Order Description

1. Choose a paradigm school of thought or approach to the study of international relations. What are the key elements this school of thought? What common elements unite theorists writing in this tradition? What different variant of this approach exist? What are the core theoretical works in this tradition, and what makes them part of this tradition of inquiry? To what extent might this approach overlap with other approaches/paradigm/traditions of inquiry?

2. Discuss the advantages of this approach. What is it good at explaining/describing/analyzing? What kind of questions does it lead people to ask? Does it offer predictive value? At this point, work in an example of a specific theory or hypothesis or issue that is exemplary of approach you are discussing. Access the utility of the specific example you provide and the school of thought in general.

3. Discuss the disadvantages of the approach. What does it ignore? What are major criticism of the approach? Do you feel these criticisms are warranted? Do you have your own criticism or rebuttals to these criticisms to offer? (This is a prime opportunity to provide your appraisal and synthesis of the material, rather than citing someone else’s opinion.)

4. Apply the approach in question to a contemporary issue in international relations that is of interest to you (Neoliberalism and Globalization). How would this approach to international relations explain the core issue, what would it predict for the future and what would it fail to see? Do you find the approach in question useful for understanding your chosen issue, or is it a school of thought that leads adherents down blind alleys (or even worse, policymakers into dangerous choices)?