Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 3: IR in Close Up
3.1.1 Discussing Selected Items From TRIP Survey Findings
As posed in Question 9 below, by Maliniak et al (2009:18) who dutifully capture, the results to the question posed, regarding employment of selected IR paradigms in Intro to IR course (s) Table 1.1 Percentage dedicated to the various theoretical paradigms of IR
Source: TRIP Survey (Maliniak et al, 2009:18).
108
Response to the above question, seems to have been consistent, with the remark of the undergraduate student, whom inspired the 2005 TRIP research, who was recorded as follows “all the IR scholars in our department, have abandoned the realist paradigm as a guide, to their own research, but they continue to highlight realism in introductory IR courses” (Maliniak et al, 2005:2). In as far as response was concerned, almost all the IR scholars interviewed “employ a diversity of paradigms and theoretical approaches…each of the major schools of thought in IR- namely Realism, liberalism and Constructivism is well represented (if in different proportions) among faculty in every country we surveyed” (Maliniak et al, 2009:18).
From the Table of findings as displayed (in Question 9, in this particular TRIP Survey (2009), an estimation of how much time was spent, on teaching Mainstream theory, such as Realism, could be vividly observed. Suffice to say, that the Realist school of thought (at 21% (US), 18% (UK), 18% (Can), 19% (Austr.), 18% (NZ), 14 %( Ire), 40% (Isr.), 23% (SA), 29% (UK) and 29%
(Singapore) was ahead of all, the other existing IR theories. Namely Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism, Feminism, English School, Non-Paradigmatic and other.
The above findings appear to be consistent, with the conventional paradigm, that Realism is the reigning theory, amongst all the IR theories. Israeli scholars (at 40% being the highest percentage registered) appeared as the most devoted, to Realist approaches, than all the other participating countries, on the survey. Understandably there may be speculation, why this approach is so highly preferred, in Israel. Perhaps from amongst other reasons, this may be due, to the ongoing political and secular related conflict, experienced by the majority of the population, in that country. Whatever the case or reason(s) which may explain such a finding, it should be stated that securing response for such a finding, is beyond the scope, of this study, hence it shall not be discussed any further and will be left as is.
Other explored countries elsewhere, such as Ireland (registered the lowest at 14%, alongside New Zealand and UK- which both registered 18%)? South Afrika (at 24%), Israel (at 28%) and Hong Kong (32%)–score slightly higher percentages, of class time spent on Liberalism. It may be noted, at this early stage, of this study that South Afrika, is the only Afrikan country, included
109
in the TRIP Survey’s under discussion. Since the author of this study may be categorized, as a South Afrikan, the exclusion or absence of other Afrikan countries in the respective TRIP Survey (2009) study(s), should be read as a decision taken, by the authors concerned. In order to maintain the objectivity sought, in the quest to secure, adequate response to the two main questions, as posed in the opening chapter of this study, this clarity should be kept in mind as it is dimmed as crucial.
In returning back to the study, Maliniak et al (2009:18), further pointed out that “class time, devoted to Realism, grew by 5% between 2006 and 2008 respectively”. Although Constructivism was registered, as growing in popularity, as found in the earlier project titled The View from the Ivory Tower Maliniak et al (2008), express their findings as follows
only a small proportion of class time in introductory courses, was devoted to this paradigm, and thus appeared set, to overtake the declining paradigm of Marxism. Even the prevalence of the constructivist IR scholarship in countries like New Zealand, Ireland and South Afrika do not translate into a larger share of class time. Predictably, the English School paradigm is more prevalent in U.K classrooms than anywhere else in the world. In all, it appears as though while American and non-U.S scholars differ significantly in their personal paradigmatic approaches, these differences, do not noticeably influence their teaching practices: the major paradigms, receive roughly the same course time, regardless of country in question (Maliniak et al, 2009:18).
From the above realization, one may deduce that the closer a scholar is to a particular region, the more likely that their focus area, would be based in that particular region. The differences however halt only at region of influence, the choice of paradigm still remains locked at Mainstream IR level. In closure to the above question, the disclaimer below as recorded by Maliniak et al (2005:12) should be noted
These results highlight a problem with the question (and with the field of international relations).
There is no consensus on the primary paradigm in the field. In fact, there is no consensus on what
“ism” qualifies as a paradigm theory, or approach. We selected these four approaches, as paradigmatic for IR because they are most frequently discussed, as if they are the main paradigmatic alternatives (Keohane, Katzenstein, and Krasner 1998; Freiden and Lake 1995).
In proceeding ahead, as posed in Question 26 by Maliniak et al (2009:31):
110
Table 1.2 Preferred approaches to the study of IR
Source: TRIP Survey (Oakes and Maliniak et al, 2009:31).
The overall message on paradigms, from most of the scholars, who participated, is that they hardly use paradigmatic analysis. Interestingly the 2004 and 2006 U.S figures are lower than the 26% of Americans in 2008, who said they do not use paradigmatic analysis. A modest drop in the major paradigms in the USA and Canada is noticed. In 2004 and 2006, 25% of U.S respondents characterized their work as Realist, while only 21% did in 2008. 33% and 31% of US faculty reported in 2004 and 2006, respectively, that their work was liberal, compared to only 20% in 2008. Similarly, 22 % of Canadian scholars described their work as liberal in 2006, but only 15% did in 2008 (Maliniak et al, 2009:31).
