|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
085878
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper is about the development of international relations (IR) as a field of study in Indonesian universities. It argues that IR as a discipline has been encountering a paradox. On the one hand, while the discipline has been increasingly held in high esteem by students, marked by an increasing number of applicants to IR departments across the country; on the other hand, IR scholars show too little commitment to research and publication for the development of the discipline; and if they do publish, the quality of writing is generally poor. This article indicates that the paradox of teaching IR in Indonesia has much to do with historical legacies and political intrusion, as well as an economic environment in which universities are increasingly driven toward commercial activities. All these factors shape the current development of social science in general, and IR in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
085881
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article makes a preliminary survey of the teaching of international relations (IR) in Malaysia. It starts by describing the origins of the field, and the emergence of an IR epistemic community joining both academia and government. This account is necessarily derived from the experiences of the four most established Malaysian universities distinguished by length of existence and official favor. Subsequently, the survey would describe course content and influences going into their design. The penultimate sections would attempt to place the evolution of Malaysian IR teaching within a historical context. This survey nonetheless concludes that nationalist aspirations continue to remain a secondary influence when compared with intellectual dependence upon the West in the design of IR education in Malaysia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
085876
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This preliminary survey of international relations (IR) teaching in Singapore argues that while the hegemonic goals of the nation-state have been pervasive since 1956, the influences upon IR teaching have become more complex and subtle in tandem with Singapore's transition from pristine developmentalism to an aspiring global city. Today, IR teaching has acquired characteristics of a division of labor among the main universities, research institutes, and business-oriented schools. Nonetheless, the dialectics of whether the future lies in open-ended knowledge inquiry or hewing to some version of state-associated pragmatism remains unresolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
085875
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The teaching of international relations (IR) at universities in Southeast Asia plays a role in the production of knowledge about the IR of Southeast Asia. As a complement to the scrutiny of published research output, a focus on teaching offers one pathway toward comprehending the constitution of meaning in both the IR of Southeast Asia and the broader IR discipline. This introduction to a collection of essays on the teaching of IR in Southeast Asia also discusses the potential ways by which attention to teaching may uncover the socializing role of pedagogy. An inquiry into the discipline as it is taught in the region throws light on how particular national legitimating myths are reproduced, the transmission of collective historical memories, the dominance of certain schools of international thought, and the role of civil society in Southeast Asian knowledge production.
The study of Southeast Asian international relations (IR) has undergone a number of changes since its emergence as a field during the Cold War. Theoretical preoccupations have shifted over time, as have the empirical questions that have attracted most attention. Questions of identity formation, ideational sources of political power, and prospects for regional community building have come to dominate a large part of scholarly output, marking an evolution from earlier 'problem solving' research that examined the national security of individual states and balance of power considerations. In the policy world, the diplomatic turn toward introspection regarding the future of Southeast Asian regionalism, writ large in the ASEAN Charter project, serves as another inspiration to look back in curiosity at the ideational paths that have led Southeast Asian power elites to contemplate a hint of European Union-style international institutionalism.
The existing IR literature about Southeast Asia has begun to address the question of how and why policy discourses and preoccupations have changed. Two leading journals in the field, The Pacific Review and International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, have, since the late 1990s, published between them two special issues and several articles assessing the archaeology of IR research about the region. To date, the self-conscious scrutiny of IR as a discipline has involved academics in the English-speaking 'West' more than those located in Asia. This situation is increasingly at odds with developments in the region. Two decades ago, Stanley Hoffmann diagnosed IR as a particularly American social science (Hoffmann, 1977). Yet, as shown in this collection of essays, the IR discipline in Southeast Asia has seen rapid growth in institutional terms over the last decade: new departments and centres focusing on IR have been opened in a number of Southeast Asian countries, and courses on IR have proliferated. The number of students graduating with major or minor concentrations in IR, as well as in related areas of study, such as strategic and security studies, has grown markedly at both undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, a growing amount of the scholarship on the IR of Southeast Asia is now being produced by individuals located in Southeast Asia. Despite this development of the discipline in the region, many core questions surrounding the processes of knowledge production in the area of Southeast Asian IR remain unaddressed. Scholars located in the region are now more productive, in terms of their internationally recognized publications, yet how much of this scholarship continues to be produced in the shadow of the West remains an open question. In contrast to the reflective enquiry into the conditions under which 'area studies' knowledge and scholarship on Southeast Asia has been produced (e.g. Sears, 2007), the IR field in Southeast Asia has produced no comparable set of studies.
Given that academic disciplines reproduce dominant ideas through the teaching process - one could even argue that the teaching imperative is hard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
085880
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International relations (IR) as it is taught in Thailand possesses developmental characteristics that have curbed its growth in the past. Through a combination of institutional and trend analyses, it will be argued that IR teaching in Thailand is at a turning point where externally driven developments are compelling a certain level of professionalization and engagement with global debates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
085882
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper traces the evolution of the teaching of international relations (IR) in Vietnam, from the establishment of the first Institute of International Relations in 1959 to the proliferation of departments of IR or international studies from the 1990s. It notes the limitations facing teachers of IR and efforts to develop and standardize the curriculum in recent years. It also examines the way national history is portrayed in the teaching of Vietnam's foreign policy and regional relations in Southeast Asia, with increasing attention paid to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations from the 1990s.
On July 27, 1995 the ceremony to admit Vietnam into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) took place in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei. This event had multiple meanings for both Vietnam and ASEAN. It marked a new page in the history of Vietnam-ASEAN relations, transforming suspicion and distrust to cooperation (Vu, 2007, p. 316). For Vietnam, this ended a long confrontation with ASEAN that had started in 1978, as Vietnam was involved in the Cambodian conflict. Looking back to these years, a senior Vietnamese diplomat asked whether Vietnam had been vigilant enough during that time, and he continued his survey of Vietnam's regional relations through the lens of its three decades-long struggle and the Cold war between two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the US (Trinh, 2007, p. 19). For ASEAN, this ended an obsession about the 'Vietnamese threat'. In this context of regional and international relations (IR) of Vietnam, the teaching of IR, in general, and the IR of Southeast Asia, in particular, was much influenced by the environment of the Cold war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|