The Global IR Revolution Must Start in the Graduate Classroom

Abstract

The Global IR literature of recent years has effectively brought greater attention to the need for transforming and globalizing the IR discipline, but there is little evidence that fundamental change has yet occurred. This work highlights this disconnect between Global IR’s aims and practice, and argues that to move beyond the rhetorical, greater emphasis should be placed on pedagogical change. The work draws on a collaborative project between a professor and four MA students, and reports the results of weekly discussions in which they explored their experiences of the challenges faced by those entering the disciplinary community, and proposed pedagogical solutions for contributing to a globalizing of IR. The findings raise warning flags of a growing ‘academic industrial complex, ’ in which students are herded into a competitive race driving them to publish at ever earlier stages. By emphasizing product over curiosity, our ‘factories’ of future IR scholars (graduate classrooms), are leading to premature assimilation, homogenization of thought, and, ultimately, to a “global” IR discipline that remains trapped in narrow Western-centric knowledge production.

Keywords

• Global IR
• IR Pedagogy
• Graduate Training
• Disciplinary Socialization
• Academic Industrial Complex
• Assimilation

References

1. Acharya, A. (2014). Global international Relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647-659.
2. Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing global IR: Challenges, contentions, and contributions. International Studies Review, 18(1), 4-15.
3. Acharya Amitav, Buzan Barry. 2007. “Conclusion: On the possibility of a non-Western IR theory in Asia.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific . 7(3): 427–38.
4. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2017). Why is there no non-western international relations theory? Ten years on. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 17(3), 341-370.
5. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of global international relations. Cambridge University Press.
6. Ala, J. (2024). Are we there yet? A global investigation of knowledge inclusion in International Relations theory curricula. All Azimuth, 13(1), 69-98.
7. Alagözlü, N., & Süzer, S. S. (2010). Language and cognition: Is critical thinking a myth in Turkish educational system? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 782-786.
8. Andrews, N. (2020). International relations (IR) pedagogy, dialogue and diversity: Taking the IR course syllabus seriously. All Azimuth, 9(2), 267-282.

