The production, spread, and use of scholarly knowledges differs across places, and their distinct local configurations are conditioned by a variety of immaterial and material factors such as values systems, ontologies and epistemologies, methods, material capabilities, and organizational and political constraints. This research avenue questions how ‘world politics’ is researched and taught in and beyond academia. It develops this focus through comparative empirical work, lending special attention to the question of how specialized ‘international knowledge’ is being pluralized both within and beyond International Relations and Political Science.
Teaching world politics in the East, the West, and in-between
Pedagogy plays an important role in the (re-)production of national and international policy ideals and state interests. Yet, the ways in which foreign policy practitioners are educated in world politics has been given little attention thus far. How are civil servants and foreign affairs officers instructed at different academic and vocational schools? This upcoming 2016-2018 research project looks more deeply into the contents and practices of teaching world politics in the ‘East’, the ‘West’, and ‘in-between’. The research project, which is co-funded by the Swiss National Science Fundation and the Russian Foundation for Humanities, and jointly led by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, brings together a team of scholars from Russia, Canada and Switzerland to investigate this question.
Counter-mapping the discipline: The archipelago of Western IR teaching
Who teaches whose and what kind of knowledge at leading US and European IR schools? This chapter in the upcoming SAGE Handbook of the History, Philosophy and Sociology of International Relations analyses the core IR courses of 23 universities. The chapter unpacks these courses’ paradigmatic penchants and the authorship on which they draw. By looking at the ‘instructed’ and not the ‘published discipline’, it seeks to draw another picture of International Relations scholarship. In doing so, the aim is to problematize the powerful ontologies of scholarly work that underpin existing mappings of the discipline.
Paradigmatic penchants in core IR courses & sources of international knowledge
Hagmann, Jonas; Biersteker, Thomas (forth). Counter-mapping the discipline: The archipelago of Western International Relations teaching. In: Gofas, Andreas; Hamati-Ataya, Inanna; Onuf, Nick (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of the History, Philosophy and Sociology of International Relations. London/New York: SAGE. PDF
Does everyone need a national IR school? Better not.
At the ISA Annual Convention in New Orleans numerous scholars drew on the sociology of IR literature to call for the creation of ‘national IR schools’, i.e., new and exclusively locally defined approaches to world politics and international analysis. An Indian school of IR ranked prominently among the candidates, but so did a Chinese school of IR, an Anatolian and a Brazilian one, and further propositions made at the panels and roundtables I attended centred on Eastern Europe. Hearing these calls, I wondered: Is the institutionalization of national IR disciplines really what the sociology of IR research agenda seeks to achieve?
Hagmann, Jonas (2016). Does everyone need a national IR school? Engaging the sociology of IR’s most recent appropriation. British International Studies Association BISA @40 Posts. 12 February. PDF
Teaching ‘statist’ behavior: The case of diplomatic academies
Diplomatic academies are instructive cases of how the production and dissemination of ‘international knowledge’ is conditioned by institutional factors. With their vocational focus, diplomatic academies are first and foremost sites for educating the praxis of state-behaviour. This orientation notwithstanding, the academies should not be dissociated from disciplinary IR. Already, diplomatic academies are closer to practical world politics, and thus to the central research object of IR – a point that itself warrants close(r) engagement with the diplomatic field and its professional reproduction. What is more, the barriers between diplomatic and academic training have become more porous recently, and both fields are marked by similar processes at their overarching institutional level, i.e., elements such as evolving mandates, the internationalization of contents and design, and a general commercialisation of activities. With a view to exposing a different site of international education and to generating further insights on the institutional sociology of IR, this contribution considers diplomatic schools as interesting hybrid sites of international education.
