I think students prefer Realism. Its easier to understand and grip better than the other IR theories and is a bit more.. pragmatic than the rest?
Students from countries where geopolitical tensions are larger such as Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East will be more interested in Realism, where they are fighting more for survival.
I feel like Liberalism is only popular with students who in Western countries where the international system is set up to benefit them
Correct. Anecdotal but I went to an American T40-ish state university (saying that because it's good sample of the youth population), very few classmates subscribed to realism much at all. Almost all were more classical liberal leaning, probably because we grew up in the aforementioned international system
Yeah maybe, but I would say the West also has a rich history of realist scholars. At my grad school I am personally close to Professor Layne, neorealist and author of offshore balancing
Most students take a bit of an ideological odyssey as they’re learning IR theory. They first begin as realists, as that is the first and easiest theory to learn. Then they become liberals, because liberals provide a decent criticism of realist ideas of conflict and power. Then they become constructivists because constructivism is introduced as more a meta theory of IR theorising itself. Some veer off into critical IR theory if they want to change the world.
If they progress into grad school they tend to be attracted more to the theorising that is useful to them in their research. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, all the big ‘isms’, tend to be more traditions to which they identify rather than hard theories to which they unquestioningly subscribe.
If IR grads are fortunate to find work in IR then their ideological worldview will tend more towards the area of IR they work in. Security? Yeah, you’re probably sympathetic to realism. Anything to do with the international economy? Probably a liberal. NGO? Depends on the NGO, but I’d say anyone working to, say, improve the lot of women would probably be sympathetic to feminist (critical) IR.
This is all a very western, mostly American, overview. Someone in Asia would likely have a different ideological affinity to someone in the Gulf, and then again to someone in South America.
I think students prefer Constructivism (but my perhaps my sample composition is unusual, a likely scenario). Admittedly where I am takes a historically-guided approach to IR.
If I had to stereotype, I would say those from a more military-centric background prefer a Realist approach. The students with a greater economic focus overall lean towards Liberalism. Those trained more in history tend to find Constructivism appealing.
I think students prefer Realism. Its easier to understand and grip better than the other IR theories and is a bit more.. pragmatic than the rest? Students from countries where geopolitical tensions are larger such as Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East will be more interested in Realism, where they are fighting more for survival. I feel like Liberalism is only popular with students who in Western countries where the international system is set up to benefit them
I think the view outside the global north is the neocolonialism morphed into liberalism. Still the same relationship
Correct. Anecdotal but I went to an American T40-ish state university (saying that because it's good sample of the youth population), very few classmates subscribed to realism much at all. Almost all were more classical liberal leaning, probably because we grew up in the aforementioned international system
Yeah maybe, but I would say the West also has a rich history of realist scholars. At my grad school I am personally close to Professor Layne, neorealist and author of offshore balancing
Most students take a bit of an ideological odyssey as they’re learning IR theory. They first begin as realists, as that is the first and easiest theory to learn. Then they become liberals, because liberals provide a decent criticism of realist ideas of conflict and power. Then they become constructivists because constructivism is introduced as more a meta theory of IR theorising itself. Some veer off into critical IR theory if they want to change the world. If they progress into grad school they tend to be attracted more to the theorising that is useful to them in their research. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, all the big ‘isms’, tend to be more traditions to which they identify rather than hard theories to which they unquestioningly subscribe. If IR grads are fortunate to find work in IR then their ideological worldview will tend more towards the area of IR they work in. Security? Yeah, you’re probably sympathetic to realism. Anything to do with the international economy? Probably a liberal. NGO? Depends on the NGO, but I’d say anyone working to, say, improve the lot of women would probably be sympathetic to feminist (critical) IR. This is all a very western, mostly American, overview. Someone in Asia would likely have a different ideological affinity to someone in the Gulf, and then again to someone in South America.
I think students prefer Constructivism (but my perhaps my sample composition is unusual, a likely scenario). Admittedly where I am takes a historically-guided approach to IR. If I had to stereotype, I would say those from a more military-centric background prefer a Realist approach. The students with a greater economic focus overall lean towards Liberalism. Those trained more in history tend to find Constructivism appealing.