9. Antony, J. S. (2002). Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development: Moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 349-380). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
10. Aydinli, E. (2023). Theory importation and the death of homegrown disciplinary potential: an autopsy of Turkish IR. Third World Quarterly, 45(3), 513–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2023.22 57141
11. Aydinli, E. & Aydinli, J. (2024). Exposing linguistic imperialism: Why Global IR has to be multilingual. Review of International Studies, 2024, 1–22.
12. Aydinli, E. & Erpul, O. (2022). The false promise of global IR: exposing the paradox of dependent development. International Theory, 14(3), 419-459.
13. Aydinli, E. & Mathews, J. (2000). Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1(3), 289- 303.
14. Bakır, A. & Ersoy, E. (2022). The rise and fall of homegrown concepts in global IR: The anatomy of ‘strategic depth’ in Turkish IR. All Azimuth, 11(2), 257-273.
15. Barnett, M., and G. Lawson (2023). “Three visions of the global: global international relations, global history, global historical sociology”. International Theory. 15(3):499-515. doi:10.1017/ S1752971923000179
16. Barnett, M. and A. Zarakol (2023). “Global international relations and the essentialism trap. International Theory.” 15(3), 428-444. doi:10.1017/S1752971923000131
17. Barthwal-Datta, M. (2025). “The embodied, entangled self and complicity in the neoliberal academy.” International Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-025-00669-x.
18. Bencherif, A., & Vlavonou, G. (2021). Reflexive tension: an auto-ethnographic journey through the discipline of International Relations in Western academic training. African Identities, 19(4), 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725843.2020.1803043.
19. Bertrand, J. L., & Lee, J. Y. (2012). Teaching international relations to a multicultural classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(1), 128-133.
20. Brigg, M., & Bleiker, R. (2010). Autoethnographic international relations: Exploring the self as a source of knowledge. Review of International Studies, 36(3), 779798. doi:10.1017/S0260210510000689.
21. Bosio, G., & Origo, F. (2020). Who gains from active learning in higher education?. Education Economics, 28(3), 311-331.
22. Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Lillejord, S. (2023). Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 597-615.
23. Boussebaa, M. & Tienari, J. (2021). Englishization and the politics of knowledge production in management studies, Journal of Management Inquiry, 30(1), 59–67.
24. Cerioli, L. (2024). Neoclassical Realism, Global International Relations, and the unheard echoes of Realist practices from the South. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 27(1), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481241230858
25. Clarke, D. F. (1991). The negotiated syllabus: What is it and how is it likely to work? Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 13-28.
26. Clarke, H. (2024). Toward pedagogies of decoloniality: Evaluating teaching practice and syllabus design in IR undergraduate modules. International Studies Perspectives, 26(1), 1-19. https://doi. org/10.1093/isp/ekad026
27. D’Augelli, A. R. (2003). Coming out in community psychology: Personal narrative and disciplinary change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 343-354.
28. De Leon, J. (2022). Theorising from the land: House or tipi of IR? Millennium, 50(3), 760-784.
29. Donohue-Bergeler, D., Goulet, C., & Hanka, D. (2018). Flattened hierarchy through drama-based pedagogy: A graduate student instructor and two undergraduates partner on classroom research. College Teaching, 66(2), 104-110.
30. Dunn, K. (2016). The pedagogical power of a lavender dildo: Teaching Cindy Weber’s Faking It to American undergraduates. Millennium, 45(1), 113-118.
31. Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2019). Action research in education: A practical guide. Guilford Publications.
32. El Kurd, D. (2023). Elusive decolonisation of IR in the Arab world. Review of International Studies, 49(3), 379-389.
33. Ersoy, E. (2023). Epistemic hierarchies and asymmetrical dialogues in global IR: Increasing the epistemic gravity of the periphery through thematic density. Third World Quarterly, 44(3), 513-531.
34. Eun Yong-Soo. (2023). “Knowledge production beyond West-centrism in IR: Toward Global IR 2.0.” International Studies Review. 25(2).
35. Gavin, M., Grabowski, S., Hassanli, N., Hergesell, A., Jasovska, P., Kaya, E., Klettner, A., Small, J., Walker, C. N., & Weatherall, R. (2023). ‘Maybe one way forward’: Forging collective collegiality in the neoliberal academy. Management Learning, 55(3), 386-405.
36. Grenier, F. & Hagmann, J. (2016). Sites of knowledge (re-)production: Towards an institutional sociology of International Relations scholarship. International Studies Review, 18(2), 333-365.
37. Hagmann, J., & Biersteker, T. J. (2014). Beyond the published discipline: Toward a critical pedagogy of international studies. European Journal of International Relations, 20(2), 291-315.
38. Hoffman, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus 106, 41–60.
39. Holliday S, & Wastnidge E. (2025). Towards a post-imperial and Global IR?: Revisiting Khatami’s Dialogue among Civilisations. Review of International Studies, 51(1), 159-178.
40. Holsti, K.J. (1985). The dividing discipline: Hegemony and diversity in international theory. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
41. Hooks, B. (2014). Teaching to transgress. Routledge.
