School of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of Edinburgh

course code PLIT10060session 2012-2013

Approaches to Politics and International Relations

Convenors:

Ms Victoria Loughlan and Dr. Wilfried Swenden

Approaches to Politics and International Relations: The Course Team

Welcome to Approaches to Politics and International Relations. APIR is a compulsory Politics/IR Honors course, convened by Mrs Victoria Loughlan and Dr. Wilfried Swenden. It is usually taken by students in their Junior Honours year, though it is also required for some fourth year students who went abroad in their junior Honours year and were unable to find a suitable substitute course when abroad.

Course related enquiries should be addressed in the first instance to the course convenors

Ms Victoria Loughlan: Room 4.16 Chrystal Macmillan Building, Email: V.E.E.Loughlan@sms.ed.ac.uk. Office hours: Thursday 3-5 pm. Where possible, students are encouraged to make use of these office hours. Meetings outside of office hours may be arranged by email.

Dr Wilfried Swenden: Room 3.05 Chrystal Macmillan Building, tel: 0131 650 4255, Email: w.swenden@ed.ac.uk. Office hours: Wednesdays 2.30-4.30 pm. Where possible, students are encouraged to make use of these office hours. Meetings outside of office hours may be arranged by email.

The course team also comprises the following course tutors:

Ms. Kathy Dudworth, kathy.dodworth@gmail.com Thursday, 10-12, 4.14, CMB

Ms. Elena Pollot, epollot@gmail.com; Thursday, 9-10 (location TBA)Mr. Kostas Kostagiannis; K.Kostagiannis@sms.ed.ac.uk,

Wednesday, 2-4, 4.16, CMB

Learning Outcomes

This core course will familiarize students with key theoretical approaches to politics and international relations. Several different analytical perspectives - rational choice theory, institutionalism and

2

social constructivism, critical theory, feminism, poststructuarlism and postcolonialism - will be introduced and applied to contemporary, real world problems.

By the end of the course, students should be able to:

Critically evaluate and compare the principal theories by which local, national and international political processes may be understood;

Use and manipulate the various theories and approaches in their own work.

Course Structure, Venue and Time

This course adopts a lecture-tutorial format. Lectures are on Wednesday, 11.10-12.00 in the Teviot Lecture Theatre, Doorway 5. Tutorials will be held on Thursdays and Fridays. Students must sign up for a tutorial group via the course Learn page in week 1. Tutorials will begin in week 2.

3

Tutorial Format

All students are expected to participate in tutorial discussions, and take part in group presentations. In the first tutorial (week 2), students will be divided in groups of 4-5. Each group will lead one tutorial discussion, including delivering a 15 minute presentation (see Annex 1 of this document).

Course Material: Course Guide + Learn

The Course Guide is your first source of information: it provides a list of core, tutorial, and further readings. Most of the core or tutorial readings can be accessed as e-journals or e-publications. We will make some tutorial readings available on Learn. Book chapters or books can be found in the Library (the most important books are put on reserve). Lecture handouts will be made available on Learn on the day of the lecture.

Course Assessment

This course has three components of assessment:One exam (50% of the mark)One 2,500 word essay (35% of the mark)Tutorial participation (15% of the mark), based on one group presentation (7.5 percent of the mark) and participation in tutorial discussions across all tutorials (7.5 percent of the mark). Please find the assessment criteria for tutorial participation and the presentation below. Also, please find

Essay Deadline: Wednesday 27 February 2013, 12pm

All coursework will be marked and returned to students within 3 working weeks of the submission date. Once marked, essays will be returned in class or can be collected from Dr Swenden’s office during his office hours (Wednesday 2.30-4.30pm). Generalized Feedback will be provided for the exams and will be made available on the Course Learn page before 31 May 2013. All marks are provisional until confirmed by the Exam Board in May 2013. Topics and guidance for the essay is listed in Annex 2 of this document.

Assessment Criteria

The following are key assessment criteria for the Essay. However, it is important to note that the overall mark is a result of a holistic assessment of the assignment as a whole.

4

a. Does the essay address the question set, and with sufficient focus?b. Does the essay show a grasp of the relevant concepts and knowledge?c. Does the essay demonstrate a logical and effective pattern of argument?d. Does the essay, if appropriate, support arguments with relevant, accurate and effective forms of

evidence?e. Does the essay demonstrate reflexivity and critical thinking in relation to arguments and

evidence?f. Is the essay adequately presented in terms of: correct referencing and quoting; spelling, grammar

and style; layout and visual presentation?

The following are key assessment criteria for the exam:

a. Does the exam address the question set, and with sufficient focus?b. Does the exam show a grasp of the relevant concepts and knowledge?c. Does the exam demonstrate a logical and effective pattern of argument?d. Does the exam if appropriate, support arguments with relevant, accurate and effective forms of

evidence?e. Does the exam demonstrate reflexivity and critical thinking in relation to arguments and

evidence?

The following are key assessment criteria for tutorial participation:

With respect to tutorial presentations:

a. Does the tutorial presentation discuss the set question in a clear, concise and engaging manner?b. Does the group respond well to the questions posed by the rest of the class? c. Does the group lead a vibrant and relevant discussion on the set research question? d. Do the presentation and discussion demonstrate a positive group dynamic which demonstrates the

collective effort that went into preparing and executing the presentation?

With respect to participation in tutorial discussions:

Attendance: You are expected to attend every tutorial, unless you have a very good reason to be absent. Absences should be explained in advance and justified with evidence where appropriate. Note that absence may affect your final grade.

Preparation: You are expected to complete the required reading every week. You may be called on at any point in any week to contribute to the discussion as part of your participation assessment. There may sometimes be more specific instructions, found in the reading list below. The required reading is the bare minimum you are expected to do; the more you read, the better the discussion, the better your essays will be, and the easier your exam revision will be.

Listening and Etiquette: You are expected to listen when others talk, both in small and large group discussions. Ideally, you will be able to incorporate or build off the ideas of others. Please be respectful of other people’s opinions!

5

For further information regarding Submission of coursework, LPW, plagiarism, learning disabilities, special circumstances, common marking descriptors, re-marking procedures and appeals, see ‘The Politics/IR Honours Handbook’

GENERAL READINGS:

We use one set textbook for this course:

David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, Theory and Methods in Political Science (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2010; 3rd edition)

Students may also find the following readings useful:

Dunne, T, Kurki, M and Smith, S (2010) International Relations Theories. Discipline and diversity, second edition, Oxford: Oxford UP [see the online resource associated with this book at: http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199298334/]

Della Porta Donatella and Keating Michael, eds. (2008), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: a Pluralist Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Hay, Colin (2002), Political Analysis (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2002) [e-book]

Edkins, J. and Zeyfuss, M., eds. (2008), Global Politics. A New Introduction (London: Routledge)

Multiple-copies of these books are available in the library.

JOURNALS

Journal articles are also a valuable source of good quality academic research. Many social science journals carry articles of relevance to this course, especially the generic political science journals such as World Politics, Comparative Political Studies, International Organization, International Security, Comparative Politics, Political Analysis, American Political Science Review, Public Choice, Public Administration, European Journal of International Relations a.o.

