School of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of Edinburgh

course code PLIT10060session 2011-2012

Approaches to Politics and International Relations

Convenors:

Mrs Victoria Loughlan and Dr. Wilfried Swenden

Approaches to Politics and International Relations: The Course Team

Welcome to Approaches to Politics and International Relations. APIR is a compulsory Politics/IR Honors course, convened by Mrs Victoria Loughlan and Dr. Wilfried Swenden. It is usually taken by students in their Junior 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

2

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

4

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 copiesYou 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 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 thesecond 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 SubmissionYou 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

5

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 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]

6

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.

7

COURSE OVERVIEW

Week

Date LECTURE (Wednesday) TUTORIAL (Thursday or Friday )

1 18 Januar

y

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

No Tutorials this week, but students must sign up before the end of the week on Web-CT

2 25 Januar

y

Rational Choice and Rational Choice

Institutionalism (WS)

Open Tutorial with Questions for discussion as stated in the course guide

3 1 Februa

ry

Historical and Discursive Institutionalism (WS)

Group A presents

4 8 Februa

ry

Social Constructivism(VL) Group B presents

5 15 Februa

ry

Analyzing and Interpreting Public Policy (WS)

Open Tutorial with Questions for discussion as stated in the Course Guide or uploaded on web-CT

6 NO CLASSES OR TUTORIALS INNOVATIVE LEARNING WEEK

7 29 Februa

ry

Critical Theory (VL) Group C presents

8 7 March

Post-Structuralism and Discourse Theory (VL)

Group A presents

9 14 March

Post-Colonialism (WS) Group B presents

10 21 March

Feminism (FM) Group C presents

11 28 March

How we use approaches in our own research (the course

team)

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

8

Course programme

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision Questions [no tutorials this week]

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

10

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

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

Additional Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11

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

Tutorial 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?

12

Week 3: Historical and Discursive Institutionalism (WS)

Core Reading:

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

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

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

Discursive InstitutionalismSchmidt, 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) 936-957 [e-journal]

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

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.]

13

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.]

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 [e-journal]

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

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

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

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

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

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:

14

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.

15

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

16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critiques of Constructivism: Fundamental and Strong1. Palan, Ronen, 2000. “A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of theConstructivist Critique in International Relations.” Review of InternationalStudies, 26 (4): 575-598 2. Cambell, David, 1998 Writing security : United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Manchester : Manchester University Press. (1 copy) – showing the difference between post-structuralism and constructivism3. Ian Hacking., The social construction of what? (Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press, 1999).

TUTORIAL TASK 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)

17

(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-riots-on-the-cuts-risks-inflaming-an-already-volatile-situation/

18

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-HallEaston, D (1981 [1953]) The Political System, Chicago: University of Chicago PressGeyer, R (2003) ‘European Integration, the problem of complexity and the revision

of theory’, Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (1) 15-35Hood, C. (1995), ‘The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a

Theme’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 2/3: 93-109Howlett, 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

19

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: SageLeslie, P (1972) 'General theory in political science: a critique of Easton's systems

analysis', British Journal of Political Science 2 (2) 155-172Lindblom, 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)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 UPSteward, J (1992) 'Corporatism, pluralism and political learning: a systems

approach, Journal of Public Policy 2 243-255Urry, 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)

20

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 [e-journal]

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

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

[esp ‘Introduction’ and ‘Conclusion’] [HUB JZ5588 Cri.]Bronner, S. (1994) Of critical theory and its theorists. Oxford: Blackwell. (1 copy)Brown, C. (1994) ‘Turtles all the Way Down: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory

and International Relations’, Millennium, 23(2), 213-326 [e-journal]Brown, C and Ainsley, K.(2005) Understanding international relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave. PP. 52-58Cox, R. (1987) Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of

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

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

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

Berkeley: University of California Press; Cambridge : Polity Press Hobson, J.M. (2007). 'Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian Towards a Post-Racist Critical IR.' Review of International Studies, vol. 33, no. SupplementS1: pp. 91-116.Hoffman, Mark, (1988). 'Conversations on Critical International Relations Theory.' Millennium - Journal of International studies, vol. 17, no. 1: pp. 91-95.

21

Devetak, R. "Critical Theory." In Theories of international relations, edited by Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. x, 310 p.Jahn, B. (1998) "One step forward, two steps back: critical theory as the latest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

22

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

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 of 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.

(b) with regard to how we study (international) security

c. a. s. e. collective. (2006) 'Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto'. 443-87, Available 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.pdfHobson, C. (2011) “Towards a Critical Theory of Democratic Peace” Review of International Studies 37(4)

23

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

24

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

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

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

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

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

1, 2006: 65-82.

