School of Social and Political Science
University of Edinburgh
course code PLIT10060
session 2011-2012
Approaches to Politics and International Relations
Convenors:
Mrs 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 Honors 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
Mrs
Victoria Loughlan: Room 4.16 Chrystal Macmillan Building, Email:
V.E.E.Loughlan@sms.ed.ac.uk. Office hours: Wednesdays 2-4 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:
Mr. Edward Parsons; Edward.parsons@ed.ac.uk Office Hours: by appointment
Mr. Kostas Kostagiannis; K.Kostagiannis@sms.ed.ac.uk Office Hourse: Monday 2-4 pm
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
Appleton Tower Lecture Theatre 4. Tutorials will be held on Thursdays and Fridays.
Students must sign up for a tutorial group via the course Web-CT 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 and will remain in these
groups throughout the semester. Each group will lead two tutorial discussions, including delivering a
20-25 minute presentation (see Annex 1 of this document). Tutorial participation will be
assessed on the basis of both presentations and count towards 15 percent of your final mark.
Course Material: Course Guide + Web-CT
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 Web-CT. 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
Web-CT 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 two group presentations
Essay Deadline: Wednesday 15 February 2011, 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 Web-CT page before 31 May 2012. All marks are
provisional until confirmed by the Exam Board in May 2012. Topics and guidance for the essay
is listed in Annex 3 of this document.
Essay Writing Skills Development
APIR provides you with an opportunity to improve your essay writing skills in a collaborative
manner. To this effect we introduce a Essay writing skills development project, the modalities of
which are specified in Annex 2 of this document
Submitting the essay
Essays must be submitted as hard copies AND electronically.
Submitting the hard copies
You must deposit two hard copies of your essay in the Politics and IR Honours Essay Box,
located in the wall outside room 1.11, Chrystal Macmillan Building. When doing so, students
4
must complete a Politics IR Honours coversheet (available outside room 1.11), indicating their
examination number and tutor’s name, and signing a plagiarism form (see below).
Guidelines to Note





Submit two copies of the essay.
Put only your Exam number on each copy of the essay.
Complete ONE Essay Front Coversheet and be sure you complete the Plagiarism
Statement at the bottom of it.
Staple the first copy of the essay to the front cover sheet and paperclip the
second to both of them.
Post the completed essays into the Politics essay box situated outside room 1.11, Chrystal
Macmillan Building by 12pm on the day of deadline.
NOTE: All students should pay particular attention when completing the Plagiarism segment
of the Essay Front Coversheet . If it is not completed correctly, coursework will not. be
marked until the student returns to the office to complete/correct the section.
Electronic Submission
You must also submit your essay electronically in addition to submitting two hard copies.
Instructions on how to do this will be posted on the course WebCT page near submission time.
Penalties for Late Submission or over-long essays
The following penalties for late submission apply:
 Five marks per working day (i.e. excluding weekends) for up to 5 days;
 Coursework handed in more than 5 days late – without GOOD REASON - will receive a
zero
 PLEASE NOTE that failure to submit an electronic version along with the hard copy
of your coursework will be treated as failure to submit, and subject to the same
lateness penalties set out above
Students who feel they have a legitimate reason for late submission of assessed work must apply for a
lateness penalty waiver. For guidance on policy and procedure regarding work submitted after the
deadline,
please
see
the
PIR
Honours
Handbooks:
http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/honours/subjects_and_ centres/politics. The School looks
sympathetically on students with a legitimate reason for late submission.Please also consult the PIR
Honours Handbooks for information on the extended marking scheme, plagiarism and freedom of
information rules.
The following penalties for over-long essays apply:
 Essays which exceed the 2,500 word limit by +/- 10% will be penalized. One mark will be
deducted for each additional 20 words over or below the 10% margin.
A Note on Plagiarism
Although discussion between students is encouraged, all coursework is accepted for assessment on
the understanding that it is the student's own work. Copying out passages from books and articles
5
without putting the passages in quotation marks must be avoided. All sources must be properly
acknowledged. Copying will not be condoned: serious cases of plagiarism will normally lead to
automatic failure of a course, and may also lead to action under the University's Code of Discipline.