6

COURSE OVERVIEW

7

Week

Date LECTURE (Wednesday) TUTORIAL (Thursday or Friday )

1 16 Januar

y

Approaches to Politics and International Relations: What for? (VL and WS)

No Tutorials this week, but students must sign up before the end of the week on Learn

2 23 Januar

y

Rational Choice and Rational Choice

Institutionalism (WS)

Allocation Group tasks and discussion of questions as stated in the course guide

3 30 Januar

y

Psychological Approaches to Politics and International

Relations (JK)

Group presentation or tutorial discussion

4 6 Februa

ry

Historical Institutionalism (WS)

Group presentation or tutorial discussion: Critically assess the strength and weaknesses of a historical institutionalism as an approach to study the Middle East Peace Process.

5 13 Februa

ry

Essay Skills Workshop for APIR Essay (VL)

Essay Tutorial: Bring essay outline – peer discuss

6 NO CLASSES OR TUTORIALS INNOVATIVE LEARNING WEEK

7 27 Februa

ry

Social Constructivism (VL) Group presentation or tutorial discussions:Critically assess the strength and weaknesses of social constructivism as an approach to study of terrorism

8 6 March

Critical Theory (VL) Group presentations or tutorial discussionsCritically assess the strength and weaknesses of Critical Theory as an approach to study of peace

9 13 March

Post-Structuralism (VL) Group presentation or tutorial discussionsCritically assess the strength and weaknesses of post-structuralism as an approach to study of public policy

8

10 20 March

Post-Colonialism (WS) Group presentations or tutorial discussionsCritically engage with how post-colonial theory assesses US foreign policy

11 28 March

Feminism (HC) Group presentations or tutorial discussions

EXAM REVISION CLASS (VENUE and DATE TBC) NO TUTORIALS in week 12

Essay deadline: Wednesday 27 February 2013: 12 noon

Course programme

Week 1: Approaches to Politics and International Relations: What for? (VL, WS)Core-Reading:

What is it about? And ontology/epistemologyDavid Marsh and Gerry Stoker, chapter 1Colin Hay, ‘What’s Political about Political Science’, in Colin Hay, Political Analysis. A critical Introduction’ (Bastingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), 59-88 [e-reserve] Kurki, M. and Wight, C. “International Relations and Social Science” in Dunne, T. et al (eds.) International Relations Theories – Discipline and Diversity (2nd edition) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), but also the introductionBurchill, S. and Linklater, A. (2009) ‘Introduction’ in Burchill, S. et al (eds.) Theories of International Relations (4th edition). (New York: Palgrave)Positivism and Interpretivism in IRBull, H. (1966) "International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach " World Politics, vol. 18, no.3, pp. 361-377.Structure-AgencyMcAnulla, S (2002), 'Structure and agency', in Marsh D, and G Stoker, Theory and

Methods in Political Science 2nd editionCarlsnaes, W (1992), 'The agent-structure problem in foreign policy analysis',

International Studies Quarterly, vol 6 (3), 245-70 [e-journal]

Further reading:

Adeney, K. and Wyatt, A. (2004), ‘Democracy in South Asia: Getting Beyond the Structure-Agency Dichotomy’, Political Studies, 52, 1-18.

9

Bluth, Christoph ‘The British road to war: Blair, Bush and the decision to invade Iraq’ International Affairs, 80(5), 2004

Dessler, D (1989), 'What's at stake in the agent-structure debate?' International Organisation, 43, 441-73.

Dunn, David Hastings ‘Myths, Motivations and 'Misunderestimations': the Bush Administration and Iraq’ International Affairs, 79(2), 2003

Fuchs, S., 2001. Beyond Agency. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 24-40Hay, C (2009) 'King Canute and the 'problem' of structure and agency: on times,

tides and heresthetics', Political Studies 57 (2) 260-279; see also Pleasants, N (2009) 'Structure, agency and ontological confusion: a response to Hay', Political Studies 57 (4) 885-891

Lewis, P A (2002) 'Agency, structure and causality in political science', Politics 22 (1) 17-23

Marsh, D. and M.J. Smith (2001), ‘There is More Than One Way to do Political Science: On DifferentWays to Study Policy Networks’, Political Studies 49, pp. 528–541.

Marsh, D. and P. Furlong (2002), ‘A Skin not a Pullover: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science’in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds.), Theory and Methods in Political Science

Hermann, M.G., and Hagan, J.D., 1998. International decision-making: leadership matters. Foreign Policy, Spring.

Hill, Christopher ‘What is to be done? Foreign Policy as a Site for Political Action’ International Affairs, 79(2), 2003 [e-journal]

Laitin, D.D., and Lustick, I., 1974. Leadership: A Comparative Perspective. International Organization, 28(1), 89-117.

Pfiffner, James P. ‘Did President Bush Mislead the Country in His Arguments for War with Iraq?’ Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34(1), 2004

Sewell Jr., W.H., 1992. A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29.

Snyder, R.C. et alia, "The Decision-making Approach to the Study of International Politics," in International Politics and Foreign Policy, revised edition, edited by James N. Rosenau (New York: The Free Press), pp. 95-149

Wendt, A (1987), 'The agent-structure problem in international relations', International Organization, vol 41 (3), 335-70. [jstor]

Revision Questions [no tutorials this week]

1. Why is it important to think about ontology and epistemology? What can they tell us about an approach or theory?2. What is the relationship between structure and agency?3. What are the respective roles of structure and agency in accounting for the recent cuts to public services, or for the Iraq war?

10

Week 2: Rational Choice Theory and Rational Choice Institutionalism (WS)

Core Reading Rational Choice/ Hugh Ward in Marsh and Stoker (core textbook) McLean, I (1991) 'Rational choice and politics', Political Studies, 39, 496-512

Additional Reading

Barnes, B (1995) The Elements of Social Theory, London: UCL Press; ch 1 'Individualism'

Barry, B and Hardin, R eds (1982) Rational Man and Irrational Society?; introduction to Part I

Boudon, R (1998) 'Limitations of Rational Choice Theory', American Journal of Sociology 104 (3) 817-828

Dowding, K (2005), ‘Is it Rational to Vote? Five Types of Answer and a Suggestion’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 442-459 [e-journal]

Downs, A (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy; chs 1-3, 8, 13 and 14Green, D and Shapiro, I (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice; chs 2, 4, 5 and 7Hindmoor, A (2006) Rational Choice, Basingstoke: Palgrave; ch ‘Mancur Olson and

the logic of collective action’Hix, Simon (2005) The Political System of the European Union, 2nd edition,

Basingstoke: Palgrave, ch 4 'Judicial Politics'Laver, M (1997) Private Desires, Political Action: An invitation to the politics of

rational choice, London: SageMansbridge, J (1990) 'The rise and fall of self-interest in the explanation of political

life', in Mansbridge, J (ed) Beyond Self-Interest, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

McLean, I (1991) 'Rational choice and politics', Political Studies, 39, 496-512Olson, M (1965/78) The Logic of Collective Action; chs I, II and VIOsborne, M J (2004) An Introduction to Game Theory, Oxford: Oxford UP; pp14-18Ostrom, E (1990) Governing the Commons, Cambridge: Cambridge UPParson, Stephen (2005) Rational Choice and Politics: A Critical Introduction,

London: Continuum [googlebook]Scharpf, F W (1997) Games Real Actors Play. Actor-centered institutionalism in

policy research, Boulder: Westview Press; ch 2 ‘Actor-Centered Institutionalism’, pp 36-51

Simon, H (1955) 'A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice,' Quarterly Journal of Economics 69 99-118

Snidal, D (1986), 'The Game Theory of International Politics,' in Oye, K (ed) Cooperation Under Anarchy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Tsebelis, George (2002), Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Warntjen, A (2010) 'Between bargaining and deliberation: decision-making in the Council of the European Union', Journal of European Public Policy 17 (5) 665 - 679

Wuffle, A (1984) ‘Should You Brush Your Teeth on November 6, 1984?: a rational choice perspective’. PS 17 (3) [e-journal]

11

Zuber, C. ‘Understanding the Multinational Game. Towards a Theory of Asymmetrical Federalism’, Comparative Political Studies, 54 (5), 2011, 456-71

Tutorial Tasks/Questions: Can you think of applications of the Prisoners Dilemma to

politics/international relations? Read the following background text first:

Wuffle, A (1984) ‘Should You Brush Your Teeth on November 6, 1984?: A rational choice perspective’. PS 17 (3) [e-journal]Subsequently critically assess Rational Choice Theory to Voting and

Elections? Read the short article by Paul De Grauwe in the FT [uploaded on Learn] and

explain why economics is in crisis? Does 'the free rider problem' make collective action to save the environment

impossible? Consider both the local and the global dimensions of this. What are the moral implications of rational choice theory? Do they matter?

