Teaching International Relations Theory

03/04/2018 Teaching International Relations Theory - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies
Teaching International Relations Theory

Craig Douglas Albert
Print Publication Date: Mar 2010 Subject: International Relations Theory, Pedagogy Online Publication Date: Dec 2017
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.312
Summary and Keywords
International relations (IR) theory is favorably described in almost every syllabus since 1930. The most important
questions asked were: “What is theory?” and “Is there a reason for IR theory?” The most widely used texts all focus on
the first question and suggest, among others, that IR theory is “a way of making the world or some part of it more
intelligible or better understood.” We can gauge where the teaching of IR theory is today by analyzing a sample of syllabi
from IR scholars serving on the Advisory Board of the International Studies Association’s (ISA) Compendium Project.
These syllabi reveal some trends. Within the eight undergraduate syllabi, for example, a general introduction to IR theory
is taught in four separate classes. Among the theories discussed in different classes are realism, classical realism, neo-
realism, Marxism and neo-Marxism, world-systems theory, imperialism, constructivism, and international political
economy. Novel methods for teaching IR theory include the use of films, active learning, and experiential learning. The
diversity of treatments of IR theory implied by the ISA syllabi provides evidence that, with the exception of the
proliferation of perspectives, relatively little has changed since the debates of the late 1930s. The discipline lacks much
semblance of unity regarding whether, and how, to offer IR theory to students. Nevertheless, there have been
improvements that are likely to continue in terms of the ways in which theories may be presented.
Keywords: international relations theory, syllabi, realism, Marxism, neo-Marxism, constructivism, international political economy, teaching
methods, active learning, experiential learning
Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to describe the teaching of international relations (IR) theory. To do so, the essay is divided
into three sections. The first section considers the concept of “IR theory” itself as reflected in the works of those who
write about it for students. Then, this essay rummages into the history of the teaching of IR theory beginning in the late
1930s. In order to understand the contemporary state of teaching IR theory, it is helpful to understand its origins. Finally,
this essay reviews how IR theory is presently taught, including its subjects, texts and other materials, methods and
pedagogy, including those focusing on active-learning techniques.
This essay relies heavily upon collected IR theory syllabi obtained from three sources. First, several published reviews of
the current teaching of IR were considered for clues on the materials actually used in courses. Second, historical
collections of syllabi were utilized (Zimmern 1939; Goodwin 1951; Davis and Gilbert 1968; Kornberg 1981). Finally,
several syllabi were gathered by personal request. The syllabi are broken into topics and reviewed for information on the
most widely used methods, articles and texts. For the purpose of this essay we consider those books most often used in IR
theory classrooms. In some instances, this essay will draw upon a few syllabi from courses not solely dedicated to IR
theory, but materials are only taken from relevant sections of such classes.
http://internationalstudies.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-312?result=2&rskey=ZZrUyi&print
Conceptualizing IR Theory
Almost every syllabus from 1930 onward contains a favored description of IR theory. The most important questions
asked were “what is theory?” and “is there a reason for IR theory?” Describing theory is a difficult task. As Dougherty
and Pfaltzgraff write, “Such a process [of theorizing] can hardly be taught. A textbook can do no more than show how
others have theorized…Students can judge for themselves whether a particular theory is insightful, satisfying, and
promising” (2001:28). The most widely used texts all consider the question of “what is IR theory?”. These works include
Burchill and Linklater (2005) and Viotti and Kauppi (1999), each of which are used in six undergraduate classes (but not
generally in the graduate syllabi collected). Kenneth Waltz (1979) was used in four classes, three at the undergrad level
and one at the graduate. Stephen Walt’s 1998 article, “One World, Many Theories,” was also used in four classes (equally
among the graduate and undergraduate offerings). Sterling-Folker (2006) was used in three undergraduate classes. I have
used Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff (2001) to help conceptualize IR theory for students, and although several colleagues
mentioned it as a text from which they derive orienting questions and reviews of classic literature, it seems to have fallen
out of favor on contemporary syllabi. The remainder of the books listed in syllabi concerning the conceptualization of IR
theory did not appear in any more than two classes. Notable examples include Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations,
Wallerstein’s World-Systems Analysis, and Keohane’s Neo-Realism and its Critics.
What do these texts tell students is the point of IR theory? Viotti and Kauppi suggest that IR theory is “a way of making
the world or some part of it more intelligible or better understood” (1999:3). Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff argue that,
“Theories have to be invented by a creative intellectual process that takes a number of disparate laws and generalizations,
simplifies them by isolating a few key factors, abstracting them from what is not relevant, aggregating them in a
previously unknown way, and synthesizing them in a new, ideal, quasi-perfect explanatory system” (2001:28). Specific
theories rise and fall in popularity, and new theories are developed with additions, modifications, and/or adjustments; thus
IR theory is never static. Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff continue:
[T]he essential function of international theory is to enable us to improve our knowledge concerning
international reality, whether for the sake of pure understanding or for the more active purpose of changing that
reality. Theory helps us to order our existing knowledge and to discover new knowledge more efficiently. It
provides a framework of thought in which we define research priorities and select the most appropriate
available tools for the gathering and analysis of data about phenomena. Theory directs our attention to
significant similarities and differences and suggests relationships not previously perceived. At its best, theory
serves as a proof that the powers of the human mind have been applied to a problem at hand with foresight,
imagination, and profundity, and this proof inspires others to further efforts for purposes either of agreeing or
disagreeing. (2001:49)
What types of IR theory exist? Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff argue that “Social Science theories can usually be categorized
as historical-descriptive, which seek factual generalizations about past and present reality; scientific-predictive, which
employ mathematical correlations and point to probable futures; and speculative-normative, which deal deductively with
how things might be or should be improved” (2001:17). Further, Burchill and Linklater argue that there exist two main
types of theory: explanatory and constitutive. Explanatory theory “attempts to make better sense of the actors, structures,
institutions, processes and particular episodes mainly, but not only, in the contemporary world…At times theories may be
involved in testing hypotheses, in proposing causal explanations with a view to identifying main trends and patterns in
international relations” (2005:15).
Constitutive theory is concerned with how we approach the study of IR. It illustrates how one’s perceptions of the world
and the self (language, culture, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, class, gender, preconceptions, and specific life-experiences)
affect how theory is made. Constitutive theory creates awareness of one’s assumptions and how those assumptions can
influence theory or approach and celebrate diversity. Burchill and Linklater conclude “We can best do this by developing
an awareness of the diversity of images of international relations” (2005:18).
What does IR theory seek to explain? Here IR theory is divided into three main types. Grand theory, or meta-theory,
argues that all IR are caused by some initial generating foundation (as structural realists argue that the structure of an
anarchic system is determinative). Mid-level theory attempts to take one phenomenon (for example, conflict) and explain
it. Low-level theories may seek to explain the actions of a single actor, for example the policies of a particular state
through the perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and other characteristics of a state leader. According to Waltz, one must
understand what type of theory is needed based on the type of event being studied. Waltz explains,
To be a success…a theory has to show how international politics can be conceived of as a domain distinct from
the economic, social, and other international domains…To mark international-political systems from other
international systems, and to distinguish systems-level from uni-level forces, requires showing how political
structures are generated and how they affect, and are affected by, the units of the system. (1979:79)
Jennifer Sterling-Folker explains that in many definitions of IR theory, “there is a common assumption that there are
patterns to international events and that IR theory is about revealing those patterns”…“One way to think of IR theory is
as a set of templates or prepackaged analytical structures for the multiple ways in which an event or activity that is
international or transnational might be categorized, explained or understood” (2006:4–5). Walt agrees: “We need theories
to make sense of the blizzard of information that bombards us daily” (1998:110). For instructors of IR theory, then,
explanations of theory differ depending on the way scholars decide to understand theory itself.
There is an impulse in science, whether hard or social, to develop a theory of everything, but IR theory as revealed in
texts and syllabi generally deals with mid-level considerations and seeks to explain some part of a general phenomenon.
Consideration of grand theory is nonetheless the rule. Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff write, “Grand theory purports to explain
in a generalized way a wide range of international phenomena while rescinding from detailed variations in particular
cases” (2001:17). Burchill and Linklater contend, “There is no agreement about…the best line of argument in any theory,
and no agreement about whether their principal achievements can be combined in a unified grand theory” (2005:12).
IR Theory: Early Development to Contemporary Times