Please see the Politics and International Relations Honours Handbooks for further general
information
about
assessment.
University
guidance
is
available
at:
http://www.aaps.ed.ac.uk/regulations/ plagiarism/intro.htm.
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/]
Colin Hay, Political Analysis (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2002) [e-book]
Della Porta Donatella and Keating Michael, eds. (2008), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social
Sciences: a Pluralist Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
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
18
January
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 WebCT
2
25
January
Rational Choice and Rational Choice
Institutionalism (WS)
Open Tutorial with Questions for discussion
as stated in the course guide
3
1
February
Historical and Discursive
Institutionalism (WS)
Group A presents
4
8
February
Social Constructivism(VL)
Group B presents
5
15
February
Analyzing and Interpreting Public
Policy (WS)
6
Open Tutorial with Questions for discussion
as stated in the Course Guide or uploaded on
web-CT
NO CLASSES OR TUTORIALS INNOVATIVE LEARNING WEEK
7
29
February
8
7 March
Post-Structuralism and Discourse
Theory (VL)
Group A presents
9
14 March
Post-Colonialism (WS)
Group B presents
10
21 March
11
28 March
Critical Theory (VL)
Feminism (FM)
How we use approaches in our own
research (the course team)
Group C presents
Group C presents
Open Tutorial with Questions for discussion
as stated in the course guide or uploaded on
Web-CT
EXAM REVISION CLASS ON WEDNESDAY 25 APRIL 11.10 (VENUE
TBC ON WEB-CT)
BUT NO TUTORIALS in week 12
Essay deadline: Wednesday 15 February 2011: 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 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 Web-CT] 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: Historical and Discursive Institutionalism (WS)
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 Instititutionalism in Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 1999,
(2), 369-404 [e-journal]
Discursive Institutionalism
Schmidt, V.A., ‘Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism
as a fourth new institutionalism, European Political Science Review, 2010,(2), 1-25
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]
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]
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. 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.]
11
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]
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.]
TUTORIAL TASK FOR GROUP A
Critically assess the strength and weaknesses of a historical institutionalism as an approach to study
politics and international relations. In addition to consulting the core readings, in answering your
question draw from one or several of the following texts which apply HI approaches:




Daniel Ziblatt uses a historical institutionalist approach to explain how west European states were
formed and why they democratized: Ziblatt, D., ‘How Did Europe Democratize’, World Politics, 58 (2)
Paul Pierson adopts a historical institutionalist approach to explain the process of European Integration,
see Pierson, P. (1996) ‘The path to European integration: a historical institutionalist analysis’, Comparative
Political Studies, 29 (2), 123-163 [e-journal]
Roland Dannreuther uses a historical institutionalist approach to understand the Middle East Peace
Process, see Dannreuther, Roland (2011) Understanding the Middle East Process: A Historical
Institutioanalist Approach’, European Journal of International Relations, 17 (2), 187-208
Fioretos reviews historical institutionalism in its application to International Relations, see
Orfeo, Fioretos, Historical Institutionalism in International Relations, International Organization 65 (2),
2011: 367-399.