Week 3: Psychological Approaches to Politics and International Relations (WS)

Questions:What are the main characteristics of the psychological approach to the study of politics?What about politics is studied from the psychological approach?How does the psychological approach compare to rational choice (and social constructivism)?

Core Reading:Herbert Simon, "Human Nature in Politics" American Political Science Review,

1985, Vol.79, pp. 293-304.James M. Goldgeir (1997) “Psychology and Security,” Security Studies 4 (summer):

137-66.

Further Reading:Sears, David, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis (eds.) ( 2003) Oxford Handbook of

Political Psychology, Oxford University Press.Cottam, Martha, Beth Dietz-Uhler, Elena Mastors, and Thomas Preston (2009)

Introduction to Political Psychology: 2nd edition. Psychology Press.Hougton, David P. (2009) Political Psychology: Situations, Individuals, and Cases.

Routledge Publishers.Monroe, Kristen Renwick (Ed.)b (2002) Political Psychology (Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlabaum Associates.Ross, Lee, Mark Lepper, and Andrew Ward (2010) “History of Social Psychology:

Insights, Challenges, and Contributions to Theory and Application” in Fiske, Gilbert, and Lindzey (Eds) Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume One (5th edition) (John Wiley and Sons).

Political Psychology (journal) Virtual Issue: Psychological Perspectives on Politics, July 2009.

Political Psychology (journal) Virtual Issue: The Psychology of Political Leadership, October 2010.

12

Political Psychology (journal) Virtual Issue: Motivated Reasoning, August 2012. Chong, Dennis and James N. Druckman (2007) “Framing Theory” Annual Review of

Political Science Vol 10: 103-126.Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, & Zoe M. Oxley (1997) “Media Framing of

a Civil Liberties Conflict and its Effect on Tolerance”, American Political Science Review, September, 91(3): 567-583.

Druckman, James and Arthur Lupia (2000) “Preference Formation,” Annual Review of Political Science 3:1-24.

Druckman, James N., James H. Kuklinski, and Lee Sigelman (2009) “The Unmet Potential of Interdisciplinary Research: Political Psychological Approaches to Voting and Public Opinion.” Political Behavior, 31: 485-510.

Marcus, George E. and Michael B. MacKuen (1993) “Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns.” American Political Science Review, 87(3): 672-685.

Monroe, Kristin R., James Hankin, and Renee B. Van Vechten (2000) “The Psychological Foundations of Identity Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 3:419-47.

Conover, Pamela Johnston (1988) “The Role of Social Groups in Political Thinking.” British Journal of Political Science, 18(1):51-75.

Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science, 46(1): 20-34.

Rose McDermott (2004) Political Psychology in International Relations, University of Michigan Press.

Rosati, Jerel A. (2000) “The Power of Human Cognition in the Study of World Politics,” International Studies Review, 2:45-75.

Hermann, M.G. and C.W. Kegley, Jr. (1995). Rethinking Democracy and International Peace: Perspectives from Political Psychology. International Studies Quarterly, 39, 511-533.

Khong, Yuen Foong (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965, Princeton University Press.

Young, Michael D. and Mark Schafer (1998) "Is There Method in our Madness? Ways of Assessing Cognition in International Relations," Mershon International Studies Review, pp. 63-96.

Jervis, Robert (1968) "Hypotheses on Misperception" World Politics.Vertzberger, Yaacov (1990) The World in Their Minds. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University PressLarson, Deborah (1985) Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation.

Princeton University Press.McDermott, Rose (1998) Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in

American Foreign Policy. University of Michigan Press.Schafer, Mark and Scott Crichlow (2010) Groupthink vs. High-Quality Decision

Making in International Relations, Columbia University Press.Vaughn P. Shannon, (2000) “Norms are what states make of them: The political

psychology of norm violation” International Studies Quarterly, 44: 293-316.Jeff Victoroff, (2005) “The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of

Psychological Approaches,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3-42.Janis, I. (1972) Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.Byman, Daniel L. and Kenneth M. Pollack (2001) "Let Us Now Praise Great Men:

Bringing the Statesman Back In" International Security 25(4): 1-7-146.

13

Kaarbo, Juliet (2008) “Coalition Cabinet Decision Making: Institutional and Psychological Factors” International Studies Review, Spring, 10:57-86.

Kaarbo, Juliet (1997) "Prime Minister Leadership Styles in Foreign Policy Decision-Making: A Framework for Research", Political Psychology, Volume 18: 553-581.

Mercer, Jonathan (1995) “Anarchy and Identity,” International Organization 49(2):229-252.

Goldgeier, James M. and P.E. Tetlock (2001) "Psychology and International Relations Theory" Annual Review of Political Science 4:67-92.

Shannon, V.E. and P.A. Kowert (Eds) (2011) Psychology and Constructivism in International Relations: An Ideational Alliance (University of Michigan Press)

Tutorial Task: Critically assess the strength and weaknesses of a psychological approach to the following case study:

Badie, Dina (2010) “Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror:  Explaining US Policy Shift Toward Iraq,” Foreign Policy Analysis (October):277-296.

Week 4: Historical Institutionalism (WS)

QuestionsWhat sets historical institutionalism apart from other forms of institutionalism? Are historical institutionalists better at explaining continuity than change? To what extent do historical institutionalists attribute change to critical junctures alone?

Core Reading:

Historical InstitutionalismCapoccia, Giovanni and Kelemen, Daniel R., ‘The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism,’ World Politics, 59, (April 2007), pp. 341-369.[e-journal]Pierson, Paul, ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence and the Study of Politics’,

American Political Science Review, 94, (2), 2000, 251-267 [e-journal]Thelen, Kathleen, ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, Annual

Review of Political Science, 1999, (2), 369-404 [e-journal]

Further reading:

Aspinwall, Mark D. and Schneider G. (2000) ‘Same menu, separate tables: the institutionalist turn in political science and the study of European integration’, European Journal of Political Research, 38, 1-36 [e-journal]

Beland, D. (2009), ‘Ideas, Institutions and Policy Change’, Journal of European Public Policy, 16, (5), 701-18

Chappell, L. (2006) ‘Comparing political institutions: revealing the gendered “logic of appropriateness”’, Politics & Gender, 2 (2), 223-235 [e-journal]

14

Clemens, E. and J. Cook (1999) ‘Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change’, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 441-466 [e-journal]

DiMaggio, P. and W. Powell (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press [see esp Introduction] [HUB HM711 New.]