Between the 1930s and the 1950s, IR attempted to establish itself as a discipline separate from both politics and the other
social sciences (Goodwin 1951:12). During the International Studies Conferences of this period, scholars of IR sought to
create a curriculum because, from the student’s perspective “…who enters the University imbued with a desire to
understand his world and to perfect his capacity for construing his experience…must…make enquiry into the nature of
the relations between States, and peoples” (Goodwin 1951:12). The quest for understanding IR evidently arose from the
experiences during and between the two world wars. The study of history, economics, and politics did not adequately
explain or analyze world events.
In 1939, a compilation of discussions, debates, and course material involving the study and teaching of IR, an official
record of an international conference held at Prague in 1938, was edited by Zimmern (1939). The focus was on teaching a
newly formed discipline, separated from other social sciences and dedicated to studying the “interaction of groups”
within the international community. Although this conference was not specifically directed toward questions of theory, it
is an appropriate source to analyze the early development of the teaching of IR theory. The compilation provides a good
basis for study of the subject through more contemporaneous scholarship.
Analyzing the compilation has another value as well in that the discussions and opinions presented draw on scholars from
all over the globe. The Zimmern volume delivers global opinions on how IR is being taught, and how it ought to be
taught. The scope of the early teaching of IR theory transcends the narrowness scholars might assume for that period.
These opinions illustrate four central elements: first, the subject matter and methods of teaching of IR; second, its
academic organization; third, the principal obstacles in the development of teaching IR; and, lastly, the teaching of
international law in relation to the study of IR (Zimmern 1939:4). Of particular interest to the present essay is the very
fledgling regard for theory represented in the volume.
The literature suggests that an explicit concern with theory was mostly absent from early classrooms. What seems to have
occupied the majority of attention included political science, political economy, international law, geography, sociology,
and political and moral philosophy (Zimmern 1939:16). Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff contend that Zimmern thought,
“students who major in international relations wish that they knew more about history, politics, economics, geography,
demography, diplomacy, international law, ethics, religion, and nearly every branch of contemporary science and
technology” (2001:19). There was significant discussion about relevant topics among the participants of the 1938
conference. Alfred von Verdross, writing for the Austrian Co-ordinating Committee for International Studies, argues that
IR is a field belonging to sociology and its true title should be “international sociology” (1939). Verdross also argues that
it would be beneficial to focus more on international law within the study of international sociology.
The Canadian Institute of International Affairs, represented by Norman Mackenzie, also suggests that IR should involve
political science, geography, economics, international law, philosophy and the modern languages. He argues that the best
approach is at the undergraduate level. There is no mention of IR theory per se. The teaching of IR theory finally makes
an appearance in the report of the Chilean Institute of International Studies. It is the Chilean argument that the need of a
“science” or theory of IR is needed to help drive the field forward. Julio Escudero argues that the field must take a much
more specific and scientific approach. In response to the findings of a Professor Alvarez, Escudero explains that if there
is any social science whatsoever, there too must be, a fortiori, a “science of international relations,” which shows what
international life is and reveals its manifestations. This science would serve as the basis for what appears to be the most
important subject of early IR: the teaching and study of international law. Escudero explains, “Professor Alvarez believes
that this science is destined to be of great service to the study of international life” (Escudero 1939:32).
The need for a “science” of IR is also expressed by F.J. Pavelka of the Czechoslovak Co-ordinating Committee for
International Studies. He argues that the discipline must be divided between the general and the specific, and that the
specifics would demand an entirely new university – one that is a special, scientific institution. Pavelka suggests that the
study of IR, “presupposes not only preliminary and special knowledge, but also a critical effort: the will to conceive the
realities of international life in a given connection as they are and not as they appear to be” (Pavelka 1939:37). Within the
specifics or higher studies of IR, Waclaw Komarnicki of the Polish Coordinating Committee for International Studies
calls for the teaching of IR theory as well as a general study of topics. He writes, “In the first we find the causal
statement, and in the second the qualitative appreciations” (Komarnicki 1939:43). Komarnicki goes on to define the
parameters of IR theory: “The theory of international relations should aim at clarifying the essential nature of the
international community, not in the metaphysical sense of the word, but from the point of view of research bearing on a
certain distinct category of sociological phenomena which we call international relations” (1939:43). He laments that
(excluding his work) the study and teaching of IR has not been influenced by a “theory” of IR. Rather, its teaching has
focused on the juristic or historical-political perspective. However, he argues, “In addition to studying the form of these
relations and the concrete facts by which they are made manifest, it is indispensable to study their essential nature, that is
the phenomena which constitute the substratum” (1939:44). Antoni Deryng (1939), also from Poland, adds to
Komarnicki’s ideas the objective study of IR. Complete detachment is required to truly understand the subject.
Mihai Antonesco of the Romanian Social Institute suggests that IR has often been a “static, descriptive viewpoint,
confined to the observation of positive international relations as they arise, in the form of concrete facts” (Antonesco
1939:78), or “from an analytic, genetic viewpoint, involving a value judgment, critically dissecting the concrete facts and
the social phenomena, with the tendency and the objective of creating a spiritual influence on international relations, by
the discovery of permanent scientific guiding principles and the creation of a dogmatic system which will enable us to
control international relations in the future” (Antonesco 1939:78). Although this second path seems less scientific, it is
the direction Antonesco recommends because it specifically calls for a theory of IR to be studied and taught. Antonesco
concludes that “The complexity of international relations requires that science should make an effort not only to ascertain
the facts, but also to determine and to dominate material circumstances and to direct them, by systems of doctrine, by
principles of generalization which should end by winning the widest possible acceptance” (Antonesco 1939:79).
This brief account of the International Studies Conference of 1938 evinces two points. First, IR in its infancy was taught
with little consideration and even less agreement about theory. The discipline was more a presentation of facts from
various disciplines. Second, scholars do begin to debate the merits of extending the discipline into a scientific endeavor
that focuses not only on presentation of facts, but on the way in which to investigate causality, to analyze information,
and to create permanent guiding laws.
The University Teaching of International Relations was published in 1951 following a similar conference held in
Windsor, England. It shows surprisingly little progress in terms of thinking about IR theory. Scholars from Geneva (Paul
Mantoux), Italy (G. Arangio-Ruiz), and France (Jacques Chapsal) wrote as if they attended the ISC over one decade
earlier. Teaching IR did not involve any debate about theory and was preoccupied with traditional subjects: international
law, international organizations, history, sociology, and tidbits from other disciplines. From their descriptions, we notice
that scientific method, objective analysis, and generalizing patterns of behavior, insofar as these constitute elements of
theory in the 1950s, were not primary concerns in teaching.
Theory does make a slight breakthrough in the US, however, as discussed by Professor Edgar S. Furniss. Although there
is no mention of theory proper, important elements of theory as identified in the 1938 volume are present in his 1951
proposals for how IR should be taught. Furniss suggests that “Circumstances arising from the war and from American
participation therein, caused, therefore, accelerated development of the study of international relations in the United
States….There could be no substitute for the exhaustive, time-consuming labour of attempting to understand the
bewildering ramification of factors underlying state relations” (1951:99). Furniss argues that the world wars and the Cold
War triggered new methods and approaches to studying inter-state relations. He asks, “Can there be evolved a conceptual
framework which can be utilized to determine the relevancy and measure the meaning of the data which is commonly
accepted to fall within the field of international relations?” (1951:99). His answer postulates the role that IR theory will
come to play in the future. Teaching IR theory is illustrated by Furniss’s four categories of IR: (i) the elements which
combine to make up the power states bring to bear for the attainment of objectives; (ii) how states utilize power; (iii)
analysis of aims and objectives and instruments of state policy including political, ideological, economic, and militaristic
assets; and (iv) teaching IR should include mechanisms for regulating state conflict (1951:104). It is clear from Furniss’s
