1

UNIT GUIDE 2017/18

POL10003 Theories of International Relations Teaching Block: 2

Weeks: 13-24

Unit Owner: Dr Alix Dietzel Level: C/4

Phone: 0117 928 9176 Credit points: 20

Email: alix.dietzel@bristol.ac.uk Prerequisites: None

Office: 10 Priory Road, Room 1.6 Curriculum area: International Relations

Unit owner office hours:

Tuesday:11am-12pm Thursday: 2-3 pm Scheduled office hours do not run during reading weeks, though you can still contact tutors for advice by email and to arrange individual appointments

Timetabled classes: Tuesday 9-11am, Priory Rd Complex LT You are also expected to attend ONE seminar each week. Your online personal timetable will inform you to which group you have been allocated. Seminar groups are fixed: you are not allowed to change seminar groups without permission from the office. Weeks 18 and 24 are Reading Weeks; there is NO regular teaching in these weeks. In addition to timetabled sessions there is a requirement for private study, reading, revision and assessments. Reading the required readings in advance of each seminar is the minimum expectation. The University Guidelines state that one credit point is broadly equivalent to 10 hours of total student input.

Learning Outcomes By the end of the unit, students will be able to:

Demonstrate awareness of the key theoretical approaches in International Relations and their main assumptions

Demonstrate understanding of the key concepts and terminologies used in International Relations scholarship

Critically engage with the historical contingencies shaping the development of different traditions in international thought

Critically engage with the strength and weaknesses of particular theoretical approaches in International Relations

Requirements for passing the unit:

Satisfactory attendance at seminars

Completion of all formative work to an acceptable standard

Attainment of a composite mark of all summative work to a passing standard (40 or above)

Details of coursework and deadlines

Assessment: Word count: Weighting: Deadline: Day: Week:

Formative - Essay 1,500 words 0% 9.30am on 5th March Monday 19

Summative - Essay 2,000 words 100% 9.30am on 18th May Friday Summer

Summative essay questions will be made available on the unit’s Blackboard site.

Instructions for the submission of coursework can be found in Appendix A

Assessment in the school is subject to strict penalties regarding late submission, plagiarism and maximum word count. A summary of key regulations is in Appendix B.

Marking criteria can be found in Appendix C.

2

Unit Description International Relations (IR) Theory has been a key component to the study of Politics and International Relations for decades. This unit will provide you with an overview of IR Theory and how this relates to practice (contemporary international relations). We will consider the development of IR theory, learn about nine approaches and assess the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. In doing so, we will explore cutting edge theoretical debates taking place within the discipline. To keep us focused, each week will centre around a contemporary topic (like climate change or humanitarian intervention), to give you a sense of how the theorists approach current events. This should help you to understand that IR Theories are not just abstract ideas, but can act as toolkits for analysis of specific problems in international relations. Unit Aims The aim of the unit is to introduce you to different approaches to IR Theory, but more importantly to analyse the ‘purpose’ of theory and to examine whether theory can help solve some of the most pressing problems in contemporary international relations. Every week, the unit will link the theory at hand to a contemporary problem in international relations in order to assess the applicability and utility of the different theories we will study. This will help you to understand how theory is ‘done’ and how this applies to current global affairs. It will also make it possible not only to critically assess each theory, but to understand the role of IR Theory in the study of Politics and International Relations more broadly. Teaching Arrangements This unit will be taught through a combination of one two-hour lecture (taught by Dr Alix Dietzel) and one one-hour seminar per week (taught by our wonderful IR Theory teaching team). Attendance is expected, and will be monitored in seminars. There will be an extra essay writing lecture in Week 15 (Thursday February 8th) from 13:00-14:00. Please note, there are no lectures, seminars, or office hours scheduled during reading weeks (18 and 24). Teaching Schedule Week Thirteen – Introduction: Welcome to Theories of International Relations Week Fourteen – Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and the Global Order Week Fifteen – Realism, Neo-Realism and the Iraq War + Essay Writing Lecture Week Sixteen – The English School and Humanitarian Intervention Week Seventeen – Marxism and the Financial Crisis [Reading Week – No Teaching or Office Hours] Week Nineteen – Constructivism and Chemical Weapons Week Twenty – Post-Structuralism and Trust Week Twenty-One – Feminism and Security [Three Weeks for Easter]

