Description:
This is the description for the Critical Analysis:
Each student will be responsible for writing four critical analyses of three to four pages each (12 point font, double-spaced, one inch margins). The analyses should address a given week’s reading (first and last week excepted) and should NOT be summaries. Rather, the student should analyze the readings, raise questions about them, critique one on the basis of another, etc. They will be due at or before class on Thursday of the week the readings are assigned. While the student may choose when to write them, two must be handed in before spring break.
This current week is Week 3 so that means that if you would like to bid to do one or two critical responses and choose one of them to be this weeks response then that one will have to be turned it by THIS THURSDAY before NOON. If not, then it follows accordingly. Week 4 = due on the 23rd by noon etc.
As a Professsor you can bid on if you would like to do just one response or two. I would prefer to have you do two and based on the performance of those two critical responses I will reach out to you after spring break to complete the 3rd and 4th responses due for the course.
Please let me know which weeks you would be willing to do and if you need me to attach that weeks reading then I will download the PDF and send it to you. Thanks!
Here are the readings by week:
Week 3 DUE FEB. 16 @ NOON
1. Neoliberal institutionalism
a. Keohane 1984, Chapters 4, 5, and 6.
2. Obstacles to cooperation
a. Grieco, Joseph M. 1988. Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization 42 (3): 485 507.
Week 4 DUE FEB. 23 @ NOON
1. Regimes and anarchy
a. Krasner, Stephen D. 1991. Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier. World Politics 43(3): 336-366.
2. Critiques of neorealism
a. Ruggie, John Gerard. 1983. Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis. World Politics 35(2): 261-285.
b. Milner, Helen. 1991. The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique, Review of International Studies 17(1): 67-85.
Week 5 DUE MAR. 2 @ NOON
1. Agents, structures, and mutual constitution
a. Wendt. 1987. The structure agent problem in international relations theory. International Organization 41(3): 335-370.
2. The social construction of anarchy
a. Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46(2): 391-426.
Week 6 DUE MAR. 9 @ NOON
1. Opening up the state: liberal approaches
a. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51(4): 513-53.
2. Opening up the state: constructivist and realist approaches
a. Hopf, Ted. 2013. Common Sense constructivism and Hegemony in World Politics. International Organization 67(2): 317 – 354.
b. Rathbun, Brian. 2008 A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism. Security Studies 17: 294–321.
This is the description for the Critical Analysis:
Each student will be responsible for writing four critical analyses of three to four pages each (12 point font, double-spaced, one inch margins). The analyses should address a given week’s reading (first and last week excepted) and should NOT be summaries. Rather, the student should analyze the readings, raise questions about them, critique one on the basis of another, etc. They will be due at or before class on Thursday of the week the readings are assigned. While the student may choose when to write them, two must be handed in before spring break.
This current week is Week 3 so that means that if you would like to bid to do one or two critical responses and choose one of them to be this weeks response then that one will have to be turned it by THIS THURSDAY before NOON. If not, then it follows accordingly. Week 4 = due on the 23rd by noon etc.
As a Professsor you can bid on if you would like to do just one response or two. I would prefer to have you do two and based on the performance of those two critical responses I will reach out to you after spring break to complete the 3rd and 4th responses due for the course.
Please let me know which weeks you would be willing to do and if you need me to attach that weeks reading then I will download the PDF and send it to you. Thanks!
Here are the readings by week:
Week 3 DUE FEB. 16 @ NOON
1. Neoliberal institutionalism
a. Keohane 1984, Chapters 4, 5, and 6.
2. Obstacles to cooperation
a. Grieco, Joseph M. 1988. Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization 42 (3): 485 507.
Week 4 DUE FEB. 23 @ NOON
1. Regimes and anarchy
a. Krasner, Stephen D. 1991. Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier. World Politics 43(3): 336-366.
2. Critiques of neorealism
a. Ruggie, John Gerard. 1983. Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis. World Politics 35(2): 261-285.
b. Milner, Helen. 1991. The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique, Review of International Studies 17(1): 67-85.
Week 5 DUE MAR. 2 @ NOON
1. Agents, structures, and mutual constitution
a. Wendt. 1987. The structure agent problem in international relations theory. International Organization 41(3): 335-370.
2. The social construction of anarchy
a. Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46(2): 391-426.
Week 6 DUE MAR. 9 @ NOON
1. Opening up the state: liberal approaches
a. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51(4): 513-53.
2. Opening up the state: constructivist and realist approaches
a. Hopf, Ted. 2013. Common Sense constructivism and Hegemony in World Politics. International Organization 67(2): 317 – 354.
b. Rathbun, Brian. 2008 A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism. Security Studies 17: 294–321.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.