essay that a more concrete analytic for IR was desired and would be required for truly understanding relations between
states. No longer were history, sociology, and international law enough to explain the system. Similar pressures were
evidenced in comments made by Geoffrey L. Goodwin of the UK. Goodwin offers an overview of the international
system that is historical in its approach and contrasts it with a more useful form: “Thus, the historically-minded teacher of
International Relations will be more preoccupied with recounting what happened rather than in showing why” while an
alternative approach will be “primarily concerned with analysis, with the similarities of occurrences and with elucidating
fundamental uniformities. [This] method will be essentially comparative, and [it] may argue a certain timelessness about
[the] approach, present, past and even the speculative future” (1951:118). Goodwin argues that both approaches are
useful and necessary, but that the former is mistakenly more prevalent than the latter. In effect, he is arguing for a more
systematic and theoretical approach to teaching IR.
Although not exhaustive, Davis and Gilbert’s (1968) compilation of syllabi covering basic courses in IR allows access to
what and how much theory was offered. The material is not restricted to IR theory, but to what was understood as IR
throughout the 1960s. This collection is interesting because many of the contributors wrote in their syllabi about how and
why their courses were to be taught. Many of them describe their vision of IR, and many discuss at length their ideas
about pedagogy. A few also discuss the failures of contemporary education and how to correct them. Many refer to the
traditional “liberal arts education” as the cure for the problem.
In this set of syllabi we find that war and conflict are ever present and guide theoretical discussion. Burchill and Linklater
comment that this period “…saw the rapid proliferation to the field. The preoccupation with war and conflict remained,
the nuclear age leading to the rise of a new subfield of strategic studies in the 1950s and 1960s” (2005:10). This is an
interesting shift from earlier discussions of IR in the International Studies Conferences that focused more on international
organization and international law. Also interesting is the 100-plus pages of required reading per week. Of the 15 syllabi
selected by Davis and Gilbert to demonstrate what is being taught in IR, more than half have large portions devoted to
science and theory. Seven mention IR theory within their accounts of how and why they will approach the subject. An
additional four syllabi have subject headings or full weeks devoted to IR theory. Three syllabi have no significant
mention of theory. To quote Arthur Gilbert’s syllabus for IR at the University of Denver: “It should be emphasized that
the survey of the postwar policies of the major states is, in this course, secondary to the primary enterprise of providing
‘theoretical handles’ with which to analyze future actions in world politics” (Davis and Gilbert 1968:46). A review of the
syllabi from 1968 reveals other interesting patterns. Most prevalent was discussion on levels-of-analysis and a significant
focus on Waltz’s Man, the State, and War. Nearly all touched upon Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations. In addition, a
serious emphasis was placed on theories of “the international system.” Within this scope, the balance of power
dominated, while general conceptualizations of realism and idealism were often introduced in light of “balance” issues.
Most syllabi placed substantial emphasis on theories of foreign policy and decision-making processes. Considerable
attention was also placed on teaching the “idea” of IR theory itself. Several classes focused on the scientific processes
associated with theory development and analysis. We also find that the “philosophy” of theory, and topics in political
philosophy, were often part of these courses. Of a total of 475 books assigned as required, only 37 were used by five or
more professors. Of a total of 560 articles required or recommended, only eight appeared five or more times. A variety of
readings were used, with only a few “seminal” examples.
The teaching of IR theory blossomed during the late 1960s and into the 1980s. In 1981, a compilation of syllabi specific
to IR theory was published (Kornberg), composed of 27 syllabi presented by 18 different professors, and the volume
included a graduate-level reading list for PhD exam preparation. One notices immediately that this newer compilation
contains a wider array of theories. Not only are realism, idealism, and various systems theories prevalent, but also
“theories” of international political economy and Marxism make their presence known, with a large portion of time
devoted to class struggle and resistance. Approximately 90 percent of the syllabi have at least one week devoted to IPE, a
significant change from a decade prior. There is also some consideration of communitarian/peace theories, game-
theoretical approaches, and quantitative analysis. Most classes are focused on systemic explanation of international
conflict with realism being the dominant subject.
Within the study of realism, alliance politics, arms races, deterrence, and nuclear proliferation are discussed at length.
Polarity, balance of power, and the levels-of-analysis construct are given significant attention. We see a transition from
teaching “idealism” to “liberalism,” with a focus on interdependence. The study of international organizations is still
limited when compared to the 1930s and 1940s. Bureaucratic politics reigns within theories of foreign policy. Further,
dependency theories and explanations of the North/South global divide are uniformly present. These perspectives are
sometimes collapsed into radicalism. Further, we see the entrance of American hegemony and imperialism in
radical/Marxist treatments. There are also several topics that begin to make a limited appearance, including
ecological/environmental concerns. Unlike the 1968 compilation, explanations of why IR theory is needed are less
obvious. No syllabi discuss pedagogy at length, as did some in the earlier compilation. Also noteworthy is the heavy
reliance on political philosophy in developing and teaching IR theory. Appearing here are not just the typical Thucydides,
Hobbes, and Machiavelli, but also unfashionable philosophers – at least in IR – including those of the Natural Law
tradition from the Stoics to Vattel, Montesquieu, and Nietzsche.
To analyze where the teaching of IR theory is today, this author requested IR theory syllabi from IR scholars serving on
the Advisory Board of the ISA Compendium Project. Of the more than 25 members of that board, nearly half noted that
there was no IR theory course at the undergraduate level at their institutions. The resulting small sample (eight
undergraduate syllabi and eight postgraduate) does not support any rigorous generalization, but is sufficient to begin the
process of comparison with work from previous decades. Three things are striking upon initial examination. First, when
IR theory was presented it was being offered in a more comparative manner. Typical, perhaps, were arguments offered by
Harry Targ about how to approach IR theory in the classroom. Targ presents three principles for teaching an
undergraduate introduction to IR that closely relates to teaching theory. He suggests that because all students have a set
understanding of the world by the time they enter college, teachers should “assist students in articulating the implicit
theory they have been raised with and find the most convincing” (1980:75). Targ further suggests that one must not only
present the approaches to IR most students are likely to have, but expose them to ideas, thoughts, and theories they may
not know or have not thought about in any critical manner. For that reason, Targ’s second principle draws attention to
alternate theories of IR and their comparison within the classroom. In a recent work, Stephen Walt agrees: “Competition
between theories helps reveal their strengths and weaknesses and spurs subsequent refinements, while revealing flaws in
conventional wisdom” (1998:111). Targ argues that the fundamental laws and supposed truths to each theory must be
discussed as well as their impact on foreign decision-making and the future prospect of the theory itself: “An introductory
course could be organized around [realism, behavioralism, Marxism/Leninism, and radicalism]. Each could be treated
rigorously and seriously in such a way that students will be able to articulate their own theory or accept one that is more
convincing” (1980:77). The main points in Targ’s pedagogy are that students are and should be treated as IR theorists and
should be properly exposed to the diversity of IR theory.
A second striking element of this work is that whereas realism dominated classes in the past and was only just beginning
to give way in the syllabi of the 1968 compilation, the number and types of theory discussed have greatly increased.
Together with traditional approaches to realism, we notice liberalism, Marxism, and constructivist theories in the 1980s,
and the English School. There is specifically a large focus on critical theories: postmodernism, feminism,
poststructuralism, and critical theory. “Green” theory is present within most of the graduate-level classes though it is
ignored in all but one undergraduate course. Theories of nationalism and ethnic conflict also appear, something
surprisingly absent from offerings in previous decades, though these are covered more extensively in graduate-level
courses than their undergraduate counterparts. Finally and unfortunately, rather than a description of pedagogy, most
syllabi provide only a summary of grading schema. We also note a decline in the use of political philosophy. There is the
ubiquitous mention of Thucydides and Machiavelli, but nowhere is the subject taught as deeply as in previous decades.
Only in a few select graduate syllabi is a treatment of political philosophy retained. Less prominent as well are
discussions of levels-of-analysis and theories of foreign policy, though these are taught in classes tailored to foreign
policy.
Current Topics in IR Theory