3

Week Twenty-Two – Post-Colonialism and Eurocentric Nature of IR Theory Week Twenty-Three – Cosmopolitanism and Climate Change [Reading Week – No Teaching or Office Hours] Essential Reading and Recommended Reading The seminars will proceed on the assumption that you have read, and critically engaged with, all the essential reading set for each week (two readings a week). All the essential readings and digitised and can be accessed through the electronic reading list on the TALIS system. A link to the electronic reading list can be found on the unit’s blackboard site. The recommended reading list will be useful when working on your essay. You can also read a selection of recommended readings to develop your understanding of theories in weeks that are of particular interest to you. Please note, the recommended reading list is only indicative: the items included here represent only a fraction of recent research and publications on IR Theory. You are encouraged to search more widely for readings related to your own specific areas of interest. Introductory Textbooks I have not chosen a set textbook for this unit. Instead, our essential readings stem from a range of textbooks, to give you a wide range of authors and ideas. There are numerous excellent overviews of IR theory, all of which provide you with the basic knowledge about the different theoretical approaches in IR. If you wish to purchase a textbook, I would recommend you purchase one of the following (they are usually quite cheap as second hand copies). Purchasing a book is not required, all essential readings, and most further readings are digitized for you. Scott Burchill and Linklater (eds.), Theories of International Relations (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Fifth Edition. John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Fourth Edition. Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley (eds.), Understanding International Relations (Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2009). Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). Walter Carlsnaes et al. (eds.), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002). Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen (eds.), Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (Oxford: oxford University Press, 2015).

4

Useful Journals Cooperation and Conflict International Theory Journal of International Relations and Development Millennium: Journal of International Studies Review of International Political Economy Review of International Studies Security Dialogue Security Studies Third World Quarterly World Policy Journal

World Politics European Journal Relations Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Global Governance International Affairs International Organization International Relations International Politics International Political Sociology International Security International Studies Perspectives International Studies Review

Useful Websites E-International Relations http://www.e-ir.info/ - useful introductory textbooks, blogs, reviews and student portal. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/ - overview of all our theories and specific theorists. United Nations http://www.un.org/en/ - excellent source for primary documents. International Crisis Group http://www.crisisgroup.org/ - keep up to date with current events. Assessments Essay 1: 1,500 words (0%) Essay 2: 2,000 words (100%) The unit has two assessments, one formative and one summative. The formative essay will give you the opportunity to submit a 1500 word essay and receive feedback in preparation for the summative assessment. The summative assessment, a 2000 word essay, will count 100% towards the unit mark and is submitted at the end of term. There will be a lecture on essay writing in Week 15. For details about the format of the essay, proper referencing, and how to submit your assignments please consult the SPAIS Study Guide and the UG handbook and/or go see the Academic Writing Advisor (AWA). You are encouraged to discuss essay plans with your seminar tutor to receive informal feedback and advice before submitting the essay. Even if you don’t have a formal plan, attend their office hours and ask for help.

5

Week Thirteen – Introduction: Welcome to Theories of International Relations In this introductory week, we will be going over the contents of the course and explain why we study International Relations (IR) Theory as Politics and International Relations scholars. I’ll provide you with and overview of the course, introduce you to your teaching team, and give you some insights into the history and purpose of IR Theory. Questions to consider this week are: how and why did IR Theory develop as a discipline? Is there a ‘purpose’ to IR Theory? What are the core concerns of IR Theory? How has the discipline changed over time? What is the relationship between IR Theory and practice (real world international relations)? Do we ‘need’ IR Theory to be able to understand the world today? Essential Reading Brown, C. and Ainley K., ‘Introduction: Defining International Relations’, in Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, Understanding International Relations, (Basingstoke: Plagrave MacMillan, 2009) pp. 1-17. Steve Smith ‘Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory’, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: OUP, 2016) pp. 1-13. Further Reading Adler, E. and Pouliot V., ‘International Practices’, International Theory, 3(1), 2011, pp. 1-36. Buzan, B. and Little, R. ‘Why International Relations Has Failed as an Academic Project and What to do about it,’ Millennium, 30:1, 2001, 19-39. Burchill, S. and Linklater A., 'Introduction', in Burchill et. al. Theories of International Relations, 5th ed. (London: Macmillan, 2013), pp. 1-31. Dunne, T. Hansen, L. and Wight C., ‘The End of International Relations Theory?’ European Journal of International Relations 19(3), 2013, pp. 405-425. Halliday F., ‘Chapter 16 - The Future of International Relations: Fears and Hopes,’ in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 318-327. Jabri V., ‘Reflections on the Study of International Relations,’ in: Trevor Salmon and Mark Imber (eds.), Issues in International Relations (London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 11-32. Jackson, R. and Sorensen G., ‘IR as an Academic Subject’, in Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen (eds.), Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 28-57. Kahler M., ‘Chapter 2 - Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945’, in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 20-53. Kurki, M. and Wight, C., ‘Chapter 1 - International Relations and Social Science’, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) pp. 13-33.