Goodin, R (1996) ‘Institutions and their Design’ in R. Goodin (ed) The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [HM826 The.}

Grief, A. and D. Laitin (2004) ‘A theory of endogenous institutional change’, American Political Science Review, 98 (4), 633-652 [e-journal]

Hall, P & Taylor, R (1996) 'Political science and the three new institutionalisms', Political Studies 44 (5) 936-957 [e-journal]

Hay, C and D Wincott (1998) ‘Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism’ Political Studies 46/5 [e-journal]

Heyden, J. (2011), ‘Institutional Layering: A review of the Use of the Concept’, Politics, 31, (1), 9-18

Helmke, G. and S. Levitsky (2004) ‘Informal institutions and comparative politics: a research agenda’, Perspectives on Politics, 2 (4), 725-740 [e-journal]

Immergut, E (1998) 'The theoretical core of the new institutionalism', Politics and Society 26 (1) 5-34 [e-journal]

Krook, M.L. and F. Mackay (2011) Gender, politics and institutions: towards a feminist institutionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave [forthcoming, copy ordered for library; see especially foreword and the introduction and conclusion]

Lieberman, R.C. (2002) ‘Ideas, Institutions and Political Order: Explaining Political Change’, American Political Science Review, 96 (4), 697-712 [e-journal]

Lowndes, V. (2002) ‘Institutionalism’ in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds) Theories and Methods in Political Science. 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave [HUB JA71 The.]

Mackay, F. and G. Waylen (2009) ‘Critical perspectives on feminist institutionalism’, Politics & Gender, 5 (2), 237-280 [e-journal; collection of short essays]

Mahoney, J. (2000), ‘Path dependence in historical sociology’, Theory and Society, 29: 507-48

Mahoney, J., (2003), ‘Comparative Historical Methodology’, Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 81-101 [e-journal]

Mahoney, J. and K. Thelen (2010) ‘How historical institutionalists explain change’ in Explaining Institutional Change. Cambridge University Press [see also case study chapters in this volume] [HUB JF1525.O73 Exp.]

March, J & Olsen, J (1984) 'The new institutionalism: organisational factors in political life', American Political Science Review 78 734-749 [e-journal]

March, J and J. Olsen (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. NY: Free Press [HUB JC249 Mar.]

Moe, T.M. (2006) ‘Power and political institutions’ in I. Shapiro, S. Skowronek, and D. Galvin (eds) Rethinking Institutions: The Art of the State. NY: New York University Press, 32-71 [see also Thelen chapter in this volume] [JF51 Ret.]

North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press [HUB HB99.5 Nor.]

Olsen, J. (2009) ‘Change and continuity: an institutional approach to institutions of democratic government’, European Political Science Review, 1 (1), 3-32 [e-journal]

Peters, B. G. (1999) Institutional Theory in Political Science. London: Pinter [HUB JA71 Pet.]

15

Pierson, Paul (2004), Politics in Time, History, Institutions and Social Analysis Princeton University Press [HUB JA78 Pie.]

R.A.W. Rhodes, S. Binder and B.A. Rockman (2007) Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press [see esp Hay and Shepsle chs] [JF51 Oxf.]

Scharpf, F (2000) 'Institutions in comparative policy research', Comparative Political Studies 33 (6-7) 762-790 [e-journal]

Schmidt, V. (2008) ‘Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303-326 [e-journal]

Schmidt, V. (2010) ‘Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new’ institutionalism’, European Political Science Review, 2, 1-25 [e-journal]

Steinmo S., K. Thelen and F. Longstreth, eds., (1992), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics, Cambridge/ Cambridge UP [see especially Thelen and Steinmo chapter] [HUB JF11 Str.]

Steinmo, S. (2008) ‘What is historical institutionalism?’ in D. Della Porta and M. Keating (eds) Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 113-138 [HUB H62 App.]

Streeck, W. and K. Thelen (eds) (2005) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press [see esp Intro and Hacker chapter] [HUB HB99.5 Bey.]

Thelen, K (2000). ‘Timing and Temporarlity in the analysis of Institutional Evolution and Change,’ Studies in American Political Development, 14, 101-18

TUTORIAL TASK

Critically assess the strength and weaknesses of historical institutionalism as an approach to study of the Middle East Peace Process.

Dannreuther, Roland (2011) Understanding the Middle East Process: A Historical Institutionalist Approach’, European Journal of International Relations, 17 (2), 187-208

16

Week 5: Essay Skills Lecture for Approaches to Politics and IR

Tutorial Task: Write an outline based on the essay workshop on the essay question you have decided to answer and bring it with you to the tutorial. In the tutorial we will have a peer discussion on the outlines and address any other questions you might still have.

Week 6: Innovative Learning Week (no APIR classes)

Week 7: Social Constructivism (VL) [also Essay Due Today]

Questions:What are the main tenets of constructivism?What is the relationship between social constructivism and rational choice theory?How does social constructivism change the way in which we study world politics?

Core reading:

Adler, E (1997) 'Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics', European Journal of International Relations, 3 (3) 319-63

Wendt, A (1992) 'Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics', International Organization 46 (2) 391-425 [jstor]

Further reading:

Anderson, B (1991) Imagined Communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, revised edition, London: Verso (2 copies)

Ashley, R. K. 1988, “Untying the sovereign state: a double reading of the anarchy problematique”. In: Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17, 2, 227-262. [e-journal]

Barnes, B (1993) 'Power', in Bellamy, R (ed) Theories and Concepts of Politics. An introduction, Manchester: Manchester UP

Barnes, B (1995) The Elements of Social Theory, London: UCL Press; ch 3 'Interactionism'Checkel, J T (1998) ‘The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory’,

World Politics, Vol. 50, also available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/v050/50.2er_finnemore.html

Checkel, J T (2004) 'Social constructivisms in global and European politics: a review essay', Review of International Studies 30, 229-244 [e-journal]

Connor, W (1994) 'Beyond reason: the nature of the ethnonational bond', in Connor, W Ethnonationalism. The quest for understanding, Princeton UP; also publ Ethnic and Racial Studies 16 (3), 1993

Fierke, K and Wiener, A (1999) 'Constructing institutional interests: EU and NATO enlargement', Journal of European Public Policy 6 (5) 721-742 [ejournal]

17

Fierke, K M and Jorgensen, K E (2001) Constructing International Relations: the next generation, London: M E Sharpe, particularly Chapter 3 and 6

Finnemore, M. (1996) National Interests in International Society Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. (1 copy)Finnemore, Martha et Sikkink, Kathryn (2001), “Taking Stock: The Constructivist

Research Program in IR and Comparative Politics”, Annual Review of Political Science 4.

Jeffery, C. (2000), 'Germany in the European Union: Constructing Normality', Journal of Common Market Studies, 39 [e-journal]

Katzenstein, P. (1996) Cultural Norms and national Security Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. (1 copy)

Kratochwil, Friedrich “Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt’s ‘Social Theory of International Politics’ and the Constructivist Challenge” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29, 1, (2000), 73-101

Neumann, I B (1996) 'Self and other in international relations', European Journal of International Relations 2 (2) 139-174

Onuf, N. et al. (1998) International relations in a constructed world. (Armonk, NY; London: M.E.Sharpe). (2 copies)

Reus-Smit, C (2002) 'Imagining society: constructivism and the English school', British Journal of Politics and lnternational Relations 4 (3) 487-509

Ringmar, E. ‘Alexander Wendt: A social scientist struggling with history,’ in Iver B. Neumann and Ole

Waever, eds., The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making.Rosamond, B (2002) 'Imagining the European economy: 'competitiveness' and the

social construction of 'Europe' as an economic space', New Political Economy 7 (2) 157-177

Ruggie, J. (1998) Constructing the world polity : essays on international institutionalization. London : Routledge. (2 copies)Saurugger, S (2010) 'The social construction of the participatory turn: the emergence of a norm in the European Union', European Journal of Political Research 49 (4) 471-495Wiener, Antje “Constructivism: The Limits of Bridging the Gaps” Journal of

International Relations and DevelopmentZehfuss, Maja (2002): Constructivism in international relations : the politics of reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2 copies), especially first couple of chapters. She also offers a critique of constructivism.