The few syllabi collected for the current period reveal some trends, though readers are once again warned that the small
number of examples make generalizations impossible. Within the eight undergraduate syllabi, a general introduction to
IR theory is taught in four separate classes. Science, methodology, research design, and statistics were included in two
classes. Realism, classical realism, and neo-realism are discussed in some manner in five classes. These subjects are the
specific focus of particular weeks. Realism is covered in other syllabi that have the subjects of war, conflict, violence, and
power as weekly topics. Even so, it is notable that realism is only substantially covered in two-thirds of the syllabi
collected. Liberalism, institutionalism, and neo-liberalism were covered in seven separate classes, and these terms were
specifically mentioned as weekly subjects. Concepts closely associated with liberalism were covered in every class,
including globalization, enlightenment philosophy, legitimization, idealism, international ethics and law, international
organizations, and public goods.
Marxism and neo-Marxism were covered in four of the eight undergraduate classes, with world-systems theory,
imperialism, and dependency theory being specific themes. Constructivism was covered in seven classes, with themes
including identity construction and anarchy. Four classes considered the English School, though any particular themes
were not detailed. Critical theories of various matters, mostly postmodernism, but excluding feminism, were covered in
six of the eight syllabi. As with the English School, the syllabi did not contain specifics on what topics were being
considered, the one exception being genealogy. Feminism was mentioned as a specific weekly subject six times, with
specific topics including sexual identities, gender-roles, and gender and war. Green politics was covered in only one class.
In summary, constructivism, feminism, critical theory, and liberalism were covered in a majority of classes while realism,
Marxism, and the English School were in roughly half of the undergraduate classes examined.
Out of the eight graduate syllabi collected, only one class featured a general overview. Four classes had a section
concerned with IR theory and science that considered methodology, epistemology, and ontology. Two classes explicitly
dealt with the question “what is IR?” and one conceptualized “grand theory” versus other theories. Realism was either
taught in a week by itself or combined with neo-realism and/or classical realism in seven of the eight syllabi. This is
clearly different than the undergraduate classes. Within realism, several of the themes touched upon were offensive versus
defensive realism, interstate conflict/war/peace, war/deterrence/alliances, structure and anarchy, balancing, empire,
hegemony, territory and war, sovereignty and the system, and nuclear deterrence. Liberalism, including institutionalism
and neoliberalism, was discussed at length in seven of the eight syllabi. Specific topics included globalization as the end
of IR, transnationalism, regimes/institutions/organizations, and the democratic peace theory. Constructivism was
discussed in all eight classes with particular topics devoted to norms, state identities, and the move beyond states.
International political economy was taught in only three classes while Marxism/neo-Marxism and poststructuralism were
talked about in four classes. Specific subjects within weeks devoted to Marxism included development, world-systems,
and dependency. The English School was discussed at length in three classes. Critical theory was mentioned in five
classes. Foreign policy was mentioned in only two classes, and featured a focus on decision-making and comparative
foreign policy. Feminism was taught in five classes, with one focusing on feminism and international security. Rational
choice/game theory was in two classes. Psychological and cognitive approaches were mentioned in two classes as was
political theory. International political sociology, post-positivism, and green politics were mentioned in only one class
(not the same one). Several other weeks were designed to discuss specific topics but are not associated with a particular
theory. These include ethnic conflict, terrorism, nationalism, human rights, domestic factors of IR, ideas/norms/identity,
state/nation, trade/development/globalism, private military contractors, and perceptions/beliefs/learning.
IR Theory: Pedagogy and Methodology