Poststructural debates in British IR: a back and forth:

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

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

Discourse Theory ReadingBéland, D (2007) 'The social exclusion discourse: ideas and policy change', Policy

and Politics 35 (1) 123-139Bhatia, A (2006) 'Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences',

Discourse and Society 17(2) 173–203Dryzek, J S (1997) The Politics of the Earth: environmental discourses, Oxford:

Oxford UPFairclough, N (2000) New Labour, New Language, London: Routledge

25

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 UPJackson, R (2007) 'Constructing enemies: 'Islamic terrorism' in political and

academic discourse', Government and Opposition 42 (3) 394-426Jaworski, A and Coupland, N (1999) The Discourse Reader, London: RoutledgeMaddens, 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

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

26

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 TerrorReading: 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 UnionWodak, 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 SecurityPratt, N. (2007) “The Queen Boat case in Egypt: sexuality, national security and state sovereignty” Review of International Studies, 33 : pp 129-144

27

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 BrunswickPhillip Darby, ‘Pursuing the Political: A Postcolonial Rethinking of Relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press, CambridgeGregory, 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).

28

Nayak, Meghana V. and Malone, Christopher (2009) ‘American Orientalism and American Exceptionalism: A Critical Rethinking of US Hegemony’ in International Studies Review, Vol.11, pp.253-276

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tutorial Task 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]

29

Week 10: Feminism (Fiona MacKay)

Core reading:

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

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

Further reading on feminist political science:

Banaszak, L.A. Beckwith, K. and Rucht, D. (eds) Women’s Movements Facing the Reconfigured State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. [HQ1587 Wom] *See introductory chapters for methodological framework and case studies for application

Childs, Sarah and Krook, Mona Lena ( 2006) ‘ Gender and politics: The State of the Art’ Politics 26/1 pp 18-26. [e-journal] See also the ‘Controversy’ section of Politics 26/ 3. Moran, Michael (2006) ‘Controversy. Gender, Identity and the Teaching of British Politics: A Comment’ pp 200-202; and Childs, Sarah and Krook, Mona Lena (2006) ‘Gender, Politics and Political Science: A reply to Michael Moran’ pp 203-205 [e-journals]

Connell, R.W. (2002) Gender. Cambridge: Polity [esp Chs 1,4,6,8] [HUB HQ1075 Con]

Corrin, Chris (1999) Feminist Perspectives on Politics. London: Longman, [HQ1236 Cor]

Duerst-Lahti, G. and R.M. Kelly (1995) Gender Power, Leadership and Governance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press [esp chs 1 & 2, but see also ch 7 for interesting case study] [HQ1236 Gen]

Kenny, M. (2007) ‘Gender, Institutions and Power: A Critical Review’, Politics, 27(2), 91-100 [e-journal]

Krook, M.L. and J. Squires (2006) ‘Gender Quotas in British Politics: Multiple Approaches and Methods in Feminist Research’, British Politics, 1, 44-66 [e-journal]

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

Lovenduski, Joni (2005) Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Polity [HUB HQ1236 Lov] Lovenduski, Joni (1998) ‘Gendering research in Political Science’ Annual Review of

Political Science 1, 333-356.1998. [e-journal]Lovenduski, J. (ed) (2000) Feminism and Politics. Aldershot: Ashgate [see esp

Lewis, Orloff and Randall chs] [HQ1190]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]

30

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.]

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) [e-journal: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v018/18.1young.html]

31

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) [e-journal: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v018/18.1young.html]

32

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)

33

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 8Members of group B will lead tutorial discussion in weeks 4 and 9Members 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

34

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: First

2:1 2:2 3 Fail

Presentation addresses the question set, and with sufficient focus?

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

Presentation follows a logical and effective pattern of argument?

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

Quality of the handouts

Capacity to respond appropriately to questions from the class

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

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

Comments:

Grade:

35

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

Step 1Go back and re-read feedback you have received in previous essays and formulate questions you still have about essay writing

Week 1

Step 2 Bring questions to tutorial and summarize them in groups

Week 2

Step 3 Essay workshopWeek

3Step 4 Essay outline (optional)

Week 4

ESSAY DUE Wednesday 15 February 12.00

Week 5

36

Step 5 Feedback (Round 1) Feedback (Round 2)

Week 6, 9

37

ANNEX 3: ESSAY QUESTIONS

Essay Questions

Choose ONE of the following:

1. Compare and contrast the ontology and epistemology of rational choice and social constructivism2. 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.

38

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

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

Referencing

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

39

40

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

Section A1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of modelling political processes as 'games'.2. 'We should insist upon seeing the world as made up of people talking to each other' (White). What are the implications of this for the study of Politics and International Relations?

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

2009 Exam

ANSWER TWO QUESTIONSYou must answer at least one question from Section BSection A1. Compare rational choice and social constructionist accounts of agency.2. To what extent can institutionalism be said to solve the problem of structure and

41

agency?Section B3. 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 andinternational relations?

42