Hagmann, Jonas; Lebedeva, Marina (2016). Teaching (as) statist practice: Diplomatic schools as sites of international education. International Studies Review 18(2): 349-353. PDF
Towards an institutional sociology of the International Relations discipline
The sociology of International Relations (IR) literature successfully unpacks the discipline’s political and intellectual penchants. Yet curiously enough, it has not given more attention to the discipline’s embodiment in concrete institutions. How does the organization of social scientific fields, education policies, and related institutional transformations condition the production and diffusion of scholarly knowledge about world politics? This forum promotes a dedicated engagement with the ‘institutional sociology’ of the discipline. Its ambition is to highlight the diversity of sites and settings where specialized knowledge about international relations is produced, shaped and re-instantiated. In doing so, the focus on IR’s institutional layer becomes an important vector for opening up the literature to insights from related fields of study.
Grenier, Félix; Hagmann, Jonas (2016). Sites of knowledge (re-)production: Towards an institutional sociology of International Relations scholarship. International Studies Review 18(2): 333-336. PDF
Beyond Babylon? Teaching international politics in the 21st century
Students of international politics are still made to learn a fairly one-dimensional understanding of international reality in the early 21st century. Whether discussing unrest in the Arab world, security dynamics in Afghanistan, or foreign politics in Latin America – many academic curricula still assess and explain world politics on the basis of a singular and objective body of thought. Such ‘modernist’ non-engagement with the cultural foundations of academic study programs is assertive and daring. Since, when narrowly defined diagnoses are projected onto the world, the danger of constructing transfigured and under-differentiated representations of distant places becomes especially acute. Students of international politics are led to act on imageries of Africa, Islam, the Balkans, China, and any other seemingly ‘exotic’ or ‘distant’ region or topic, without an awareness of the ways in which these imageries have been intimately colored by Western authors and their respective histories, trajectories, values, and world views. Instead of speaking with others about political issues, students of world politics are essentially induced to speak about others and their political topics.
Hagmann, Jonas (2015). Beyond Babylon? Teaching international politics in the 21st century. E-International Relations. 7 May. PDF
Engaging world politics through national lenses: IR teaching at leading American and European Political Science departments
The emergent sociology of International Relations (IR) literature investigates the discipline’s organization and inner structuring. It makes the field cognizant of its own institutional and intellectual configurations and thus empowers scholars to engage more critically with IR’s analytical, geocultural, and political lenses. This contribution notwithstanding, the literature continues to focus on ‘flagship’ publications as indicators of intellectual proclivities, and on scholars as their only relevant audiences. This article challenges this focus. Making the case for an inquiry into classroom socialization, it maps the paradigmatic, geocultural, gendered, and historical perspectives taught to students in the case of 23 leading US and European IR graduate programs. It points to differences between the ‘instructed’ and the ‘published’ discipline, and shows how the former is governed and constrained by a variety of intellectual parochialisms. Problematizing the educative functions of these, the article advocates a more self-reflexive understanding of IR teaching.
Hagmann, Jonas; Biersteker, Thomas (2014). Beyond the published discipline: Towards a critical pedagogy of international studies. European Journal of International Relations 20(2): 291-315. PDF
Der Westen legt sich die Welt zurecht
Die dritte Welt habe nun endlich ihre eigene unüberhörbare Stimme, schrieb Jean-Paul Sartre 1961 in seinem Vorwort zu Frantz Fanons antikolonialer Streitschrift “Die Verdammten dieser Erde”. Und tatsächlich brachten die 60er und 70er Jahre in Europa und Nordamerika eine Pluralisierung der Wissenszugänge zur internationalen Politik mit sich. Alles gut also? Hat sich die Lehre der internationalen Politik nunmehr von der ihr angeboren westlichen Nabelschau emanzipiert? Eine neue Studie zeigt, dass dem leider nicht so ist. Wer eine fortwährende Multiplizierung der Zugänge zur internationalen Politik erwartet, sieht sich heute grundlegend enttäuscht.
Hagmann, Jonas (2011). Der Westen legt sich die Welt zurecht: Das Fach Internationale Politik erscheint als zunehmend engstirniges Denksystem. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 261, 9 November: N5. PDF