Critiques of Constructivism: Weak1. Copeland, Dale. 2000. “The Constructivism Challenge against StructuralRealism: A Review Essay,” International Security 25 (2): 187-212.2. Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2000) Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather?Constructivism and Neoliberal Institutionalism Compared. InternationalStudies Quarterly 44: 97-119.

Critiques of Constructivism: Fundamental and Strong1. Palan, Ronen, 2000. “A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of theConstructivist Critique in International Relations.” Review of InternationalStudies, 26 (4): 575-598

18

2. Cambell, David, 1998 Writing security : United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Manchester : Manchester University Press. (1 copy) – showing the difference between post-structuralism and constructivism3. Ian Hacking., The social construction of what? (Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press, 1999).

TUTORIAL TASK

Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Social Constructivist interpretation of terrorism in: Huelsse, R. and Spencer, A. “The Metaphor of Terror: Terrorism Studies and the Constructivist Turn” in Security Dialogue, 2008, 39:571

Week 8: Critical Theory (VL)

Questions:What does it mean to be ‘critical’?What are the key features of Critical Theory?How does a Critical Theory approach impact Politics and IR?

Core reading:

Robert W. Cox, 'Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations', Millennium - Journal of International Studies 1981; 10; 126; Available at: http://www.iiss.ee/files/7/IISS6001_Cox_Social%20forces_1981.pdf

Hoffman, Mark, (1987). 'Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate.' Millennium - Journal of International Studies, vol. 16, no. 2: pp. 231-50.

Further reading on Critical Theory:

Ashley, R. K. (1981) ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly, 25, 204-36 [e-journal]

Ashley, Richard K., and R. B. J. Walker, (1990). 'Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies.' International Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3: pp. 259-68.Bartelson, Jens. The Critique of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2001.Booth, K. (ed) (2005) Critical Security Studies and World Politics. Lynne Rienner

[esp ‘Introduction’ and ‘Conclusion’] [HUB JZ5588 Cri.]Bronner, S. (1994) Of critical theory and its theorists. Oxford: Blackwell. (1 copy)

19

Brown, C. (1994) ‘Turtles all the Way Down: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations’, Millennium, 23(2), 213-326 [e-journal]

Brown, C and Ainsley, K.(2005) Understanding international relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave. PP. 52-58Cox, R. (1987) Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of

History, New York: Columbia University Press [HD6971 Cox]Cox, R. (1996) Approaches to world order. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. (1 copy)Craig, Murphy, “The promise of critical IR, partially kept” Review of International Studies, vol. 33, Supplement S1, 2007 Douzinas, Costas, and Adam Gearey. Critical Jurisprudence : The Political

Philosophy of Justice. Oxford: Hart, 2005.Gill, S. (ed.) (1993), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [HX289.7.G73 Gra.]Held, David (1980) Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas.

Berkeley: University of California Press; Cambridge : Polity Press Hobson, J.M. (2007). 'Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian Towards a Post-Racist Critical IR.' Review of International Studies, vol. 33, no. SupplementS1: pp. 91-116.Hoffman, Mark, (1988). 'Conversations on Critical International Relations Theory.' Millennium - Journal of International studies, vol. 17, no. 1: pp. 91-95.Devetak, R. "Critical Theory." In Theories of international relations, edited by Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. x, 310 p.Jahn, B. (1998) "One step forward, two steps back: critical theory as the latest

edition of liberal idealism." Millennium, 27 (3), 613-641 [e-journal]Kratochwil, F., (2007). 'Looking Back from Somewhere: Reflections on What Remains Critical in Critical Theory.' Review of International Studies, vol. 33, no. SupplementS1: pp. 25-45.Linklater, A. (1992), ‘The Question of the Next Stage in the International Relations

Theory: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View’, Millennium, 21 (1), March, 77-98 [e-journal]

Linklater, A. (1990) Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations, Basingstoke: Macmillan [JZ1305 Lin.]

Linklater, A. (2007) Critical theory and world politics: citizenship, sovereignty and humanity. London: Routledge. [see esp Part I] [HUB JZ1320.4 Lin.]

A. Linklater, (1996) ‘The achievements of critical theory’ in Steve Smith Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. (1 copy)

Neal, Andrew W. 'Foucault'. In Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams. London: Routledge, 2009: 161-70.

Rengger, N.J., "Going critical? A response to Hoffman," and Mark Hoffman, "Conversations on critical international relations theory," Millennium, 17(1), 1988, 81-95 [e-journal]

Review of International Studies, Vol 33, Supplement S1, ‘Critical International Relations Theory after 25 Years’, April 2007 [e-journal; all articles in this special issue are relevant, but see esp Rengger/Thirkell-White article for a good overview]

20

Rengger, N. J., and Ben Thirkell-White. Critical International Relations Theory after 25 Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Smith, S., K. Booth and M. Zalewsi (eds) (1996) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press [particularly Waever and Linklater chs] [HUB JZ1305 Int.]

Walker, R..B.J. Inside/Outside. International Relations as Political Theory.Walker, R. B. J. 'After the Future: Enclosures, Connections, Politics'. In Re-Framing

the International Law, Culture, Politics, edited by Richard A. Falk, Lester Edwin J. Ruiz and R. B. J. Walker. New York London: Routledge, 2002: 3-25.

Walker, R. B. J After the Globe, before the World. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.Walker, R. B. J 'Europe Is Not Where It Is Supposed to Be'. In International Relations Theory and the

Politics of European Integration : Power, Security, and Community, edited by Michael C. Williams and

Morten Kelstrup. London: Routledge, 2000: 14-32.Walker, R. B. J 'Lines of Insecurity: International, Imperial, Exceptional'. Security Dialogue, vol. 37, no.

1, 2006: 65-82.Weber, Martin “The critical social theory of the Frankfurt School, and the ‘social turn’ in IR’, Review of International Studies, 31, 2005

Tutorial Task

Critically analyze Critical Theory as an approach to the study of politics and international relations. In so doing draw on the following texts and assess the strength and weaknesses of Critical Theory with regard to studying peace

Pugh, M. (2005) “The Political Economy of Peacebuilding: A Critical Theory Perspective” International Journal of Peace Studies, 10 (2). Also available at http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol10_2/wPugh10n2IJPS.pdf

Hobson, C. (2011) “Towards a Critical Theory of Democratic Peace” Review of International Studies 37(4)

21

Week 9: Post-structuralism (VL)

Questions:What is the difference between Poststructuralism/Postmodernism and Critical

Theory?Why do post-positivist approaches reject positivism?What do these approaches help us understand?