42. Horta, H. & Li, H. (2023). Nothing but publishing: the overriding goal of PhD students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Studies in Higher Education, 48(2), 263–282.
43. Horton, John (2020), Failure failure failure failure failure failure: Six types of failure within the neoliberal academy, Emotion, Space and Society, 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2020.100672
44. Inayatullah, Naeem. (2022). Pedagogy as encounter: Beyond the teaching imperative. Rowman & Littlefield.
45. Jaschik, S. (2016). New data show tightening Ph.D. job market across disciplines. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/04/new-data-show-tighteningphd- job-market-across-disciplines
46. Karadeniz, Radiye Funda, and Gonca Oğuz Gök. (2024) “Searching for a place in Global IR through exceptionalism: Turkey and the mediation for peace initiative”. All Azimuth 13(2): 260-84.
47. Karamık, I. & E. Ermihan (2023). Quo vadis, Turkish IR? Mapping Turkish IR’s footsteps within the Global. All Azimuth 12(2), 241-260.
48. Keene, E. (2017). International intellectual history and International relations: Contexts, canons and mediocrities. International Relations, 31(3), 341-356.
49. Kristensen, P.M. (2019). States of emergence, States of knowledge: A comparative sociology of international relations in China and India. European Journal of International Relations 25(3), 772–799.
50. Krystalli, Roxani. (2023). Teaching and learning reflexivity in the world politics classroom. International Political Sociology. 17(4): 1-17.
51. Kuik, C.-C., & Benny, G. (2024). Linking local insights to Global IR: Locating Malaysian contours and contributions. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 43(3), 357-386. https://doi. org/10.1177/18681034241246014
52. Lake, D.A. (2016). White man’s IR: An intellectual confession. Perspectives on Politics, 14(4), 1112-1122.
53. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge UP.
54. Leeds, Brett A., J. Tickner J. Ann, Wight, Colin, and De Alba-Ulloa, Jessica. (2019). “Forum: Power and rules in the profession of international studies.” International Studies Review. 21(2), 188–209.
55. Leese, B. & Rosen, A. (2024). Increasing inclusion in classroom discussion: The raised block as a classroom response system in international studies, International Studies Perspectives, 26(2), 125-144.
56. Li, Y. (2016). Publish SCI papers or no degree”: Practices of Chinese doctoral supervisors in response to the publication pressure on science students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(4), 545–558.
57. Lightfoot, E., & Zheng, M. (2021). A snapshot of the tightening academic job market for social work doctoral students. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(1), 165–172.
58. Ling, L.H.M. (2014). The Dao of world politics: Towards a post-Westphalian, worldist international relations. Routledge.
59. Lohaus, M. & Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. (2021). Who publishes where? Exploring the geographic diversity of global IR journals, International Studies Review, 23(3), 645–669.
60. Loke, B., & Owen, C. (2022). Mapping practices and spatiality in IR knowledge production: From detachment to emancipation. European Journal of International Relations, 28(1), 30-57.
61. McKeown, M. (2022). The view from below: How the neoliberal academy is shaping contemporary political theory. Society 59(2), 99–109.
62. Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159-167.
63. Mikelis, K. (2023). Lessons learned from the development of Turkish IR: A view from Greece. All Azimuth 12(1), 45-60.
64. Mohammed, H.J. & Daham, H.A. (2021). Analytic hierarchy process for evaluating flipped classroom learning. Computers, Materials & Continua, 66(3), 2229-2239.
65. Museus, S. D., & Sasaki, C. T. (2021). Creating spaces of refusal in the neoliberal academy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 35(5), 553–563.
66. Narain, S. (2017). Knowledge production, pedagogy and research in IR: Perspectives from India. Journal of International & Global Studies, 8(2).
67. Nossal, K. R. (2001). Tales that textbooks tell: Ethnocentricity and diversity in American introductions to international relations. International Relations–Still an American Social Science, 167-86.
68. Ochnik, D., Rogowska, A. M., Kuśnierz, C., Jakubiak, M., Schütz, A., Held, M. J., ... & Wierzbik- Strońska, M. (2021). A comparison of depression and anxiety among university students in nine countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(13), 2882.
69. Okur, M. A., & Aytekin, C. E. (2023). Non-western theories in international relations education and research: The case of Turkey/Turkish academia. All Azimuth, 12(1), 1-27.
70. Özdemir, H. (2024). The dark side of the moon: An ever-fragmenting discipline and Turkish IR in “the outer periphery”, All Azimuth 13(1), 99-120.
71. Parisi, L. et al. (2013). Innovating international relations pedagogy: Critical feminist engagements. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 15(3), 412-425.
72. Savaş, C. (2024). Disciplinary boundaries and methodological Issues of teaching geopolitics in Turkey. All Azimuth, 13(1), 121-138.
73. Shahi, D. (2016). Teaching international relations in India: From pedagogy to andragogy. E-International Relations.
74. Shahi, D. (2019). Introducing Sufism to international relations theory: A preliminary inquiry into epistemological, ontological, and methodological pathways. European Journal of International Relations, 25(1), 250-275.
75. Shahi, D. (2024). Global IR research programme: From perplexities to progressions, All Azimuth 13(1), 5-26.