12
Week 4: Social Constructivism (VL)
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)
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
13
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 FOR GROUP B
Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of social constructivist approaches to the study of
Politics and IR. (in so doing engage with any of the following texts from which you can filter out the
occurring ideas and narratives provided and critically engage with their construction. We would also
encourage you to reflect upon the strengths and weaknesses of this approach compared with the
approaches covered in previous weeks)
(Option 1) The case of the Occupy movement
Reading: Rosenberg, Paul (Nov. 2011). “Occupy Wall Street: Another world is possible”
available at http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/11/201111172558820962.html
(Option 2) The case for or against a war with Iran
Reading: Stephen Walt (Dec. 2011). “The worst case for a war with Iran”
available at: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/21/the_worst_case_for_war_with_iran
Walt’s article is a response to a Foreign Affairs Article by Matthew Kroenig, Jan/Feb. 2012:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran
(Option 3) The case of the riots – Two different accounts
Reading:
Dawson, A. (Aug. 2011) The London Riots in Historical Perspective – Policing the Crisis. available at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/11/policing-the-crisis/
Young, T. (Aug. 2011) Blaming these riots on 'the cuts' lets the perpetrators off the hook, The Daily
Telegraph, available at: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100099866/blaming-these-riotson-the-cuts-risks-inflaming-an-already-volatile-situation/
14
Week 5: Approaches to the Study of Public Policy (WS)
Core Reading:
Campbell, J. ‘Ideas, Politics and Public Policy’, Annual Review of Sociology, 28, (2002), 21-38 [JSTOR]
Sabatier, Paul A., ‘An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy oriented learning
therein’, Policy Sciences, (1988), 21: 129-68
John W Kingdon, “ Processes: Origins, Rationality, Incrementalism, and Garbage Cans,” in John W.
Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Longman, 2nd edition, 2010)
Further Reading:
Bache, I and Flinders M. (2004), Multi-Level Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Baumgarter F and Jones, B. (2002), Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago, IL: Chicago
University Press, 2nd edition)
Baumgarter F and Jones, B eds. (2002), Policy Dynamics (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press)
Beland, D. (2010), ‘The Idea of Power and the Role of Ideas’, Political Studies Review, 8, 2: 145-54
Bevir, M and Rhodes R.A.W. (2003), Interpreting British Governance (London: Routledge)
Boin, A., ‘T Hart P., McConnell, A., and Preston, T. (2010), Leadership Style, Crisis Response and Blame
Management: the case of Hurricane Katrina’, Public Administration, 88, 3: 706-20
Cairney, P. (2011), Understanding Public Policy. Theories and Issues, (Palgrave: Macmillan)
Dolowitz D and Marsh D. (1996), ‘Who learns what from whom: a review of the Policy Transfer Literature’,
Political Studies, XLIV: 343-57
Dolowitz D and Marsh D., (2000), ‘Learning from Abroad: the role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary
Policy-Making’, Governance, 13, 1: 5-24
Easton, D (1957) 'An approach to the analysis of political systems', World Politics 9 (3) 383-400
Easton, D (1965) A Framework for Political Analysis, Prentice-Hall
Easton, D (1981 [1953]) The Political System, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Geyer, R (2003) ‘European Integration, the problem of complexity and the revision of theory’, Journal of
Common Market Studies 41 (1) 15-35
Hood, C. (1995), ‘The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme’, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 20, 2/3: 93-109
Howlett, M. Ramesh, M and Perl A. (2009), Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems
(Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Hill, M. (2009), The Public Policy Process (Harlow: Pearson, 5th edition)
Jenkins-Smith H and Sabatier, P. (1994), ‘Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework’, Journal of Public
Policy, 14, 2, 175-203
Jordan, A,G. and Maloney, W.A. (1997), ‘Accounting for Sub-governments: Explaining the persistence of
policy communities’, Administration and Society, 29, 5: 557-83
Kickert, W (1993) 'Autopoiesis and the science of public administration: essence, sense and nonsense',
Organization Studies 14 (2) 261-278
Kooiman, J (2003) Governing as Governance, London: Sage
Leslie, P (1972) 'General theory in political science: a critique of Easton's systems analysis', British Journal of
Political Science 2 (2) 155-172
Lindblom, C. (1968), The Policy-Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)
Moran, M. M. Rein and R. Goodin, eds. (2006), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (Oxford: Oxford
University Press)
15
Sabatier P and H. Jenkins-Smith, eds (1993)., Policy Change and Learning: an advocacy coalition approach (Boulder,
CO: Westview Press)
Steinbruner, J (1974) The Cybernetic Theory of Decision, Princeton: Princeton UP
Steward, J (1992) 'Corporatism, pluralism and political learning: a systems approach, Journal of Public Policy 2
243-255
Urry, J (2005) ‘The complexity turn’, Theory, Culture and Society 22 (5) 1-14 [e-journal]-Tutorial Questions (NO group presentation this week):
Tutorial questions will be uploaded on Web-CT on Monday prior to the lecturer and tutorials. Students
should engage with the core readings prior to the tutorials.