Core reading:

Campbell, David, (2010) "Poststructuralism" from Dunne, Tim and Kurki, Milja and Smith, Steve,

International relations theories: discipline and diversity, pp.213-237, Oxford: Oxford University Press (available on LEARN)

Shapiro, M.J. “Textualizing Global Politics” in Shapiro, M..J. and Der Derian, J. International/Intertexutal Relations – Postmodern Readings of World Politics, 1989, New York: Lexington Books, pp. 11-23 ( available on LEARN)

Poststructuralism Reading

Ashley, R. “Living in Borderlines: Man, Poststructuralism and War” in DerDerian, J. et al. International/Intertextual Relations

Bartelson, J. (1995) A Genealogy of Sovereignty Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, particularly chapter 1 and 2Campbell, D. (1998) National deconstruction : violence, identity, and justice in Bosnia (Minneapolis, Minn : University of Minneapolis Press) (1 copy)Campbell, D. (1998) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Manchester: Manchester University Press)Campbell, D. (1998) National deconstruction : violence, identity, and justice in Bosnia (Minneapolis, Minn : University of Minneapolis Press) (1 copy)Campbell, D. (2010) ‘Poststructuralism’ in in Dunne, T. et al (eds.) International Relations Theories – Discipline and Diversity (2nd edition) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), but also the introductionDerDerian, J and Shapiro, M. (eds.)(1989) International/intertextual relations : postmodern readings of world politics (Lexington, Mass. : Lexington Books)DerDerian, J. (1992) Antidiplomacy: Spies, Terror, Speed, and War DerDerian, J. (2009) Critical practices in international theory : selected essays (London : Routledge) (4 copies)DerDerian, J (2009) Virtuous war : mapping the military-industrial-media-entertainment network (New York : Routledge)Dillon, M. (1996) Politics of Security (Longond: Routledge)

22

Edkins, J. (1999) Poststructuralism & international relations : bringing the political back in (Boulder, Colo. ;London : L. Rienner) (2 copies)Edkins, J. et al. (1999) Sovereignty and Subjectivity (Boulder, Colo. ;London : L. Rienner) Finlayson, A. and Valentine, J. (2002) Politics and post-structuralism : an introduction (Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press) (5 copies)Hanssen, Beatrice. Critique of Violence: Between Poststructuralism and Critical Theory, Warwick Studies in European Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2000.Jarvis, D. (2002) International relations and the "third debate" : postmodernism and its critics (London: Praeger)Walker, R..B.J. Inside/Outside. International Relations as Political Theory.Walker, R. B. J. 'After the Future: Enclosures, Connections, Politics'. In Re-Framing

the International Law, Culture, Politics, edited by Richard A. Falk, Lester Edwin J. Ruiz and R. B. J. Walker. New York London: Routledge, 2002: 3-25.

Walker, R. B. J After the Globe, before the World. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.Walker, R. B. J 'Europe Is Not Where It Is Supposed to Be'. In International Relations Theory and the

Politics of European Integration : Power, Security, and Community, edited by Michael C. Williams and

Morten Kelstrup. London: Routledge, 2000: 14-32.Walker, R. B. J 'Lines of Insecurity: International, Imperial, Exceptional'. Security Dialogue, vol. 37, no.

1, 2006: 65-82.

Poststructural debates in British IR: a back and forth:

Jones, R. (1994) “The responsibility to educate” Review in International Studies 20(3)Walker, RBJ (1994) “Pedagogical responsibility: a response to Roy Jones” Review in International Studies 20(3)

Wallace, W. (1996) “Truth, and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations” Review in International Studies 23(3)Booth, K (1997) “A Reply to Wallace” Review in International Studies 23(3)Smith, S. (1997) “Power and Truth: A Reply to William Wallace” Review in International Studies 23(4)

Tutorial Task

Critically Examine the Strength and Weaknesses of Poststructuralism for the Study of Politics and International Relations. Critically engage with the following text and think about how this could be applied to a case study of your choosing.

Griggs, S. and Howarth, D. “The Work of Ideas and Interests in Public Policy” in Finlayson, A. and Valentine, J. (eds), politics and post-structuralism – an

23

introduction. 2002, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 97-111 (available on LEARN)

24

Week 10: Postcolonialism (WS)

Questions:

What is postcolonial theory and how does it relate to critical theory and post-structuralism? What is Said’s legacy to post-colonial theory and to the study of politics and international relations more generally? Is there a postcolonial method? What makes post-colonial feminism feminist and post-colonial? Core reading:

Said, E (1979) Orientalism. Vintage Books. Chapter 1. [Web CT]Chakrabarty, D (2007) Provincialising Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press. Introduction. Available at: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8507.pdf

Further reading:

Agathangelou, Anna M and Ling, L.H.M (2004) ‘The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism’ in International Studies Review, Vol.6, pp.21-49

Amin, Samir (1989) Eurocentrism, Translated by Russell Moore, Zed Books, London

Tarak Barkawi & Mark Laffey, 'The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies' Review of International Studies, Vol. 32 no. 4, page(s) 329-352, April 2006

Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture, Nation and Narration. London, Routledge, 1994.

Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments, Princeton University Press, 1993.Bernal, Martin (1987) Black Athena: Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilisation,

Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickPhillip Darby, ‘Pursuing the Political: A Postcolonial Rethinking of Relations

International’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Volume 33, Number 1, 1 January 2004 , pp. 1-32(32) [e-journal]

Doty, Roxanne Lynne Imperial Encounters (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1996).

Doty, R.L., “The Bounds of ‘Race’ in International Relations”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3 (1993), pp. 443-61.

Euben, Roxanne L. (Summer 1997) “Premodern, Antimodern or Postmodern? Islamic and Western Critiques of Modernity” in The Review of Politics, Vol.59, No.3, Non-Western Political Thought, pp.429-459

Frank, Andre Gunder (1998) ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age, California University Press, California

Gilroy, Paul. There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack. Chicago: UCP, 1987.Gilroy, Paul, The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (Verso,

London, 1993).Goody, Jack (2009) The Theft of History, Fourth Edition, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge

25

Gregory, Derek (2004) The Colonial Present. Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq (Cambridge: Polity)

Fanon, Frantz Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press, 1962.Frantz Fanon, 'The wretched of the earth', Penguin, 1967: Chapter 1, 'Concerning

violence', pp. 27-84 [WebCT]Inayatullah, N. and D.L. Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of

Difference (Routledge, London 2004).Jabri, V. and E. O’Gorman (eds.), Women, Culture and International Relations

(Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO and London, 1999).Nayak, Meghana V. and Malone, Christopher (2009) ‘American Orientalism and

American Exceptionalism: A Critical Rethinking of US Hegemony’ in International Studies Review, Vol.11, pp.253-276

Paolini, Albert, Navigating Modernity: Postcolonialism, Identity, and International Relations (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999).

Pratt, Mary Louise Imperial Eyes: Transculturation. London: Routledge, 1992Edward W. Said, Orientalism, Vintage Books, 1979Edward W. Said Culture and Imperialism, Knopf, 1994.Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Colonial Discourse

and Postcolonial Theory, Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, eds., New York: Columbia U P, 1994.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty.“Reading the Satanic Verses,” Public Culture 2.1 (Fall 1989). 79-100.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1999.

Young, Robert White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. London: Routledge, 1990.

