School of Social and Political Science
University of Edinburgh
course code PLIT10060
session 2012-2013
Approaches to Politics and International Relations
Convenors:
Ms Victoria Loughlan and Dr. Wilfried Swenden
2
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 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.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Does the essay address the question set, and with sufficient focus?
Does the essay show a grasp of the relevant concepts and knowledge?
Does the essay demonstrate a logical and effective pattern of argument?
Does the essay, if appropriate, support arguments with relevant, accurate and effective forms of
evidence?
Does the essay demonstrate reflexivity and critical thinking in relation to arguments and
evidence?
4
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.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Does the exam address the question set, and with sufficient focus?
Does the exam show a grasp of the relevant concepts and knowledge?
Does the exam demonstrate a logical and effective pattern of argument?
Does the exam if appropriate, support arguments with relevant, accurate and effective forms of
evidence?
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.
b.
c.
d.
Does the tutorial presentation discuss the set question in a clear, concise and engaging manner?
Does the group respond well to the questions posed by the rest of the class?
Does the group lead a vibrant and relevant discussion on the set research question?
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!
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’
5
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
LECTURE (Wednesday)
TUTORIAL (Thursday or Friday )
Week
Date
1
16
January
Approaches to Politics and
International Relations: What for?
(VL and WS)
2
23
January
Rational Choice and Rational Choice
Institutionalism (WS)
Allocation Group tasks and discussion of
questions as stated in the course guide
3
30
January
Psychological Approaches to Politics
and International Relations (JK)
Group presentation or tutorial discussion
4
6
February
Historical Institutionalism (WS)
Group presentation or tutorial discussion:
13
February
Essay Skills Workshop for APIR
Essay (VL)
5
6
No Tutorials this week, but students must
sign up before the end of the week on Learn
Critically assess the strength and weaknesses of a
historical institutionalism as an approach to study
the Middle East Peace Process.
Essay Tutorial: Bring essay outline – peer discuss
NO CLASSES OR TUTORIALS INNOVATIVE LEARNING WEEK
7
27
February
8
6 March
Critical Theory (VL)
9
13 March
Post-Structuralism (VL)
Group presentation or tutorial discussions
Critically assess the strength and weaknesses of poststructuralism as an approach to study of public policy
10
20 March
Post-Colonialism (WS)
Group presentations or tutorial discussions
Social Constructivism (VL)
Group presentation or tutorial discussions:
Critically assess the strength and weaknesses of social
constructivism as an approach to study of terrorism
Group presentations or tutorial discussions
Critically assess the strength and weaknesses of
Critical Theory as an approach to study of peace
Critically engage with how post-colonial theory
assesses US foreign policy
11
28 March
Group presentations or tutorial discussions
Feminism (HC)
EXAM REVISION CLASS (VENUE and DATE TBC)
NO TUTORIALS in week 12
Essay deadline: Wednesday 27 February 2013: 12 noon
7
Course programme
Week 1: Approaches to Politics and International Relations: What for? (VL,
WS)
Core-Reading:
What is it about? And ontology/epistemology
David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, chapter 1
Colin 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
introduction
Burchill, 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 IR
Bull, H. (1966) "International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach " World Politics, vol. 18, no.3, pp.
361-377.
Structure-Agency
McAnulla, S (2002), 'Structure and agency', in Marsh D, and G Stoker, Theory and Methods in Political
Science 2nd edition
Carlsnaes, 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.
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), 24-40
Hay, 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 Different
Ways 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), 89117.
8
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. 95149
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?
9
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 14
Green, D and Shapiro, I (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice; chs 2, 4, 5 and 7
Hindmoor, 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: Sage
Mansbridge, 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, 496-512
Olson, M (1965/78) The Logic of Collective Action; chs I, II and VI
Osborne, M J (2004) An Introduction to Game Theory, Oxford: Oxford UP; pp14-18
Ostrom, E (1990) Governing the Commons, Cambridge: Cambridge UP
Parson, 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]
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?
10
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.
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): 2034.
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.
11
Jervis, Robert (1968) "Hypotheses on Misperception" World Politics.
Vertzberger, Yaacov (1990) The World in Their Minds. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
Larson, 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.
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)
Questions
What 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 Institutionalism
Capoccia, 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:
12
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]
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) 936957 [e-journal]
Hay, C and D Wincott (1998) ‘Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism’ Political Studies 46/5 [ejournal]
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.]
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 [ejournal]
13
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
14
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]
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)
15
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) 471-495
Wiener, Antje “Constructivism: The Limits of Bridging the Gaps” Journal of International Relations and
Development
Zehfuss, 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: Weak
1. Copeland, Dale. 2000. “The Constructivism Challenge against Structural
Realism: 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. International
Studies Quarterly 44: 97-119.
Critiques of Constructivism: Fundamental and Strong
1. Palan, Ronen, 2000. “A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the
Constructivist Critique in International Relations.” Review of International
Studies, 26 (4): 575-598
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
constructivism
3. 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
16
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 [ejournal]
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)
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. 52-58
Cox, 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.
17
Linklater, A. (1992), ‘The Question of the Next Stage in the International Relations Theory: A CriticalTheoretical 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]
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)
18
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 2
Campbell, 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 introduction
DerDerian, 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)
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
19
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 introduction. 2002, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, pp. 97-111 (available on LEARN)
20
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 Brunswick
Phillip 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
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, 1992
21
Edward W. Said, Orientalism, Vintage Books, 1979
Edward 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]
22
Week 11: Feminism (HC)
Core reading:
Hawkesworth, M. (2005) ‘Engendering political science: an immodest proposal’, Politics & Gender, 1 (1), 141156 [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 application
Childs, Sarah and Krook, Mona Lena ( 2006) ‘ Gender and politics: The State of the Art’ Politics 26/1 pp 1826. [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, 333356.1998. [e-journal]
Lovenduski, J. (ed) (2000) Feminism and Politics. Aldershot: Ashgate [see esp Lewis, Orloff and Randall chs]
[HQ1190]
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:
23
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]
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) [ejournal: 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
24
Week 12: No tutorials
Revision Class (Loughlan and Swenden)
Wednesday (Venue and Date TBC and announced on Learn)
25
ANNEX 1: TUTORIAL ASSESSMENT
A) TUTORIAL PARTCIPATION ASSESSMENT SHEET
Approaches to Politics and International Relations Honours 2012-2013
Tutorial Assessment
Name:
Tutor:
Criteria
Strong
Performance
↔
Mark*
Weak
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.
____
Attendance /
Promptness
Total---->
Tutor Comments
*A grade will be awarded for each category, based on these general criteria, and then averaged
____
26
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 powerpoint 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 their tutor or the course conveners if they believe this applies
to (a) member(s) of their group
27
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:
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:
First
2:1
2:2
3
Fail
28
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 example
2. 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 behavior
b) foreign policy
c) 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.
 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:
29
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), 111-129
Said, E (1979) Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books
30
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 A
1. “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 or
compete 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 QUESTIONS
You 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 A
1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of modelling political processes as 'games'.
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 B
3. '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?
31
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?