tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post1309441291216256988..comments2022-03-31T20:32:25.983-04:00Comments on PM's Question Time: Thoughts on Teaching Introduction to International RelationsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-32119657436650238662014-03-22T06:17:58.937-04:002014-03-22T06:17:58.937-04:00In Fall 2014 I might teach a large lecture intro t...In Fall 2014 I might teach a large lecture intro to IR course, with an emphasis on IPE and institutions ("dollars and cargo containers"). Someone else gets to teach the seminar on IR Theory. Anyway, I am scoping how to teach such a course and found your post very informative: thank you! BUT, it seems the World Politics textbook is no longer available. What other textbooks would you recommend? Karen Smith Stegenhttp://www.jacobs-university.de/directory/ksmithstegnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-44663515169971970552013-08-16T12:48:16.620-04:002013-08-16T12:48:16.620-04:00MAS, my email is rpm47 at-sign georgetown dot edu....MAS, my email is rpm47 at-sign georgetown dot edu. Happy to share. (There's a lot that you'd have to do in lecture to pull this together, but the kids liked having something written in English for the readings that day--you'll see what I mean when I send the syllabus.)<br /><br />Sorry you were stuck in moderation. I was on a long flight.PMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01209887971280315352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-81711929550811402542013-08-14T13:42:06.381-04:002013-08-14T13:42:06.381-04:00PM,
Thanks for this. I am teaching intro for the ...PM,<br /><br />Thanks for this. I am teaching intro for the first time this fall to a bunch of Freshman and your perspective is interesting. I was going to give you a small challenge on the history aspect (though I plan on teaching very little about the period you mention) but I think your discussion here with LFC has covered that.<br /><br />I was wondering if I could take a look at your material on the Mexican Drug War and the dark side of globalization (I plan on presenting 'globalization' as it is currently understood by those with a rosy view to it as being the dark side as well...). While I probably won't be able to use it this year I would like to have it sitting there to replace what doesn't really work in my current syllabus. <br /><br />If you are willing to share I am sure that I can find your email.MASnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-63905699758373889122013-07-11T22:29:19.375-04:002013-07-11T22:29:19.375-04:00It occurs to me that I have a couple of IR syllabi...It occurs to me that I have a couple of IR syllabi from the '70s, incl. the course I described; I suppose I cd supply you w copies at some pt, if you're interested.<br /><br />I did something else for a long time, then went back to school (i.e. grad school/IR) in the mid-90s. So I have the experience of taking courses in the 70s and then in the 90s -- bet not that many people can say that. Sh*t, when you don't have much to brag about, you boast about what you can. ;) LFChttp://howlatpluto.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-17041480202149728302013-07-11T22:08:24.241-04:002013-07-11T22:08:24.241-04:00Ok, not too much disagreement here between us afte...Ok, not too much disagreement here between us after all. Yes, global warming is more important than interwar alliance dynamics, esp. in an intro IR course. (The only trouble with the history-as-prereq idea is that probably most institutions don't in fact require it. Ideally they should.)<br /><br />LFChttp://howlatpluto.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-48221845907108802912013-07-11T19:17:12.050-04:002013-07-11T19:17:12.050-04:00If only! I've heard from others that Thucydide...If only! I've heard from others that Thucydides used to be more central (although one thing I've kept from my institution is opening and closing with the Melians). <br /><br />Perhaps it's the 1950s that I'm imagining instead...PMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01209887971280315352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-65584261920344907552013-07-11T19:16:23.098-04:002013-07-11T19:16:23.098-04:00I agree that students need some historical context...I agree that students need some historical context. And I do discuss e.g. World War II in some historical detail when it's necessary--just as I do with the Concert of Europe or the traditional Chinese international system (which is, er, more of a "stylized fact"). And I don't disbelieve that some students find some history to be useful. My objection is instead (a) that too many professors believe that historical background knowledge is WAY higher than it is and (b) that too many IR classes are teaching theories that are way more useful to understanding a world that is remote to the concerns of the contemporary international system. (Note that we agree that you can't understand the contemporary world without some knowledge of history; I simply believe that we should require a good history course as a prereq for IR, in the same way that algebra is a prereq for trigonometry.)<br /><br />YMMV about what those theories are, of course.<br /><br />I plan for 25 lectures a term. Less the first day, midterm and final, and so forth, that leaves me with 21 or 22 lectures to cover international relations. Within that time, I have to make some pretty significant decisions within constraints about (a) what I think students need to know for future courses in the discipline, (b) what students should know to understand the world today and the likely course of its development over the next 25 years, and (c) what I can teach best from (a) and (b) so that (d) they can understand the course material as best as possible. At this point, dealing with the intricacies of the interwar alliance system is, I believe, simply no longer a good use of a full lecture--but dealing with the implications of, say, collective-action theory for global warming is.<br /><br />My syllabus reflects a host of institutionally and individually idiosyncratic factors. Another instructor would definitely disagree with me on some of my choices, as I would with hers. But as a critique of the genre more generally, my experience does in fact lead me to believe that we could do more on the theory side and on the educating-about-the-world side by reshaping our courses to cope with the fundamental facts of unipolarity, instead of taking bipolarity as the baseline.PMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01209887971280315352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-39110879068970715702013-07-11T19:04:57.281-04:002013-07-11T19:04:57.281-04:00P.s. Another anecdote:
A year-and-several-months a...P.s. Another anecdote:<br />A year-and-several-months ago I gave a guest lecture on the decline of war in an intro to IR course (being taught by a friend). Mentioned WW1 at some length. Even the US Civil War in passing. Afterward a student came up to me and said how much she appreciated the historical perspective. So an exception to yr generalization.<br /><br />Btw I don't think it's possible to understand the contemporary world w/o some knowledge of history. If a student grasps Fearon's bargaining model of war perfectly and doesn't know anything about the Cold War or even something as recent as the Rwandan genocide or the Bosnian war, s/he is in trouble, imo.<br /><br />We have had similar arguments in the past in the Duck comment threads so no pt in going round again here.<br /> LFChttp://howlatpluto.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-21319642334453669152013-07-11T18:52:43.208-04:002013-07-11T18:52:43.208-04:00I'm commenting here (not waiting for the Duck ...I'm commenting here (not waiting for the Duck version) b/c I don't want a lot of people reading the comment. :)<br /><br />Ok -- I haven't read the whole post yet but this --<br /><br /><i>about twice a week I wish that I could teach a course in the style I imagine that IR was taught in during the 1970s, where we'd all get together, talk about Bismarck and Thucydides, and then, presumably, repair to the sitting room for brandy and cigars</i> --<br /><br />pushed a memory button or two. <br /><br />I was in college 1975-79. As a junior I took a seminar (called simply "international relations," iirc) taught by a grad student who was a protege of S. Hoffmann's. The first semester, which as it turned out was all I ended up taking (I switched to something else in the 2nd semester), was basically all diplomatic history. Wrote a paper on Bismarck, another on origins of WW1. <br /><br />But guess what? No brandy, no cigars. Darn.<br /><br />Also, it wasn't a standard IR course offered under the auspices of the pol sci/gov dept. I'm sure the standard survey IR course, even during the 70s, was less heavy on Bismarck. However, still no brandy or cigars. That's all in your head. (Maybe it happened at Oxford, substituting sherry for brandy, but I doubt it was a regular thing even there -- though I don't know for sure.) LFChttp://howlatpluto.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-27057446097385285062013-07-06T16:49:56.780-04:002013-07-06T16:49:56.780-04:00Makes sense.Makes sense.Phil Arenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07914096126693147647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-34269820112024468072013-07-06T16:49:08.848-04:002013-07-06T16:49:08.848-04:00Less time than you'd think--80% while I was pr...Less time than you'd think--80% while I was proctoring my final exam in this course, the rest after I finished grading. I won't be teaching it for at least another year, so I needed to save my impressions while they were fresh.PMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01209887971280315352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-84194890431865929822013-07-06T16:40:30.365-04:002013-07-06T16:40:30.365-04:00As they should. I think this will be of interest ...As they should. I think this will be of interest to many.<br /><br />I'm not sure it's worth as much time as I give it. But I do think that it's worth covering his explanations as well as his critique of extant ones if you're going to go there at all.<br /><br />Anyway, as I said, great post. It must have taken a long time to write, but I'm glad you did.Phil Arenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07914096126693147647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-4119028589821120802013-07-06T16:35:47.054-04:002013-07-06T16:35:47.054-04:00Thanks. Shorter but more refined variants of this ...Thanks. Shorter but more refined variants of this will be appearing on the Duck.<br /><br />I think you're on to something re: Fearon. I'd have to restructure a lot of the course to present war as you do but that is not a bad thing.PMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01209887971280315352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5432572017178461989.post-17148999805431100042013-07-06T16:13:17.193-04:002013-07-06T16:13:17.193-04:00Excellent post. Thanks for writing this.
I'...Excellent post. Thanks for writing this. <br /><br />I've had similar experiences. Almost ever IR text includes a chapter (or three) on the history of the international system, with special attention on the World Wars and the Cold War, and today's students just don't care. It doesn't come naturally to me, as a bombs and rockets person, but I share your view that we do a disservice if we don't spend a lot of time talking about political economy.<br /><br />I've tried problem sets. Sort of works, but mostly doesn't. I think the problem is that no one expects to have to do them in a poli sci course, and of course never will again. That leaves me with the choice of making them as hard as they should be, and failing 90% of my students, or making them so easy that only a handful of students really get anything out of them. After five years of teaching, I'm still stunned by how hard it is to get students to engage with ANY amount of mathematics, even if you water it down a ton and hold their hand the whole way.<br /><br />Re: the bargaining model of war, I think part of the problem is presenting Fearon as arguing that war makes no sense. War is a violation of the most basic model (with complete information and no rapid shifts in power), but if you present the rest of his argument, it no longer seems so puzzling. Myself, I spend one lecture on his proof that war is inefficient (mostly just to introduce the basic terms and symbols I'll use as we move forward) and then devote several lectures to information and commitment problem explanations of war. Granted, the students don't seem to grasp much of the nuance of those explanations, and I probably shouldn't spend as much time on it as I do, but I think the reason so many students in so many classrooms are puzzled about why this Fearon guy matters is because they only ever learn the smallest part of his contribution.Phil Arenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07914096126693147647noreply@blogger.com