Tutorial Task

Critically engage with how post-colonial theory assesses US foreign policy

Derek Greogry, (2004) The Colonial Present. Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq (Cambridge: Polity), read chapter 4 [e-reserve]

26

Week 11: Feminism (HC)

Core reading:

 Hawkesworth, M. (2005) ‘Engendering political science: an immodest proposal’, Politics & Gender, 1 (1), 141-156 [e-journal; see also additional essays in issue’s Critical Perspectives on ‘The Concept of Gender: Research Implications for Political Science’]

Youngs, G. (2004) "Feminist International Relations: a contradiction in terms? Or: why women and gender are essential to understanding the world 'we' live in’, International Affairs Affairs, 80 (1), 75-87 [e-journal; see also the short responses to this article in the same issue] 

Further reading on feminist political science:

Banaszak, L.A. Beckwith, K. and Rucht, D. (eds) Women’s Movements Facing the Reconfigured State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. [HQ1587 Wom] *See introductory chapters for methodological framework and case studies for applicationChilds, Sarah and Krook, Mona Lena ( 2006) ‘ Gender and politics: The State of the Art’ Politics 26/1 pp 18- 26. [e-journal] See also the ‘Controversy’ section of Politics 26/ 3.Moran, Michael (2006) ‘Controversy. Gender, Identity and the Teaching of British Politics: A Comment’ pp 200-202; and Childs,  Sarah and Krook, Mona Lena (2006) ‘Gender, Politics and Political Science: A reply to Michael Moran’ pp 203-205 [e-journals]Connell, R.W. (2002) Gender. Cambridge: Polity [esp Chs 1,4,6,8] [HUB HQ1075 Con]Corrin, Chris (1999) Feminist Perspectives on Politics. London: Longman, [HQ1236 Cor]Duerst-Lahti, G. and R.M. Kelly (1995) Gender Power, Leadership and Governance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press [esp chs 1 & 2, but see also ch 7 for interesting case study] [HQ1236 Gen]Kenny, M. (2007) ‘Gender, Institutions and Power: A Critical Review’, Politics, 27(2), 91-100 [e-journal]Krook, M.L. and J. Squires (2006) ‘Gender Quotas in British Politics: Multiple Approaches and Methods in Feminist Research’, British Politics, 1, 44-66 [e-journal]Krook, M.L. and F. Mackay (2011) Gender, politics and institutions: towards a feminist institutionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave [forthcoming, copy ordered for library; see especially Joni Lovenduski’s foreword and the introduction and conclusion]Lovenduski, Joni  (2005) Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Polity [HUB HQ1236 Lov] Lovenduski, Joni (1998) ‘Gendering research in Political Science’ Annual Review of Political Science 1, 333- 356.1998. [e-journal]Lovenduski, J. (ed) (2000) Feminism and Politics. Aldershot: Ashgate [see esp Lewis, Orloff and Randall chs] [HQ1190]

27

Mackay, Fiona (2004) ‘Gender and political representation in the UK: The state of the discipline’. British Journal of Politics and International relations 6/1, 99-120 [e-journal]Phillips, Anne  (ed). Feminism and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 [Chs 1, 2, 3, 7, 8] [e-book available through library catalogue]Randall, Vicky (2002)  ‘Feminism’ in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds) Theory and Methods in political science (2nd  edn). Basingstoke:Palgrave  pp.110-130 [HUB JA71 The.]Vickers, Jill (1997)  Reinventing Political Science: A Feminist Approach. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing [see esp Ch. 3] [HQ 1236 Vic].

Further reading on feminism and international relations:

Ackerly, B., M. Stern and J. True (eds) (2006) Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge University Press. [e-book available through library catalogue]Cohn, C. (1987), 'Sex and death in the rational world of defence intellectuals', Signs 12 (4) [e-journal]Enloe, Cynthia 'Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics', University of California Press, 1990 [see esp Ch 1] [HUB HQ1236 Enl.]Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.Eisenstein, Zillah. Sexual Decoys: Gender, Race and War in Imperial Democracy. London ;Melbourne: Zed Books;;Spinifex Press, 2007.Locher, B. and E. Prugl (2001) ‘Feminism and constructivism: Worlds apart or sharing the middle ground’, International Studies Quarterly, 45 (1), 111-129 [e-journal]Peterson, V. Spike (1992) ‘Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender and International Relations’, Millennium, 21 (2) [e-journal]Pettman, J. (1996) Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics London: Routledge. [HUB HQ1150 Pet]

Shepherd, L.J. (2010) Gender Matters in Global Politics. London: Routledge [e-book available through library catalogue]Steans, Jill (2003) 'Engaging from the Margins: feminist encounters with the 'mainstream' of International Relations', British Journal of Politics and IR, 5 (3) 428-454. [e-journal]Steans, Jill (2006) Gender and International Relations: Issues, debates and future directions. Cambridge: Polity Press [HUB JZ1253.2 Ste.]Squires, J. and J. Weldes (2007) Special Issue on ‘Gender and International Relations in Britain’, British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9 (2) [e-journal; see esp Introduction]Sylvester, Christine (1993/1998) ‘Homeless in International relations? ‘Women’s’ Place in Canonical Texts and feminist Reimaginings’ reprinted in Phillips, Anne  (ed). Feminism and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.44-66 [e-book available through library catalogue]Tickner, J Ann (1988) 'Hans Morgenthau's principles of political realism: a feminist reformulation' in Millenium 17/3 pp.429-440 [e-journal]

28

Tickner, J Ann (1997) ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists’, International Studies Quarterly, 41 (4) [e-journal; see also Keohane’s reply in Vol 42 No. 1, 193-198.] Tickner, J Ann (2001) Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post Cold War Era. Columbia University Press [HUB HQ1154 Tic.]Young, Iris Marion (2000) "Feminist Reactions to the Contemporary Security Regime." Hypatia 18(1) [e- journal: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v018/18.1young.html] Zalewski, M. (1995) 'Well, what is the feminist perspective on Bosnia?' International Affairs, 71(2), 339-356, 1995 [e-journal]

 

Tutorial Task Group C

Using the text below looking at counter-insurgency through a gender approach, critically examine the contribution of feminist approaches to the study of politics and international relations. In so doing compare and contrast feminist approaches with the other approaches to study politics and international relations that have been covered so far.

Khalili, Laleh. ‘Gendered Practices of Counterinsurgency’. Review of International Studies 37, no. 04 (November 29, 2010): 1471–1491

29

Week 12: No tutorials

Revision Class (Loughlan and Swenden)

Wednesday (Venue and Date TBC and announced on Learn)

30

ANNEX 1: TUTORIAL ASSESSMENT

A) TUTORIAL PARTCIPATION ASSESSMENT SHEET

Approaches to Politics and International Relations Honours 2012-2013Tutorial Assessment

Name: Tutor:

   Criteria Mark*

Performance Strong ↔ Weak  

Attendance / Promptness

Student is always prompt to tutorials.

Student is rarely late to tutorials.

Student is late to tutorials every second week.

Student is late to tutorials every week.

____

Level Of Engagement In

Class

Student proactively contributes to tutorials by offering ideas and asking questions more than once per class.

Student proactively contributes to tutorials by offering ideas and asking questions once per class.

Student rarely contributes to tutorials by offering ideas and asking questions.

Student never contributes to tutorials by offering ideas and asking questions.

____

Listening Skills

Student listens when others talk, both in small and large group discussions. Student incorporates or builds off of the ideas of others.

Student listens when others talk, both in small and large group discussions.

Student does not listen when others talk, both in small and large group discussions.

Student does not listen when others talk, both in small and large group discussions Student often interrupts when others speak.

____

Preparation

Student is almost always prepared for tutorial with questions derived from required reading.

Student is usually prepared for tutorial with questions derived from required reading.

Student is rarely prepared for tutorial with questions derived from required reading.

Student is almost never prepared for tutorial with questions derived from required reading.