Week 6: Innovative Learning Week (no APIR classes)
16
Week 7: 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 for Group C:
Critically analyze critical theory as an approach to the study of politics and international relations. In
so doing draw from one or a few texts that are listed below and also compare the strength and
weaknesses of critical theory with the other approaches to politics and international relations that
have been covered thus far.
In addressing the above question you are free to draw from one or several of the following texts to illustrate the strengths
and weaknesses of critical theory
(a) with regard to how we study emancipation
of
Devetak, R. (2009) ‘Critical Theory’ in Burchill et al. Theories of international relations (London: Macmillan)
Aradau, C., 2004. Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and Emancipation. Journal
International Relations and Development, no. 7: pp. 388-413.
Option (2) How have critical approaches influenced the way in which themes in IR are studied and conceptualized?
Choose one or two of the following readings to exemplify your case.
18
(b) with regard to how we study (international) security
87,
c. a. s. e. collective. (2006) 'Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto'. 443Available from: http://sdi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/4/443, (pp.1-16)
c) with regard to how we study 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)
19
Week 8: Post-structuralism/Postmodernism and the role of discursive (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:
Ashley, R. (1996) “The Achievements of Poststructuralism” in in Steve Smith Ken Booth and Marysia
Zalewski (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. (1 copy), also available at:
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511660054&cid=CBO9780511660054A024
Sutherland, C (2005) "Nation building through discourse theory", Nations and Nationalism, 11 (2), pp 185-202
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
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.
20
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)
Discourse Theory Reading
Béland, D (2007) 'The social exclusion discourse: ideas and policy change', Policy and Politics 35 (1) 123-139
Bhatia, A (2006) 'Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences', Discourse and Society 17(2) 173–203
Dryzek, J S (1997) The Politics of the Earth: environmental discourses, Oxford: Oxford UP
Fairclough, N (2000) New Labour, New Language, London: Routledge
Farrelly, M (2010) 'Critical discourse analysis in political studies: an illustrative analysis of the 'empowerment'
agenda', Politics 30 (2) 98-104
Ferrari, F (2007) 'Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: investigating a 'preventive war'
persuasion strategy', Discourse and Society 18 (5) 603-625
Hansen, L., 2006, Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, London: Routledge, especially
introduction and part I
Hansen, L. and Wæver, O. (2002) On discourse analysis and foreign policy see European Integration and National
Identity, Routledge. Introduction and Chapter 2
Howarth D. and Stavrakakis, Y (2000) ‘Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis’, in David
Howarth, Aletta J. Norval and Yannis Stavrakakis (eds.), Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities,
Hegemonies and Social Change (Manchester: Manchester University Press)
Howarth, D (2000) Discourse, Buckingham: Open UP
Jackson, R (2007) 'Constructing enemies: 'Islamic terrorism' in political and academic discourse', Government
and Opposition 42 (3) 394-426
Jaworski, A and Coupland, N (1999) The Discourse Reader, London: Routledge
Maddens, B and Berghe, K V (2003) 'The identity politics of multicultural nationalism: A comparison
between the regular public addresses of the Belgian and Spanish monarchs', European Journal of Political
Research 42 (5) 601-627
McGuigan, J (2000) 'British identity and "the people's princess"', Sociological Review [] 1-18
Molotch, H and Boden, D (1985) 'Talking social structure: discourse, domination and the Watergate hearings',
American Sociological Review 50 (3) 273-288
Motion, J and Leitch, S (2009) 'The transformational potential of public policy discourse', Organization Studies
30 (10) 1045-1061
Nolan, J L (1998) The Therapeutic State. Justifying government at century's end, New York: New York UP; ch 2
'Legitimation of the state', ch 7 'Political rhetoric'
Schmidt, V A (1997) 'Discourse and (dis)integration in Europe: the cases of France, Germany, and Great
Britain', Dædalus 126 (3) 167-198
Schmidt, V A (2001) 'The politics of economic adjustment in France and Britain: when does discourse
matter?', Journal of European Public Policy 8 (2) 247-264
Sevenhuijsen, S (1998) Citizenship and the Ethics of Care, London: Routledge; ch 4 'The public debate on child
custody'
Steele, B J (2007) 'Making words matter: the Asian tsunami, Darfur, and 'reflexive discourse' in international
politics' International Studies Quarterly 51 (4) 901-925
21
Watson, M and Hay, C (2003) 'The discourse of globalisation and the logic of no alternative: rendering the
contingent necessary in the political economy of New Labour', Policy and Politics 31 (3) 289-305
Wetherell, M, Taylor, S and Yates, S (eds) (2001) Discourse theory and practice : a reader, London: Sage
Tutorial Task for Group A
Critically Examine the Strength and Weaknesses of Poststructuralism/Discourse Theory for the
Study of Politics and International Relations. In so doing we would like you to draw from one of
the following examples listed below and to compare the strengths and weaknesses of discourse
theory with the preceding approaches covered by the course
Option (1) The War on Terror
Reading: Salter, M.B. (2003) “The Clash of Civilizations and the War on Terror(ists): An Imperialist
Discourse.