Guzzini (2001) gives several reasons why treatments of theory are necessary in IR, despite the alleged futility of offering
such topics to undergraduates. He first argues that empirical analysis requires a theoretical framework to communicate
why data are relevant or important. Theory is the common and (hopefully) coherent explanation for patterns among a
variety of specific instances. As such, IR theory is both explanatory and constitutive. Theory does not merely follow from
the accumulation of knowledge, but is the necessary condition for “the very possibility of knowledge. Without concepts
that cut through the forest of empirical data, we would be unable to see the wood for the tree” (2001:99). Guzzini argues
that teaching theory fulfils the “crucial role of a more time-independent intellectual education” (2001:103). Theory is
necessary for the acquisition of intellectual self-distance and reflexivity. Theoretical knowledge is also necessary for
understanding and negotiating across international boundaries. Conversely, without theory, IR scholars would occupy
what Guzzini considers the peripheral position of academic communities, something akin to stenography. He concludes:
“Theoretical expertise is…part of the way out” (2001:99).
There have always been differences in how scholars teach and approach IR. Teachers from different countries,
institutions, and even departments within institutions tend to diverge (Goodwin 1951:14). There is not, should not be, nor
is it ever likely that there will develop any orthodox or strict conceptualization of what is to be covered in the teaching of
IR or IR theory. Disagreements on the ends and means of teaching IR supply an indispensably wide range of ideas and
facts about why events occur the way they do. Orthodox methods of teaching or a narrow focus on specific phenomena
show ignorance, and, in the wrong hands, can be “dangerous to others, though…chiefly to themselves” (Goodwin
1951:15). Several ways of teaching theory are suggested in the more current literature.
Guzzini (2001) presents four approaches he believes are best suited for teaching IR theory. It is unnecessary to reproduce
each approach in this essay, and it will suffice to merely make mention of each. First is “history of thought,” a
methodology used mostly, if rarely, on the European continent. Two styles exist within this framework: one can refer to
the philosophical forerunners of modern theory, or to the post–World War I “parents” of modern theory. Secondly,
Guzzini presents an “inter-paradigm debate,” which “consists of presenting theory as a menu for choosing between
clusters of assumptions bundled as schools of thought or paradigms” (2001:109). He suggests that professors scrutinize
events in light of every approach in order to explain any event through any approach. Guzzini argues that this process can
be helped along by using scholarly articles as examples, small assignments to generate and compare explanations based
on different theories, and newspaper articles to tease out the underlying assumptions. Since how a class is taught depends
upon its size, the second approach cannot easily be used in large classes that are lecture-dominant. The third approach
involves focusing on specific concepts such as “power,” “security,” or “world society” to explain how the meaning and
operationalizations of each diverge from one theory to another (2001:110). The final approach encourages curiosity and
critical thinking by forcing the class to confront different interpretations of an international event (Guzzini suggests the
Cold War) through different theoretical lenses. Courses should discuss the relative value of each interpretation on
different levels, including empirical accuracy, internal coherence, and the plausibility of assumptions (2001:110).
Kacowicz (1993:76) also provides four approaches to the teaching of IR theory: building-blocks, comprehensive,
epistemological, and paradigmatic. The building-blocks approach consists of lectures on theoretical elements mixed with
discussion group sessions. A building-block is added weekly, and each is designed to build upon the information taught
during the prior week. The objective is to link each subject by providing more information and transitioning to the next
lesson. By the end of the course, students are expected to clearly analyze how each theory applies to international events.
The comprehensive approach consists of offering a general theoretical and historical combination of different themes in
IR. As with the building-blocks method, this approach utilizes both lecture and discussion groups. The epistemological
approach focuses upon a “strong methodological and epistemological concern with the scientific approach” (1993:77). It
also utilizes lecture and discussion group sessions, but includes simulations that illustrate the decision-making process.
The paradigmatic approach focuses upon teaching theory by comparing two issues such as conflict versus cooperation. It
consists of lectures, discussion groups, and a film that illustrates the decision-making process (1993:77).
Ba and Hoffmann (2003) use three steps in teaching constructivism. The first is a lecture that highlights three changes in
the past 100 years. This lecture illustrates why IR needs a fresh theory to explain the emergence and strengthening of the
EU, the end of Apartheid, and the ban on chemical weapons. These topics create discussion that demonstrates the main
principles of constructivist thought (2003:16). Secondly, the lecture explains the empirical evidence in detail in order to
provide four aspects of the theory, including the permissiveness of anarchy, the role of norms, identity, and power
(2003:17). Lastly, the lecture offers a “take-home” message about social constructivism that summarizes its main
arguments (2003:17). This approach exposes students to alternate theories and teaches them how to think like a
constructivist by applying the theory to empirical cases. Although this method was specific to constructivist thought, it
can easily be applied to other theories.
Other commonly used and problematic teaching methods are described by Stienstra (2000:236) as “see no evil, read no
evil, teach no evil.” This pedagogical approach centers on teaching IR by focusing upon the realist perspective. The
method acknowledges the existence of other theories but realism is presented as the dominant framework in the field. All
content covered in the classroom, whether through books, lectures, or classroom discussions, is examined through a
realist lens. Issues that are not best explained by realism are generally not covered, and students leave with only a partial
understanding of the international arena. This is unfortunate because it is narrow. Presenting only one approach as truth is
unfair at best and deliberately manipulative at worst. Professors and students must be aware of the existence of many
approaches that explain world events. Otherwise, professors may actually “construct” minds rather than guide them. As
Targ wrote, “To the extent that we teach one paradigm over another, we are shaping the interpretations of experience of
our students” (1980:74). In this instance, the university and IR specifically become not only biased but dogmatically so,
stifling debate and discontent, an action that would make Socrates and Aristotle shudder.
Stienstra argues that the field has evolved greatly since the 1980s and pedagogy must reflect this. She advocates a
“multiple paradigms” approach which focuses upon the inter-paradigm debate between realism, liberalism, and critical
theory: “This perspective suggests that there are at least three different and historically developed approaches to IR, each
of which is…legitimate…Students learn to place themselves in relation to the approaches and evaluate knowledge from
their location” (Stienstra 2000:238; see also Mertus 2007). Stienstra suggests using several texts with differing
approaches to answer different questions, and stresses using different methods in the classroom and adjusting them
according to their effectiveness in a given context. She proposes using traditional lectures and being mindful that some
students learn best through verbal communication and others through visual presentations. She also recommends small
group projects, internet-based simulations that allow students to control the classroom, and reassessing the curriculum
according to students’ needs and wants. The professor’s task is to stress the importance of using different styles and
approaches to create an effective learning environment.
Other teachers also stress the importance of using different teaching styles in the classroom. Boyer et al. argue that
“Multiple methods of teaching and learning are an invaluable methodology for bringing [theoretical] concepts into
intellectual focus” (2006:68). Oestreich uses a similar pedagogy to “call into question the logic and appropriateness of
standard rational choice models” (2007:327). He advises teaching different schools of thought (though he focuses on
gender analysis) which provide “a good foil for the more traditional approaches, and gets students thinking about the
assumptions that lie at the bottom of the basic paradigms” (2007:327).
Teaching Theory: A Brief Illustration of Novel Methods

