Order Description
Words counts: essay 3500-4000 words+ bibliography
Please use only academic sources such as articles, journals and proper online sources( organization and government…etc)
Number of sources: more than 25
style: Harvard system

Topic: Can feminism be considered a mainstream theory of International Relations?

My conclusion: feminism still cannot be considered a mainstream theory of IR, however gender analysis can be incorporated into constructivism that would provide us a better IR theory.

Introduction
·Why does feminism cannot be considered a mainstream IR?

Background-definition of gender and feminism

Feminist approaches to IR and how gender relates to the study of international politics

Mainstream IR (traditional IR) perspective about feminism:
ex) Robert Keohane, Adam jones..etc
·Analysis of mainstream IR
Criticism of mainstream IR

Feminist perspective (feminism contributes to mainstream IR):
ex) Tickner, Weber, Steans…etc
·Analysis of feminism
Criticism of feminism

Solution: gender analysis can be incorporated into mainstream constructivism
Why? How?
·Analysis

Conclusion

Bibliography
Carpenter, C, (2003), Gender and International Relations, International Studies Review, Vol 5 (2) 297-300
Carpenter, C, (2002), Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist Standpoint?, International Studies Review, Vol 4 No.3, pp153-165
Carver, T, (2003), Gender and International Relations, International Studies Review, Vol 5(2), 288-291
Jones, A (1996), Does Gender make the world go round? Feminist critiques of International Relations, Review of International Studies, Vol 22 (4), 405-429

Locher, B and Prugl, E, (2001), Feminism and constructivism: Worlds apart or sharing the middle ground, International Studies Quarterly, Vol 45 (1), 111-129

Ticker, A, (1997), You Just Don’t Understand: Trouble engagements between feminists and IR Theorists, International Studies Quarterly, Vol 41 (4) 611-632

Anne-Jorunn Berg and Merete Lie, (1995), Feminism and Constructivism: Do Artifacts Have Gender? , Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 20, No. 3, Special Issue: Feminist and Constructivist Perspectives on New Technology, pp. 332-35

Narain, S (2014), Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives of J.Ann Tickner, Indian Journal of Gender Studies 21(2) 179–197

Carver, Terrell (2003), THE FORUM Gender and International Relations, International Studies Review 5, 287–302

Keohane, Robert O., (1989) “International Relations Theory: Contributions of a feminist standpoint”, Millennium- Journal of International Studies, pp245-253.

Steans, J., (2003), Engaging from the margins: feminist encounters with the ‘mainstream’ of International Relations, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 428–454

Zalewski, M, (2003), Gender and International Relations, International Studies Review, Vol 5(2), 291-294

This is my brief outline, but if it doesn’t make sense, feel free to change. And I put some references, please refer to them if you need.

Please make sure analysis is more important than other parts.

Order Description
Words counts: essay 3500-4000 words+ bibliography
Please use only academic sources such as articles, journals and proper online sources( organization and government…etc)
Number of sources: more than 25
style: Harvard system

Topic: Can feminism be considered a mainstream theory of International Relations?

My conclusion: feminism still cannot be considered a mainstream theory of IR, however gender analysis can be incorporated into constructivism that would provide us a better IR theory.

Introduction
·Why does feminism cannot be considered a mainstream IR?

Background-definition of gender and feminism

Feminist approaches to IR and how gender relates to the study of international politics

Mainstream IR (traditional IR) perspective about feminism:
ex) Robert Keohane, Adam jones..etc
·Analysis of mainstream IR
Criticism of mainstream IR

Feminist perspective (feminism contributes to mainstream IR):
ex) Tickner, Weber, Steans…etc
·Analysis of feminism
Criticism of feminism

Solution: gender analysis can be incorporated into mainstream constructivism
Why? How?
·Analysis

Conclusion

Bibliography
Carpenter, C, (2003), Gender and International Relations, International Studies Review, Vol 5 (2) 297-300
Carpenter, C, (2002), Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist Standpoint?, International Studies Review, Vol 4 No.3, pp153-165
Carver, T, (2003), Gender and International Relations, International Studies Review, Vol 5(2), 288-291
Jones, A (1996), Does Gender make the world go round? Feminist critiques of International Relations, Review of International Studies, Vol 22 (4), 405-429

Locher, B and Prugl, E, (2001), Feminism and constructivism: Worlds apart or sharing the middle ground, International Studies Quarterly, Vol 45 (1), 111-129

Ticker, A, (1997), You Just Don’t Understand: Trouble engagements between feminists and IR Theorists, International Studies Quarterly, Vol 41 (4) 611-632

Anne-Jorunn Berg and Merete Lie, (1995), Feminism and Constructivism: Do Artifacts Have Gender? , Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 20, No. 3, Special Issue: Feminist and Constructivist Perspectives on New Technology, pp. 332-35

Narain, S (2014), Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives of J.Ann Tickner, Indian Journal of Gender Studies 21(2) 179–197

Carver, Terrell (2003), THE FORUM Gender and International Relations, International Studies Review 5, 287–302

Keohane, Robert O., (1989) “International Relations Theory: Contributions of a feminist standpoint”, Millennium- Journal of International Studies, pp245-253.

Steans, J., (2003), Engaging from the margins: feminist encounters with the ‘mainstream’ of International Relations, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 428–454

Zalewski, M, (2003), Gender and International Relations, International Studies Review, Vol 5(2), 291-294

This is my brief outline, but if it doesn’t make sense, feel free to change. And I put some references, please refer to them if you need.

Please make sure analysis is more important than other parts.