Global Dialogue 5 (1,2). Available at: http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=222
Option (2) The European Union
Wodak, R. and Weiss, G. (2005) ‘Analysing European Union discourses: theories and applications’ in A new
agenda in (critical) discourse analysis. ed. / Ruth Wodak ; P. Chilton. Amsterdam : John Benjamins, p. 121-135.
Option (3) Gender and Security
Pratt, N. (2007) “The Queen Boat case in Egypt: sexuality, national security and state sovereignty” Review of
International Studies, 33 : pp 129-144
22
Week 9: Postcolonialism (Wilfried Swenden)
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
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.
23
Young, Robert White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. London: Routledge, 1990.
Tutorial Task Group B
Critically examine the strength and weaknesses of post-colonial theory for the study of politics and
international relations. In so doing, you can draw from the following examples; we also encourage
you to compare post-colonial theory with alternative approaches covered by the course.
[Option 1] The Middle East:
Haliday, Fred (1993) ‘Orientalism and its Critics’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 20 (2), 145-63
Mitchell, Timothy (1991), Colonizing Egypt (University of California Press)
[Option 2] India
Chakrabarty, Dipesh, Provincialzing Europe (see core reading)
Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments, Princeton University Press, 1993 (especially first
two chapters)
[Option 3] US foreign policy
Derek Greogry, (2004) The Colonial Present. Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq (Cambridge: Polity), read
chapter 4 [e-reserve]
24
Week 10: Feminism (Fiona MacKay)
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:
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]
Cynthia Enloe, 'Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics', University of
California Press, 1990 [see esp Ch 1] [HUB HQ1236 Enl.]
25
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, 193198.]
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
Critically examine the strength and weaknesses of feminist approaches to the study of politics
and international relations, using the example listed below. In so doing contrast feminist
approaches with the other approaches to study politics and international relations that have been
covered so far
Feminist interpretations of political institutions, especially representation
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
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]
Feminist interpretations of security
Cohn, C. (1987), 'Sex and death in the rational world of defence intellectuals', Signs 12 (4) [e-journal]
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]
26
Week 11: Using Approaches in Our Own research (the Course Team)
The lecture in week 11 will take the form of a panel presentation by the course team and a set of PhD students in
Politics and International Relations who will talk about the different ways in which they have used analytic and critical
theory in their work.
Tutorial aims: To review and apply the different theoretical approaches to Politics and IR you have encountered in this
course.
Tutorial preparation: Spend some time thinking about the topic of your dissertation. Be prepared to describe it and its key
questions or problems in class.
Tutorial format: group discussion
1. Which of the theories presented in the course do you find most exciting? Which seem least plausible?
2. Which of these theories might you use later? Which theoretical resources will you use in your dissertation?
3. What is your own approach to Politics and International Relations?
Week 12: No tutorials
Revision Class (Loughlan and Swenden)
Wednesday 25 APRIL, 11.10 am (Venue TBC and announced on Web-CT)
27
ANNEX 1:
GUIDELINES ON TUTORIAL PRESENTATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
At the first tutorial meeting, students will be divided into three groups of 5 students each (Groups A, B, C).
