this groundbreaking international study.
Read the full article (pdf)