In the syllabi collected by this author, several classes utilized films in order to illuminate theory. These films included The
Long Road to War, Lord of the Flies, Control Room, Howards End, and Hotel Rwanda (see Weber 2001 for more
suggestions). Weber argues that popular films encourage critical analysis of IR theory. Using films helps students to
better grasp the diversity and the truth and/or falsity of theoretical premises and assumptions, “By asking students to
think about how the truth was told in each IR tradition and the IR slogan through these popular films” (2001:284).
Further, pairing IR theories with popular film teaches students how to be critical readers and writers of “narratives” about
IR (p. 281). In viewing films, students can assess what is true versus what appears to be truth. This teaches students to do
the same with theory and to be critical of each truth that each theory purports to uncover. Weber insists that there are
several implications to this technique. Often students have a hard time grasping the concepts of theory because they have
not “experienced” them. They are not accustomed to thinking theoretically. Marks comments, “As students,
undergraduates are prone to be unfamiliar with abstract theory…They appear to have difficulty in conceptualizing…and
therefore lack the necessary tools to make sense of the range of topics included in international affairs…Students who are
incapable of approaching international studies without personalizing the subject are not equipped to enter the world as
fully trained scholars” (2002:26).
Popular film can remedy this. Through film, students can “see” theory being acted out and begin to understand. Webber
comments, “students need to be able to view and identify with the various narratives used to describe international
politics by first seeing them acted out and then only later can they understand them in conceptual form by referencing
them as isms” (2005:388, emphasis original). Most importantly, students learn that IR theory is ubiquitous. Although
referring to the literary work rather than the recent films, Ruane and James purport that Lord of the Rings “can be used as
a pedagogical light to illustrate the historical context and current debate within both problem solving and critical forms of
IR theory…In addition, it can be used as a pedagogical mirror to elucidate how paradigms provide a form of tunnel vision
that both illuminate and restrict understanding of our world” (2008:377). The movie can be substituted for the novel if,
and only if, time and other material do not permit the use of literature.
Judging from the collected syllabi, one substantial new pedagological tool is active learning. Erskine explains, “A
powerful point to emerge from a number of studies of active teaching and learning is that students remember and
understand material much more thoroughly if they are participants in its interpretation and application, rather than simply
passive recipients of knowledge” (2006:191). The hardest part of active learning is that professors must spend more time
in developing a logical and thematic schema that has clear objectives and goals. This may be particularly difficult for
those professors working at tenure in more research-oriented institutions.
According to Shinko (2006), another active-learning technique is experiential learning, which is associated with three
principles. First, students must become active participants in self-learning. Second, students must begin to understand
connections between theory and praxis outside the classroom, in other words in the “real” world. Finally, students must
become actively responsible for the integration of knowledge into their personal conceptual vision. Shinko has two
objects in this approach. The first is to introduce students to the key parts of each theoretical path. Her second objective is
to teach students how to integrate each approach personally and help them learn how each lens “directs” one’s view
toward the outside world. As a correlate, Shinko wants to “create an academic environment that would encourage
intellectual risk taking, critical reflection, and open-ended thinking” (2006:44). Shinko goes on to state that the positive
effects of experiential learning are that it (i) mirrors the complex, real-world politics inside the classroom and (ii)
demonstrates the diverse perspectives constructed from IR. This point advances both tolerance and diversity. She
concludes by writing, “I want them to have fun and ultimately recognize that not one of us is in possession of a
privileged, Archimedean view. Inevitably, we must work together in a setting of mutual tolerance that we are responsible
for putting into place” (2006:49).
Duffy (2001) also advocates the experiential technique. He explains that the purpose of experiential learning is to actually
experience the building-blocks of IR theory. To do so, Duffy utilized the game of croquet. The fundamentals of IR are
presented to the students during the first part of the semester, before introducing the game. After the initial explanations,
the class begins croquet. Once completed, students are given several questions to consider. Students then build their own
behavioral models of the game. Croquet itself is a competitive and complex game that includes two teams competing for
points. In so doing, each team, as in any sport, develops different strategies and tactics on how to win. Several of these
strategies and tactics are then described in detail, with each relating to the way states compete with one another. By
actively participating in a game and learning its rules and concepts, students can apply the theory presented in class to the
game itself. The experience of actually “using” theoretical concepts on the field provides students with a better way to
understand the material. Each theory presented in the classroom is compared to the styles that different teams use to
interact with one another.
The Future
The diversity of treatments of IR theory, even within the small universe of IR theory syllabi that were collected, suggests
that with the exception of the proliferation of perspectives, relatively little has changed since the debates of the late
1930s. The discipline lacks much semblance of unity regarding whether, and how, to offer IR theory to students. But
conditions have improved, and are likely to continue to improve, in terms of the ways in which theories may be
presented.
References
Antonesco, A. (1939) Rumania: The University Teaching of International Relations. In Sir A. Zimmern (ed.) University
Teaching of International Relations: International Studies Conference. Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Co-
Operation, League of Nations, pp. 78–87.
Find this resource:
Ba, A., and Hoffmann, M.J. (2003) Making and Remaking the World for IR 101: A Resource for Teaching Social
Constructionism in Introductory Courses. International Studies Perspectives 4 (1), 15–33.
Find this resource:
Boyer, M., Trumbore, P., and Fricke, D. (2006) Teaching Theories of International Political Economy from the Pit: A
Simple In-Class Simulation. International Studies Perspectives 7, 67–76.
Find this resource:
Burchill, S., and Linklater, A. (2005) Theories of International Relations, 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Find this resource:
Davis, V., and Gilbert, A. (eds.) (1968) Basic Courses in International Relations: An Anthology of Syllabi. Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Find this resource:
Deryng, A. (1939) Methods of Scientific Research and Methods of University Teaching and the Subject of International
Relations. In Sir A. Zimmern (ed.) University Teaching of International Relations: International Studies Conference.
Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Co-Operation, League of Nations, pp. 50–6.
Find this resource:
Dougherty, J., and Pfaltzgraff, J.R.P. (2001) Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey,
5th edn. New York: Longman.
Find this resource:
Duffy, S. (2001) Teaching with a Mallet: Conveying an Understanding of Systemic Perspectives on International
Relations Intuitively – Croquet as Experiential Learning. International Studies Perspectives 2, 384–400.
Find this resource:
Erskine, T. (2006) Teaching the Ethics of War: Applying Theory to “Hard Cases.” International Studies Perspectives 7,
187–203.
Find this resource:
Escudero, J. (1939) Chile: The Necessity of the Study of International Relations. In Sir A. Zimmern (ed.) University
Find this resource:
Furniss, E. (1951) Theory and Practice in the Teaching of International Relations in the US. In G. Goodwin (ed.) The
University Teaching of International Relations. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 94–109.
Find this resource:
Goodwin, G. (1951) Teaching of International Relations in Universities in the United Kingdom. In G. Goodwin (ed.) The
University Teaching of International Relations. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 109–26.
Find this resource:
Guzzini, S. (2001) The Significance and Roles of Teaching Theory in International Relations. Journal of International
Relations and Development 4 (2), 98–117.
Find this resource:
Kacowicz, A. (1993) Teaching International Relations in a Changing World: Four Approaches. Political Science and
Politics 26(1), 76–80.
Find this resource:
Keohane, R. (ed.) (1986) Neo-Realism and its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Find this resource:
Komarnicki, W. (1939) Poland: The Study and Teaching of International Relations. In Sir A. Zimmern (ed.) University
Find this resource:
Kornberg, A. (ed.) (1981) Political Science Reading Lists and Course Outlines Volume 5: US Theories of International
Relations. Durham: Eno River Press.
Find this resource:
Mackenzie, N. (1939) Canada: The University Teaching of International Relations. In Sir A. Zimmern (ed.) University
Find this resource:
Marks, M. (2002) The “We” Problem in Teaching International Studies. International Studies Perspectives 3, 25–41.
Find this resource:
Mertus, J. (2007) Teaching Gender in International Relations. International Studies Perspectives 8 (3), 323–5.
Find this resource:
Morgenthau, H. (1983) Politics Among Nations. New York: Alfred Knopf.