76. Shih, C. (2017). Transcending hegemonic international relations theorization: Nothingness, reworlding, and balance of relationship”, All Azimuth, 6(2), 19-42.
77. Sidaway, J.D., & Hall, T. (2018). Geography textbooks, pedagogy and disciplinary traditions. Area, 50(1), 34-42.
78. Sigle, W. (2021). Demography’s theory and approach: (How) has the view from the margins changed? Population Studies, 75, 235-251.
79. Simmons, N., & Singh, A. (2019). Critical collaborative communities: Academic writing partnerships, groups, and retreats (Vol. 17). Brill.
80. Sinclair-Chapman, V. (2015). Leveraging diversity in political science for institutional and disciplinary change. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(3), 454-458.
81. Singham, M. (2005). Away from the authoritarian classroom. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(3), 50-57.
82. Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: still an American social science?. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2(3), 374-402.
83. Smith, S. (2002) The United States and the discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline’, International Studies Review, 4(2), 67-85.
84. Smith, H.A., & Hornsby, D.J. (Eds.) (2021). Teaching international relations in a time of disruption. Palgrave Macmillan.
85. Sondarjee, M. (2023). Decentring the Western gaze in International Relations: Addressing epistemic exclusions in syllabi in the United States and Canada. Millennium, 51(3), 686-710.
86. Standing, Guy (2014) The precariat. Contexts 13(4), 10–12.
87. Sune, E. (2024). Western-centric moments in homegrown IR theories: Dependency, Chinese and African schools. All Azimuth 13(1), 27-48.
88. Taylor, Z.W. (2019). The hunter became the hunted: A graduate student’s experiences with predatory publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly 35(6), 122–137.
89. Thalang, Chanintira Na. (2022). Advancing global IR from a Thai perspective. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 44(2), 250-273.
90. Thorkelson, E. (2010). Experience, reflexive socialization and disciplinary order in anthropology. Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library.
91. Tickner, A.B. (2013). Core, periphery and (neo) imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627-646.
92. Timperley, C., & Schick, K. (2022). Hiding in plain sight: Pedagogy and power. International Studies Perspectives, 23(2), 113-128.
93. Tripathi, S. (2021). International relations and the ‘Global South’: From epistemic hierarchies to dialogic encounters. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 2039-2054.
94. Umar, A.R.M. (2024). ‘Which part of your work is IR?’ on Western dominance and the discipline of International Relations in Indonesia. Alternatives, 49(3), 180-189.
95. Valovirta, E., and M. Mannevuo. 2022. Affective academic time management in the neoliberal university: From timeliness to timelessness. European Journal of Cultural Studies 25(5), 1307– 1323.
96. Vogel, B. et al. (2024). Upholding hierarchies of knowledge production: Mundane obstacles to global international relations, International Studies Perspectives, 27(1), 66-96.
97. Wæver, O. (1998). The Sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations, International Organization, 52(4), 687-727.
98. Wang, Y. & Wang, L. (2016). Self-construal and creativity: The moderator effect of self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 184-189.
99. Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. et al. (2020). The global IR debate in the classroom. In International relations from the global south (pp. 17-37). Routledge.
100. Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., Kristensen, P. M., & Lohaus, M. (2022). The global division of labor in a not so global discipline. All Azimuth, 11(1), 3-27.
101. Whyte, C. (2019). Can we change the topic, please? Assessing the theoretical construction of international relations scholarship. International Studies Quarterly, 63(2), 432-447.
102. Wicaksana, I.G.W. & Santoso, Y.W. (2022). Promoting Global IR under the dominance of mainstream theories and the liberalization of universities. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 44(2), 207-229.
103. Wilkinson, S. (1990). Women’s organisations in psychology: Institutional constraints on disciplinary change. Australian Psychologist, 25(3), 256-269.
104. Worthen, W.B. (2018). (Inter)disciplinary change. Theatre, Performance and Change, 323-332.
105. Xiong H, Peterson, D.A, and Braumoeller, B.F. (2024). Reconceptualizing international order: Contemporary Chinese theories and their contributions to global IR. International Organization 78(3), 538-574.
106. Xuetong, Y. (2013). Ancient Chinese thought and modern Chinese power. Princeton UP.
107. Yin, Y.M., Mu, G.M. (2023). Thriving in the neoliberal academia without becoming its agent? Sociologising resilience with an early career academic and a mid-career researcher. Higher Education 86(1), 65–80.
108. Zarakol, A. & Aydinli, E. (2025). Gradual reform or revolution? Pathways to global IR. All Azimuth, 14 (2), 154-168.
109. Zech, S.T., Rublee, M.R., Deejay, A., & Flanik, W.M. (2022). Active learning and the graduate classroom. Journal of Political Science Education, 18(1), 22-34.
110. Zembylas, M. (2023). Time-as-affect in neoliberal academy: Theorizing chronopolitics as affective milieus in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 49(3), 493–504.
111. Zhao, B. & Potter, D. (2016). Comparison of lecture-based learning vs discussion-based learning in undergraduate medical students. Journal of Surgical Education, 73 (2), 250–57.