Based on the author of this study’s personal observation, agreement is given below in as far as
the overwhelming majority of textbooks used in IR, organize this discipline based around paradigms. It is interesting to note, that while conventional wisdom suggests that the United States is the last bastion of Realism theory, the above survey results reflect an academic community, which has healthy populations of Realism’s scholars, outside the USA (Maliniak et al, 2009:31).
On the point of textbooks used in IR,see Appendix A: Example of a Typical IR Course Outline (in the addendum) courtesy of J.M Joseph of University of Kent. It should not matter that the
111
lecturer concerned is from Europe and their class presumably filled with Europeans. Of significance is that this course outline, mirrors almost the majority of authors, perceived as crucial, in the discourse of IR. To date any deviation from the observed authors, as noted from the attached course outline in the addendum, might run the risk of being criticized, as teaching something else other than IR. Note the Eurocentric hegemony laced over IR.
In reference to the rest of the abovementioned quote, the same view is also shared in the September 2007, research report. Above all else, consolidation of the view that “realism and liberalism dominate the syllabi of introductory IR courses. Although the share of class time has declined, realism still dominates the teaching of IR today: 25 percent of teaching in 2004 and 22 percent was devoted to this theoretical tradition” (Maliniak et al, 2007:7).
In order to do justice, to the Eurocentric emphasis paid by IR scholars, their respective heavy Westerncentric based premise, for reliance purposes as revealed in the tables under discussion, may not be underestimated. Finally as posed in Question 36 below by Maliniak et al (2009:41).
Table 1.3. IR Literature estimated to be devoted to each paradigm
Source: TRIP Survey Maliniak et al (2009:41).
112
Realism (when it was compared to Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism, Feminism, English School, Non-Paradigmatic and other), remained the leading theory, preferred by scholars. This is as consistent, as it was pointed out (in earlier Tables as presented within the TRIP Survey (2009)) confirming that Realist theory, continues to enjoy much attention.
Maliniak et al (2009:41) stipulate that “while most IR scholars employ a Non-Paradigmatic approach in their own work, they perceive the literature, as overwhelmingly paradigmatic. The troika of Realism, liberalism and Constructivism is consistently estimated to constitute almost 80% of published research”. Furthermore Maliniak et al (2009:41) proceed to stipulate that
“scholars, in different countries, appear to read different literature, which may lead to the question, whether there is such a thing, as a single IR literature”. For examples, of the above remarks, reference is made towards
The English School, constituting barely 5% of an American or Irish diet, however it is the staple food for the British IR community at 25%. Constructivism exhibits similar variation. Cross- national differences in the prominence of certain journals166 reflect these national differences eg.
The Review of International Studies, publishes the most English School research, is twice as prominent in the United Kingdom, as in almost any other country. Similarly, nearly a quarter of British academics rate Millennium, which tends to publish critical approaches to IR, as very influential, while only 3% of American scholars, agree to this finding. (Maliniak et al, 2009:41).
The above data on the dominance of Realism, could possibly go a lengthy way in explaining the response to the following posed question about, most influential IR scholars- Question 39 (Maliniak et al, 2009:43).
Although these two TRIP surveys, The View from the Ivory Tower: TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in the United States and Canada (2007) and Divided discipline? Comparing views of US and Canadian IR scholars (2007) focused on common and different trends amongst IR scholars, in these two countries, more similarities than differences, were noted. The underlying reason may be based, on the point of reference to common scholars, as noted below.
113
Table 1.4: Scholars regarded as the most influential in the field of IR in the past 20 years
Source: TRIP Survey Maliniak et al (2009:43).
Note that not a single scholar emanates from beyond the borders of Europe or to be more direct America. As observed Princeton’s Robert Keohane took the honours, in that regard. Although he came a close second. Alexander Wendt received the most votes in seven countries, whereas Keohane was ranked highest, only in six countries. Maliniak et al (2009:43) remind us that consistent with the previous TRIP Surveys, “the top three individuals are regarded as leading lights in what has arguably become the most prominent IR paradigms in liberalism, Constructivism and Realism” (Maliniak et al, 2009:44). The top three being Robert Keohane (liberalism), Alexander Wendt (Constructivism) and Kenneth Waltz (Realism).
114
Given all the above observations, from the responses as found by Maliniak et al (2009) TRIP Survey, the presented data should thus explain Martin Wight’s remark that “Everyone is a Realist nowadays, and the term in this sense needs no argument167 ”. It is of significance here that the specified Table related to (Q39) “consolidates beyond any doubt, the dominance of Westerncentric scholars (particularly American) within the IR discipline” (Maliniak et al, 2009:44).
A special note that “only 3 of the ‘top’ 25 scholars use quantitative methods extensively”
(Maliniak et al, 2009:44), should also be noted. This provides, the indication of the dominant methodology preferred, by those regarded as highly influential scholars of IR (as already mentioned above). Judging from the above table, it should not be surprising why Maliniak et al (2007) in their Divided discipline article, openly declared that “The centre of gravity for the academic discipline of international relations is located in the United States” (Maliniak et al, 2007:327). If ever, there are still doubts, about American dominance in IR, let us turn to the respective academic institutions, which are believed to host highly rated IR scholars.