The Politics of Teaching International Relations in the Arab World: Reading Walt in Beirut, Wendt in Doha, and Abul-Fadl in Cairo

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
May Darwich ◽  
Morten Valbjørn ◽  
Bassel F Salloukh ◽  
Waleed Hazbun ◽  
Amira Abu Samra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Arab World ◽  
Individual Factors ◽  
Classroom Dynamics ◽  
Pedagogical Strategies ◽  
American Social Science ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Conceptual Foundations

Abstract Can International Relations (IR) as it is taught in the Arab world be said to be an “American social science” or is it taught differently in different places? The forum addresses this question through an exploration of what and how scholars at Arab universities are teaching IR and how institutional, historical, and linguistic, as well as political and individual factors shape classroom dynamics in the Arab world. This forum attempts to bring the classroom into the Global/Post-Western debate by showing how IR can be taught differently in different places with a focus on a region under-represented in IR debates: the Arab world. The essays, exhibiting diversity in pedagogical strategies and theoretical perspectives, provide a window into how the “international” is perceived and taught locally by teachers and students in various Arab contexts. While the influence from the American “core” of the discipline is obvious, the forum documents how the theoretical and conceptual foundations of IR based on Western perspectives and history do not travel intact. The essays collectively provide evidence of different kinds of IRs not just across but also within regions and show that studying pedagogy can become a way to study how disciplinary IR varies contextually.

International Relations as a Social Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie D'Aoust
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Sociology Of Knowledge ◽  
Science History ◽  
American Social Science ◽  
Scientific Legitimacy ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Definition Of

The nature of the debates surrounding international relations (IR) as a social science have pointed to issues of ontology, epistemology, methodology, philosophy of science, history, and sociology of knowledge, yet they are all crucial in understanding the character of international relations. Such an idea was brought about by Stanley Hoffman’s 1977 article, “An American Social Science: International Relations.” For Hoffmann, IR developed the way it did out of a set of distinctive intellectual predispositions, political circumstances, and institutional opportunities. His insights, however controversial, thus reveal fundamental questions about the work of IR scholars. The key issues here are the definition of IR as a discipline, the definition of IR as a science, and the definition of IR as an American social science in particular. The large variety of inquiries explored in IR, the “kind” of social science IR scholars are engaged in, as well as how “progress” is assessed, all reveal some important nuances in international relations as a discipline. Moreover, the debates surrounding the scientific legitimacy of IR scholarship reveal how IR gained legitimacy as a discipline. The historical development of IR could in fact be described as a series of debates, known among those in the field as the “great debates,” which eventually became the coherent whole understood to be the field of international relations.

IR As a Social Science/IR As an American Social Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie D'Aoust
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Sociology Of Knowledge ◽  
Science History ◽  
American Social Science ◽  
Scientific Legitimacy ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Definition Of

The nature of the debates surrounding international relations (IR) as a social science have pointed to issues of ontology, epistemology, methodology, philosophy of science, history, and sociology of knowledge, yet they are all crucial in understanding the character of international relations. Such an idea was brought about by Stanley Hoffman’s 1977 article, “An American Social Science: International Relations.” For Hoffmann, IR developed the way it did out of a set of distinctive intellectual predispositions, political circumstances, and institutional opportunities. His insights, however controversial, thus reveal fundamental questions about the work of IR scholars. The key issues here are the definition of IR as a discipline, the definition of IR as a science, and the definition of IR as an American social science in particular. The large variety of inquiries explored in IR, the “kind” of social science IR scholars are engaged in, as well as how “progress” is assessed, all reveal some important nuances in international relations as a discipline. Moreover, the debates surrounding the scientific legitimacy of IR scholarship reveal how IR gained legitimacy as a discipline. The historical development of IR could in fact be described as a series of debates, known among those in the field as the “great debates,” which eventually became the coherent whole understood to be the field of international relations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document