Members of group A will lead a tutorial discussion in weeks 3 and 8
Members of group B will lead tutorial discussion in weeks 4 and 9
Members of group C will lead tutorial discussions in week 7 and 10
No group presentations will take place in weeks 2, 5 and 11
There will be three elements to the tutorial presentations:
 Members of the group leading the tutorial should prepare a 20-25 minute 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 take the form of a power-point presentation.
Student 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
28
SAMPLE TUTORIAL FEEDBACK MARK SHEET
APPROACHES TO POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
GROUP PRESENTATIONS FEEDBACK SHEET
Prepared by Monitor: Dr. Wilfried Swenden
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
29
ANNEX 2: Essay writing skills Development Project
APIR Essays writing-skills development project
In this course we are trying to provide you with the opportunity to improve your essay writing skills in a collaborative
manner. This means that we want to find out what your most common problems are and address these together.
This is the first time we are running this project in this way and will therefore also be reliant on your feedback. The
participation of students is/ recommended but not obligatory?
Your essays will be due in week 5. There will be an essay workshop in week 3 where you will in groups be introduced to
essay writing skills but also have the opportunity to ask questions and engage with other people’s work. In week 1 we
encourage you to go back to essays you have previously written and re-read your feedback. Think about what has thus
far in your undergraduate career been unclear in terms of writing essays. For week 2 write down some questions you
have and we will discuss these briefly in the tutorial. They will also help us to customize the essay workshop according to
your questions.
In collaboration with your tutor you may also send in essay outlines until Thursday Week 4 latest.
After the Essay workshop you have the opportunity to give feedback and then again after you receive your essays back.
The point of the project is to collaboratively come up with the best way to teach you how to write, provide guidance and
address the most common problems.
We really hope this will help you improve your writing skills and provide you with an enjoyable experience. Let me
however also state in no uncertain terms: You must abide by the deadlines. This is an extremely large course and we can
only provide this guidance within a strict time line.
Best of luck to you all – if you have any questions, please get in touch with me or your tutor.
Timeline for Essay writing skills
Go back and re-read feedback you have
received in previous essays and formulate
questions you still have about essay writing
Bring questions to tutorial and summarize
Step 2
them in groups
Step 3
Essay workshop
Step 4
Essay outline (optional)
ESSAY DUE Wednesday 15 February 12.00
Feedback (Round 1)
Feedback
Step 5
(Round 2)
Step 1
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6,
9
30
ANNEX 3: ESSAY QUESTIONS
Essay Questions
Choose ONE of the following:
1. Compare and contrast the ontology and epistemology of rational choice and social
constructivism
2. Are historical institutionalists better at explaining continuity than change?
3. Critically engage with social constructivist accounts of one of the following:
(a) the nation;
(b) anarchy (in International Relations);
(c) European identity
4. How appropriate is rational choice theory for explaining (a) international responses
to climate change OR (b) the invasion of Iraq (2003)?
5. Compare and contrast the different accounts historical and rational choice
institutionalism would provide for explaining one of the following:
(a) the process of UK devolution;
(b) European integration;
(c) globalization?
The essay should be 2,500 words in length (+/- 10%) and is worth 50% of the overall mark for this course.by
Wednesday 15 February 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
31
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), 111-129
Said, E (1979) Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books
32
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
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?
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?
2009 Exam
ANSWER TWO QUESTIONS
You must answer at least one question from Section B
Section A
1. Compare rational choice and social constructionist accounts of agency.
2. To what extent can institutionalism be said to solve the problem of structure and
agency?
Section B
3. Has history proved Marx wrong?
4. Should all political theory be critical?
5. What does discourse theory explain?
6. How have feminists changed the study of politics and international relations?
7. Why does colonialism remain a topic of interest in the study of politics and
international relations?