Find this resource:
Oestreich, J. (2007) Teaching Gender and International Relations. International Studies Perspectives 8, 326–9.
Find this resource:
Pavelka, F.J. (1939) The Study of International Relations. In Sir A. Zimmern (ed.) University Teaching of International
Relations: International Studies Conference. Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Co-Operation, League of
Nations, pp. 35–7.
Find this resource:
Ruane, A., and James, P. (2008) The International Relations of Middle-earth: Learning from the Lord of the Rings.
International Studies Perspectives 9, 377–94.
Find this resource:
Shinko, R. (2006) Thinking, Doing, and Writing International Relations Theory. International Studies Perspectives 7, 43–
50.
Find this resource:
Sterling-Folker, J. (2006) Making Sense of International Relations Theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Find this resource:
Stienstra, D. (2000) Cutting to Gender: Teaching Gender in International Relations. International Studies Perspectives 1,
233–44.
Find this resource:
Targ, H. (1980) Competing Theories of International Relations: An Essay on Teaching. Peace and Change 6 (1–2), 74–
80.
Find this resource:
Verdross, A. (1939) Austria: International Relations. In Sir A. Zimmern (ed.) University Teaching of International
Relations: International Studies Conference. Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Co-Operation, League of
Nations, pp. 23–6.
Find this resource:
Viotti, P., and Kauppi, M. (1999) Theories of International Relations, 3rd edn. Upper Saddler River: Prentice Hall.
Find this resource:
Wallerstein, I. (1994) World-Systems Analysis. Durham: Duke University Press.

