Are We There Yet? A Global Investigation of Knowledge Inclusion in International Relations Theory Curricula

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 1 - 30, 24.01.2024

Jacqueline De Matos-ala

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1420929

Öz

It is now rather well established that most International Relations (IR) theories are
predicated on Western knowledges. This potentially limits their analytical capacity
to explain international relations beyond Western ideological values or interests.
However, in recent years there has been a substantial increase in scholarship not
only critiquing the Western centric nature of International Relations theory but
also exploring the contributions that knowledges from the global South make to
the field of IR theory. Thus, the status quo is shifting, albeit slowly. Nevertheless,
the impact as well as the implication of this shift toward knowledge plurality for
the IR theory curricula has not been paid adequate attention. Consequently, this
article investigates whether the demand for knowledge plurality in the realm of
IR theory research has made inroads into the arena of pedagogy resulting in
the generation of knowledge plural IR theory curricula. Moreover, it examines
the different choices and interpretations made by educators in endeavouring to
create knowledge plural IR theory curricula in various global contexts. Further, it
endeavours to discern the factors that have informed and/or shaped respondents’
curricula and pedagogical choices pertaining to the selection, structuring and
transmission of IR knowledge at tertiary education institutions in different
geographical contexts. Ultimately, it reflects on the implications of the increase
in knowledge plural curricula for the development of greater knowledge plurality
within the discipline.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Global International Relations, decolonisation, International Relations theory, IR theory curricula, knowledge plurality

Kaynakça

• Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” In Non-Western International Relations Theory, 287-312. New York: Routledge, 2009.
• Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2014): 647-659.
• Andrews, Nathan. “International Relations (IR) Pedagogy, Dialogue and Diversity: Taking the IR Course Syllabus Seriously.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 9, no. 2 (2020): 267-282.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1, no. 3 (2000): 289-303.
• Barasuol, Fernanda, and André Reis da Silva. “International Relations Theory in Brazil: Trends and Challenges in Teaching and Research.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59, no. 2 (2016): 1-20.
• Behera, Navnita Chadha. “Knowledge Production.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 153-155.
• Bernstein, Basil. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.
• Blaney, David L. “Global Education, Disempowerment, and Curricula for a World Politics.” Journal of Studies in International Education 6, no. 3 (2002): 268-282.
• Blaney, David L., and Arlene B. Tickner. “International Relations in the Prison of Colonial Modernity.” International Relations 31, no. 1 (2017): 71-75.
• Blaney, David L., and Arlene B. Tickner. “Introduction: Claiming the International beyond IR.” In Claiming the International, 1-24. New York: Routledge, 2013.
• Blaney, David L., and Arlene B. Tickner. “Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR.” Millennium 45, no. 3 (2017): 293-311.
• Chowdhry, Geeta. “Edward Said and Contrapuntal Reading: Implications for Critical Interventions in International Relations.” Millennium 36, no. 1 (2007): 101-116.
• de Sousa Santos, Boaventura. “Public Sphere and Epistemologies of the South.” Africa Development 37, no. 1 (2012): 43-67.
• Hays, Sharon, “Structure and Agency and the Sticky Problem of Culture.” Sociological Theory 12, no. 1 (1994): 57-72.
• Hovey, Rebecca. “Critical Pedagogy and International Studies: Reconstructing Knowledge through Dialogue with the Subaltern.” International Relations 18, no. 2 (2004): 241-254.
• Inayatullah, Naeem, and David L. Blaney. International Relations and the Problem of Difference. New York: Routledge, 2004.
• Inoue, Cristina, and Arlene B. Tickner. “Many Worlds, Many Theories?” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59, no. 2 (2016): 1-4
• Krippendorff, Klaus. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. New York: Sage, 2018.
• Levine, Daniel J., and David M. McCourt. “Why Does Pluralism Matter When We Study Politics? A View from Contemporary International Relations.” Perspectives on Politics 16, no. 1 (2018): 92-109.
• Lim, Leonel. “Regulating the Unthinkable: Bernstein’s Pedagogic Device and the Paradox of Control.” International Studies in Sociology of Education 26, no. 4 (2017): 353-374.
• Liu, Tony Tai-Ting. “Teaching IR to the Global South: Some Reflections and Insights.” Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional 59, no. 2 (2016): 1-16.
• Luckett, Kathy. “The Relationship between Knowledge Structure and Curriculum: A Case Study in Sociology.” Studies in higher education 34, no. 4 (2009): 441-453.
• McLean, Monica, Andrea Abbas, and Paul Ashwin. “The Use and Value of Bernstein’s Work in Studying (in) Equalities in Undergraduate Social Science Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 34, no. 2 (2013): 262-280.
• Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. “Fully Integrated Content Analysis in International Relations.” International Relations 31, no. 4 (2017): 447-465.
• Qin, Yaqing. “A Multiverse of Knowledge: Cultures and IR Theories.” In Globalizing IR Theory, 139-157. New York: Routledge, 2020.
• Querejazu, Amaya. “Encountering the Pluriverse: Looking for Alternatives in Other Worlds.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59, no. 2 (2016): 1-16.
• Reus-Smit, Christian, and Duncan Snidal. “Between Utopia and Reality: The Practical Discourses of International Relations.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, 4-38. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
• Rojas, Cristina. “Contesting the Colonial Logics of the International: Toward a Relational Politics for the Pluriverse.” International Political Sociology 10, no. 4 (2016): 369-382.
• Shay, Suellen. “Curricula at the Boundaries.” Higher Education 71 (2016): 767-779.
• Shay, Suellen. “Curriculum Formation: A Case Study from History.” Studies in Higher Education 36, no. 3 (2011): 315-329.
• Singh, Parlo. “Pedagogising Knowledge: Bernstein’s Theory of the Pedagogic Device.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 23, no. 4 (2002): 571-582.
• Smith, Karen, and Arlene B. Tickner. “Introduction: International Relations from the Global South.” in International Relations from the Global South, 1-14. New York: Routledge, 2020.
• Tickner, Arlene B. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627-646.
• Tickner, Arlene B. “Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies.” International Studies Perspectives 4, no. 4 (2003): 325-350.
• Tickner, Arlene B. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium 32, no. 2 (2003): 295-324.
• Tickner, Arlene B., and David L. Blaney. “Introduction: Thinking Difference.” In Thinking International Relations Differently, 1-24. New York: Routledge, 2013.
• Wæver, Ole. “The Sociology of a not-so International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 687-727.
• Wemheuer-Vogelaar, Wiebke, Nicholas J. Bell, Mariana Navarrete Morales, and Michael J. Tierney. “The IR of the Beholder: Examining Global IR Using the 2014 TRIP Survey.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 16-32.