____

        Total----> ____

31

Tutor Comments

*A grade will be awarded for each category, based on these general criteria, and then averaged

B) GUIDELINES ON TUTORIAL PRESENTATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

At the first tutorial meeting, students will be divided into four groups of 4 students each (Groups A, B, C, D).

In discussion with the tutor, groups agree to present at least one tutorial task and lead a discussion between weeks 3 and 12

There will be three elements to the tutorial presentations:

Members of the group leading the tutorial should prepare a 15 minute max. presentation which directly addresses the tutorial question. They should prepare a handout and send this to their tutor the day before the tutorial. The tutor will bring sufficient copies of the handout to the tutorial for distribution to other members of the tutorial group. Students who fail to send their handout a day in advance of the tutorial will have to make hard copies (at least 11) of their handout and bring it along to their tutorial. The handout may NOT take the form of a power-point presentation. Students who fail to bring along a handout or send it in time to their tutor will be penalized.

At the end of the presentation, groups will be asked to answer questions from the rest of the class, based on their presentations.

The leading group should then present a set of questions and discussion points to help foster discussion and debate among the tutorial class.

Assessment:

After each presentation, the moderator in charge will give ONE collective mark* that reflects the collective effort of the group to fulfill each of the requirements above, i.e.: (i) to address their assigned research question in a clear, concise and engaging presentation; (ii) to respond well to the questions posed by the rest of the class; (iii) and to lead a vibrant and relevant discussion on this theme. To this effect, the moderator will prepare a feedback sheet for the group (with a mark), which will be circulated to each member of the group. A sample of this feedback sheet can be found on the next page.

Since each group will lead two discussions, the final tutorial mark will be the average mark for two group presentations. The final tutorial mark will represent 15 percent of the overall mark.

*Note that group members who have not contributed to the group presentation without a valid reason will be marked a 0 for their presentation. Members of the group can contact

32

their tutor or the course conveners if they believe this applies to (a) member(s) of their group

33

SAMPLE TUTORIAL FEEDBACK MARK SHEET

APPROACHES TO POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

GROUP PRESENTATIONS FEEDBACK SHEET

Prepared by Monitor: Ms Victoria Loughlan

GROUP A

Question Addressed:

Some factors informing assessment: First

2:1 2:2 3 Fail

Presentation addresses the question set, and with sufficient focus?

Presentation engages critically with the literature and shows grasp of relevant concepts and knowledge?

Presentation follows a logical and effective pattern of argument?

Presentation supports arguments with examples that are drawn from the literature on approaches to politics and international relations

Quality of the handouts

Capacity to respond appropriately to questions from the class

Discussion questions that follow from the presentation are clearly linked to the set question

Group members make sufficient effort to engage their audience during the discussion

Comments:

Grade:

34

ANNEX 2: ESSAY QUESTIONS

Essay Questions

Choose ONE of the following:

1. What best explains social reality: structure and/or agency? Answer with reference to at least one approach and one empirical example2. Critically engage with the ontology and epistemology of rational choice theory. Refer to at least one example. 3. Critically engage with psychological accounts of one of the following:

a) voting behaviorb) foreign policyc) intergroup relations (either within states or across

borders)4. Can historical institutionalists account for change? If so how? Refer to at least two examples

The essay should be 2,500 words in length (+/- 10%) and is worth 50% of the overall mark for this course.by Wednesday 12: 00 (page 3 for instructions how to submit)

Note on Writing Essays

Do the simple things well:

Answer the question. Read the question carefully; work out what you want to say, and make your points explicitly.

A good introduction shows that you understand the context and significance of the question to be addressed, and helps the reader by explaining how you will answer it. Each paragraph should be coherent in itself and in relation to others: pay particular attention to the first sentence of a paragraph.

Ensure you provide a good explanation of the key concepts addressed by the question and your argument/analysis.

35

Avoid description. You should be offering analyses and explanations of political developments, and informed coherent arguments. You should not be telling the story of what happened, when, etc.

Your conclusion should be consistent with the material and argument you present. Don't introduce new ideas into your conclusion - use it to draw together the main strands of your argument.

Referencing

Use a consistent system of referencing. (Students may find it useful to study the examples used in textbooks). A popular style is to use the author-date citation in the text, where a work is drawn upon, either directly in quote form or indirectly by using your own words. The following example, although not a direct quote, drew upon Brown, 1996, as its source, and this is referenced accordingly:

In elections to the Scottish Parliament, voters have two votes, one for a constituency candidate and the second for a party list. There is some evidence to suggest that there was a degree of "ticket-splitting", with electors dividing their party loyalties in the first and second vote (Brown, 1999: 206).

It is good practice to always include page numbers when using references in the text. When quoting directly, page numbers must be used. Always cite the source from which your information came. Do not use second-hand sources - consult the original text, where possible.

In addition to author-date citations in the main text, use an alphabetical (by last name) reference section (bibliography) at the end of the essay. Some examples of different types of sources are given below.

Bibliography

Dunne, T, Kurki, M and Smith, S (2010) International Relations Theories. Discipline and diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition Locher, B. and E. Prugl (2001) ‘Feminism and constructivism: Worlds apart or sharing the middle ground’, International Studies Quarterly, 45 (1), 111-129Said, E (1979) Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books

36

37

ANNEX 4: THE EXAM

The 2011-12 exam will consist of two parts: the first part covers material from weeks 1-5; the second part covers material from weeks 6-10. Students must select a question from each part. Note that in this sense, the 2012 exam will adopt a different format from the APIR exam in previous years

2012 Exam

You must at least answer TWO questions: ONE from section A and ONE from section B

Section A1. “Voting isn’t worth the time or shoe leather it costs” How would different approaches to Politics analyze this statement? 2. To what extent does public policy analysis accommodate rational choice, historical institutionalist and social constructivist approaches? 3. Can the problem of ‘structure-agency’ be solved? Answer with reference to at least two approaches and at least one empirical example.

Section B 4. ‘Theory is always for someone and for some purpose’ (Robert Cox). Discuss (you may restrict your answer to either Politics or International Relations).5. “Add women and stir” - What makes feminist institutionalism and post-colonial feminism ‘feminist’? 6. How does post-structuralism change our theories of Politics and International Relations? Discuss with reference to at least two examples. 7. To what extent do the political approaches covered in the course complement orcompete with each other?

2011 Exam 1. Should scholars of Political Science and International Relations seek to explain the world rather than to change it?2. Do institutions create interests?3. Which aspects of Marxist thought continue to be relevant to politics and international relations in the twenty-first century?4. ‘Good feminist social science is simply good social science: it is no more or less than good practice’ (Lovenduski). Discuss with reference to Politics and International Relations.5. To the extent that postcolonialism is a critical theory, what is it critical of?6. How do discourse theorists account for political change?7. Are critical theories always biased in some way?

2010 Exam

ANSWER TWO QUESTIONSYou must answer at least one question from section B. You may answer both questions from section B, or one from section A and one from section B

Section A1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of modelling political processes as 'games'.

38

2. 'We should insist upon seeing the world as made up of people talking to each other' (White). What are the implications of this for the study of Politics and International Relations?

Section B3. 'Marxism at the end of the twentieth century is a theory in search of an agent' (Gamble). Discuss.4. Should theory always have a concern for social and political change?5. Should feminist Politics and/or International Relations be concerned with men as much as with women?6. Assess Said's claim that 'The general liberal consensus that "true" knowledge is fundamentally non-political obscures the highly political circumstances obtaining when knowledge is produced'. 7. What does discourse theory bring to the study of Politics and/or International Relations?

39