Find this resource:
Walt, S. (1998) One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy 110, 29–46.
Find this resource:
Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Find this resource:
Webber, J. (2005) Independence Day as a Cosmopolitan Moment: Teaching International Relations. International Studies
Perspectives 6, 374–92.
Find this resource:
Weber, C. (2001) The Highs and Lows of Teaching IR Theory: Using Popular Films for Theoretical Critique.
International Studies Perspectives 2, 281–7.
Find this resource:
Zimmern, Sir A. (ed.) (1939) University Teaching of International Relations: International Studies Conference. Paris:
International Institute of Intellectual Co-Operation, League of Nations.
Find this resource:
Links to Digital Materials

International Studies Association. At www.isanet.org/, accessed August 19, 2009. Provides helpful information and links
for the study of international relations.
Active Learning in International Affairs Section (ALIAS) of the International Studies Association. At
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/alias.isa/home, accessed August 19, 2009. Specifically directed toward the development of
new ways of teaching international relations.
IR Theory website. At www.irtheory.com/links3.htm, accessed August 19, 2009. Contains a list of web-links to research
institutes dedicated to international relations.
Council on Foreign Relations – official website. At www.cfr.org/, accessed August 19, 2009. Provides details, news, and
analysis of contemporary international affairs.
The American Political Science Association’s website. At www.apsanet.org/content_3807.cfm, accessed August 19,
2009. The American Political Science Associations website for on-line syallbi.
The service learning website of the American Political Science Association. At www.apsanet.org/content_7584.cfm?
navID=546, accessed August 19, 2009.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank most of all Dr Robert Denemark for his gracious help and constant guidance. Special
thanks also to Dr Jessica Irons of James Madison University, Kyle Johnson, and Bruno Cortes, both recent graduates of
the University of Connecticut. Special appreciation also extends to all professors that sent in syllabi which laid the basis
of this essay.
Craig Douglas Albert

Department of Political Science, Augusta University
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All R
prohibited. Please see applicable Privacy Policy and Legal Notice.
date: 03 April 2018

Teaching International Relations Theory - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Teaching International Relations Theory - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

03/04/2018 Teaching International Relations Theory - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

Summary and Keywords

IR Theory: Early Development to Contemporary Times

Current Topics in IR Theory

IR Theory: Pedagogy and Methodology

Teaching Theory: A Brief Illustration of Novel Methods

Find this resource:

Morgenthau, H. (1983) Politics Among Nations. New York: Alfred Knopf.

Wallerstein, I. (1994) World-Systems Analysis. Durham: Duke University Press.

Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Links to Digital Materials

Craig Douglas Albert

date: 03 April 2018

Potrebbero piacerti anche