6

Nicholson, M. ‘What's the use of International Relations,’ Review of International Studies 26(2), (2000): pp. 183-198. Schroeder P. W., ‘History and International Relations Theory: Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit,’ International Security, 22(1), 1997, pp. 64-74. Waever O. and Schmidt B. C., 'Chapter 1 - On the History and Historiography of International Relations', in Walter Carlsnaes, Bet A. Simmons, and Thomas Risse-Kappen (eds.), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), pp. 3-22. Waever O., ‘Chapter 16 - Still a Discipline After All these Debates?’ In Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds.) International Relations Theories Discipline and Diversity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) pp. 288-308. Walt S. M., ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’, Foreign Policy, 110, 1998, pp. 29-46. Zalewski, M., ‘Chapter 18 - All These Theories Yet the Bodies Keep Piling Up: Theory, Theorists, Theorising’, in Steve Smith et al. (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1996, pp. 340-353. Week Fourteen – Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and the Global Order This week, we delve into what is often referred to as the first Theory of IR. Liberalism emerged right after the First World War, and has been updated and expanded on ever since then. Liberals focus on peace, democracy, diplomacy, and spreading liberal ideas to other countries. We will be focusing on traditional liberalism, its more modern offshoot neo-liberalism, and consider criticisms of the approach. To demonstrate theory in practice, we will focus on liberal conceptions of the world order this week. This is the concern of your second reading (the first provides an overview of liberalism more broadly). Questions to consider this week are: What are the core assumptions of liberalism and how have they changed over time? What are the similarities and differences between classical liberalism (sometimes referred to as liberal internationalism) and neo-liberalism (sometimes referred to as liberal institutionalism)? Which elements of liberalism are still relevant for today’s international relations? Have we seen a revival of liberalism after the end of the Cold War and, if so, in what form? Is the current liberal world order in crisis? Essential Reading Dunne, T., ‘Chapter 7 - Liberalism’ in John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Fourth Edition, pp. 113-123. Ikenberry, J., ‘Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order’, Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 2009, pp. 71-87. Further Reading Liberalism Burchill, S., ‘Chapter 3 - Liberalism’ in Burchill et. al. Theories of International Relations, 5th ed. (London: Macmillan, 2013), pp. 57-87.

7

Charvet, J. and Kaczynska, E. The Liberal Project and Human Rights: The Theory And Practice Of A New World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). Doyle, M., ‘Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace’ American Political Science Review, 99(3) (2005), pp. 453-466. Franceschet F., ‘The Ethical Foundations of Liberal Internationalism’, International Journal, 54(3), 1999, pp. 463-481. Fukuyama, F. The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Avon Books, 1993). Gardner, R. N., ‘The Comeback of Liberal Internationalism’, The Washington Quarterly, 13(3) 1990, pp. 23-39. Haine J-Y., ‘The European Crisis of Liberal Internationalism’, International Journal, 64(2), 2009, pp. 453-479. Hoffman S., ‘The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism’, Foreign Policy, 98, 1995, pp. 159-177. Lawson S., ‘Chapter 5 - Liberal International Theory’, in Stephanie Lawson (eds.) Theories of International Relations: Contending Approaches to World Politics (Durham: Polity Press, 2015), pp. 98-120. Russett, B. ‘Chapter 5 - Liberalism’ in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: OUP, 2016) pp. 89-108. Neo-liberalism Alexrod, R. and Keohane, R. ‘Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions’ World Politics 38 (1) (1985), pp. 226-254. Campbell, J. and Pedersen, O. K., The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis (Princeton: PUP, 2001). Ikenberry, J., ‘The Future of the Liberal World Order: Internationalism After America’, Foreign Affairs, 90(3), 2011, pp. 56-68 Koivisto, M. and Dunne. T., ‘Crisis, What Crisis? Liberal Order Building and World Order Conventions’ Millennium 38(3), 2010, pp. 615-640. Keohane, R., and Martin, L., ‘The Promise of Institutional Theory’ International Security 20(1), 1995, pp. 39-51. Martin, L. and Simmons, B., ‘Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions’, International Organization, 52(4), 1998, pp. 729-757. Simmons, B., Dobbin F. and Garrett, G., ‘Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism’, International Organization, 60(4), 2006., pp. 781-810. Sterling-Folker J., ‘Chapter 6 - Neoliberalism’ T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: OUP, 2016) pp. 109-126. Stein, A., ‘Chapter 11 - Neoliberal Institutionalism’, in C. Reus-Smith and D. Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 201-221.

