| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
120060
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Konard Adenauer Stiftung, 2010.
|
| Description |
xii,88p.pbk
|
| Series |
KAS Publication Series No. 30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 057217 | 333.790954/SHA 057217 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
095253
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although the Indian International Relations (IR) community has been actively engaged in self-reflection, this has not translated into greater contribution at the international level. Part of the answer lies in the way IR in India has grown-institutionally, pedagogically, academically and as a research activity. The article seeks to assess the strengths and weaknesses of IR teaching and research in India on the basis of three parameters, that is, the papers taught in the M.A. programmes, the themes of research at the doctoral level and publications by IR scholars in select journals. On the basis of the weaknesses identified, the article offers some recommendations, which the IR community in India can adopt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
151223
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Challenging the inside–outside dichotomy in international relations (IR) allows us to recognise and give voice to histories, positions, reflections, processes and actors that were invisible, marginalised or considered beyond the purview of the discipline. ‘Turning the outside in’ is not only about disrupting the long-held disciplinary boundaries but also about bringing into the mainstream that which had been overlooked or seen as epiphenomenal because of the centrality of the inside–outside dichotomy. Given the vantage point that ‘outside’ histories, ideas and worldviews provide, India and other postcolonial countries are well ‘placed’ to take advantage of looking ‘in’ and hence blurring the boundaries between inside and outside. However, it is important to underline the fact that, although multiple voices and perspectives need to be heard, they must do so free of the very frames and dichotomised approaches that signified knowledge building and dissemination for the better part of IR’s evolution as a discipline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|