How “International” Are International Relations Syllabi?

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies

“… 10 Similar exercises are performed in the case of the United States by Alker and Biersteker (1984) and Robles (1993). …”

“…11 Although many items could arguably be classified in several categories, Autonóma de México, UNAM, complied with the selection criteria, it was excluded from the survey given that the university was on strike during the duration of the information-gathering stage of my research. 10 Similar exercises are performed in the case of the United States by Alker and Biersteker (1984) and Robles (1993). 11 The coding scheme that I developed took into account the relative strengths and weaknesses of other taxonomies of international relations proposed by Alker and Biersteker (1984), Holsti (1985), and Waever (1998), as well as the specific concerns of the countries of Latin America in terms of international political economy, and issues of development and dependency.…”

Conclusions: Wor(l)ds Beyond the West

“…Most authors, who are students of IR, are reflexive about how they are being schooled in mainstream IR and the implications it has for their gaze on world politics. Although this book is not intended as a contribution to the pedagogy of IR-a sub strand of the sociology of IR literature that examines syllabi (Alker and Biersteker 1984;Holsti 1985;Robles 1993;Nossal 2001;Friedrichs 2004;Biersteker 2009;Hagmann and Biersteker 2014) and teaching practices around the world and in multi-cultural classrooms (Kasimovskaya 2002;Prasirtsuk 2008;Balakrishnan 2009;Chong and Hamilton-Hart 2009;Chong and Tan 2009;Hadiwinata 2009;Minh 2009; McMahon and Zou 2011; Bertrand and Lee 2012; Faria 2012)-it may nonetheless be of interest to this tradition to because most chapters are written by students, several of whom actively engage their classroom experiences as recipients of IR discourse in a productive encounter with the overarching 'Globalizing IR' debate. This engagement should promote reflexivity about our scholarly positionality and how it affects the research we do, for IR students and teachers alike.…”

Revisiting the “American Social Science”-Mapping the Geography of International Relations

“…Other studies of the "Americanness" of IR rely on one specific methodology such as the questionnaire-based TRIP survey that studies the subjective self-perceptions of scholars, initially in the United States and later extended to a wider set of counties (Maliniak et al 2012; see also Hamati-Ataya 2011). Another literature has studied how IR is taught in the United States and around the world by looking at the syllabi and textbooks used to teach IR courses (Alker and Biersteker 1984;Holsti 1985;Robles 1993;Nossal 2001;Friedrichs 2004;Biersteker 2009;Hagmann and Biersteker 2012). The latter approach is a useful way to examine what is read, assigned, debated, and thus what disciplines students, but it has been questioned whether textbooks and syllabi provide good indicators of the discipline.…”