8

Weiss, T. ‘How United Nations Ideas Change History’ Review of International Studies, Volume 36(1) 2010, pp. 3 – 23. Week Fifteen – Realism, Neo-Realism and the Iraq War This week, we will be focusing on realism, an IR Theory that emerged shortly after the Second World War. Realists focus on the importance of self-help, security, human nature, and anarchy in international society. Despite its age, realism is still dominant as a discipline today, especially in the United States. Like liberalism, realism has been updated and changed over time, so we will also be learning about neo-realism (sometimes called structural realism), the more modern offshoot of realism. We will consider criticisms of the approach, and will be comparing neo-realism and neo-liberalism, to see how the modern versions compete (the ‘neo-neo’ debate). To get a sense of the theory in practice, we will consider what realists make of the Iraq War. Questions to consider this week are: Are realism’s central concepts of anarchy, self-help and power balancing more appropriate to a bygone era? Why is human nature so important to realism? What role does the international structure play for neo-realists? What are the similarities and differences between classical realism and neo-realism? Is neo-realism an improved version of realism, or does it face similar problems? What does the ‘neo-neo’ debate concern? Why did so many realists oppose the Iraq War? Essential Reading Donnelly, J., ‘Chapter 2 - Realism’, in Burchill et. al. Theories of International Relations, 5th ed. (London: Macmillan, 2013), pp. 32-56. Mearsheimer, J., ‘Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism Versus Neoconservatism.’ Available from https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp [Accessed 4 August 2017]. Further Reading Realism (Classical Realism) Bain W., ‘Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism Reconsidered’ Review of International Studies, 26(3), 2000, pp. 445-464. Buzan, B., ‘Chapter 2 - The Timeless Wisdom of Realism?’ in Booth, K., Smith, S. and Zalewski, M. (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 47-65. Gilpin, R., ‘The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism’ International Organization 38(2) (1984), pp. 287-304. Guzzini, S., ‘The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 2004, pp. 533-568. Jervis, R., ‘Hans Morgenthau, Realism and the Scientific Study of International Politics’, Social Research, 61(4), 1994, pp. 853-876 Lebow, R. N., ‘Chapter 3 - Classical Realism’ in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) pp. 52-70.

9

Lebow, R. N., ‘Tragedy, Politics and Political Science’, International Relations, 19(3), 2005, pp. 329-336. Morgenthau, H. J., ‘Another “Great Debate”: The National Interest of the United States’, The American Political Science Review, 46(4), 1952, pp. 961-988. Rosenberg, J., ‘What’s the Matter with Realism?’ Review of International Studies 16(4),1990, pp. 285-303 Neo-Realism (Structural Realism) Ashley, R., ‘The Poverty of Neo-Realism’ International Organization 38 (Spring 1984), pp. 225-286. Guzzini, G., ‘Structural Power: The Limits of Neorealist Power Analysis’ International Organization, 47(3), 1993, pp. 443-478. Keohane, R., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986). Linklater, A., ‘Chapter 11 - Neorealism in Theory and In Practice’, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds.) International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), pp. 241-262 Mearsheimer, J., ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War’ International Security 15(1), 1990, pp. 5-56. Mearsheimer, J., ‘Chapter 4 - Structural Realism’ in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) pp. 71-88. Rathburn, B., ‘A Rose by Any Other Name’, Security Studies, 17(2), 2008, pp. 294-321 Waltz, K., Theory of International Politics (McGraw Hill, 1979) Waltz, K., ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War’ International Security 25 (1) (2000), pp. 5-41. Williams, M. C., 'Neorealism and the Future of Strategy', Review of International Studies, 19,1993, pp.103-121. The Neo-Neo Debate Baldwin, D. (eds.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). Joseph M. Grieco. ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism’ in International Organization, 42(3), 1988, pp. 485-507. Jervis R., ‘Realism, Neoliberalism and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate’, International Security, 24(1), 1999, pp. 42-63. Keohane, R., ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 1988, pp. 379-396. Nye, J., ‘Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism’ World Politics 40 (2) (1988), pp. 235-251.

10

Powell, P., ‘Anarchy in International Relations: The Neoliberal – Neorealist Debate’ International Organization 48 (1994), pp. 313-334. Week Sixteen– The English School and Humanitarian Intervention This week, we turn our attention to the English School, which emerged as a response by those who saw realism and liberalism as compatible rather than conflicting. The English School attempts to combine elements of liberalism and realism in order to form a new IR Theory that is both pragmatic and utopian. We will explore two key sub-theories of the English School (pluralism and solidarism), think about how the English School differs from liberalism and realism, and consider the main criticisms of the approach. To get a sense of this theory in practice, we will consider humanitarian intervention, a key problem English School scholars concerns themselves with. Questions to consider this week are: How does the English School differ from liberalism and realism? Is the English School simply a mix of two existing theories, or does it present a unique approach? Do you think that it makes sense to speak of an international society? What are the institutions of international society and do they provide for order and justice in world politics? What are the differences between English School pluralists and solidarists? Can humanitarian intervention ever be justified? Essential Reading Linklater, A., ‘Chapter 4 - The English School’ in Burchill et. al. Theories of International Relations, 5th ed. (London: Macmillan, 2013), pp. 88-112. Gallagher, A., ‘A Clash of Responsibilities: Engaging with Realist Critiques of the R2P’, Global Responsibility to Protect., 4(3), 2012, pp. 334-357. Further Reading Bellamy, A. (eds.), International Society and Its Critics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Bull, H., The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Palgrave, 2002) Buzan, B., An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach (Durham: Polity, 2014). Buzan, B., From International to World Society? English School Theory and The Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Buzan, B., ‘The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR’, Review of international Studies, 27(3), 2001, pp. 471-488. Dunne, T., Inventing International Society: A History of The English School. (Basingstoke: St. Anthony's Press, 1998). Finnemore, M., ‘Exporting the English School’, Review of International Studies, 2(3), 2001, pp. 509-13. Jackson, R., The Global Covenant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

11

Jackson, R., and Sorenson, ‘Chapter 5 - International Society’ in Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 127-158. Linklater, A., The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Theoretical Investigations (New York, OUP 2011). Linklater, A. and Suganami, H., The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Little, R., ‘The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations’, European journal of International Relations, 6(3) 2000, pp. 395-422. Roberson, B. A. (eds.) International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory (London: Pinter, 1998). Wheeler, N., Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford University Press, 2000). Wheeler, N. J., ‘Pluralist and Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention’ Millennium, 21(3), 1992, pp. 463-87. Week Seventeen – Marxism and the Financial Crisis This week, we will move away from ‘mainstream’ IR Theories we have learned about so far, and begin to explore ‘alternative’ or ‘critical’ approaches. These have emerged as a response to the perception that mainstream theories lack nuance, and each approach has its own specialised critiques of these theories. We will begin by learning about Marxism, a theory that has its roots in the writings of Marx, but has developed significantly since his time. We will focus on classical Marxism and its offshoots, including Wallerstein’s World System’s Theory, Gramscian Theory, and Critical Theory. As always, we will consider the criticisms of the approach, as well as discussing its strengths. To get a sense of this theory in practice, we will explore what Marxists have to say about the financial crisis. Questions to consider this week are: Do you agree with Marx that purpose of theory is to change the world? What are the core elements of World System’s Theory, Gramscian Theory, and Critical Theory? Are Wallerstein’s concepts of the core, semi-periphery, and periphery useful for categorizing and explaining contemporary international relations? Are all theories for someone and for some purpose, and does this mean theory can never be objective? How should a Marxist interpret the recent financial crisis? Are we heading towards the end of capitalism? Essential Reading Hobden, S. and Jones, R.W., ‘Chapter 9 - Marxist Theories of International Relations’ in John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) Fourth Edition, pp. 141-154. Dunn, B., 'Can Marxism Explain the Crisis?' The Socialist Review, 363 (November), 2011. Available at http://socialistreview.org.uk/363/can-marxism-explain-crisis Further Reading Burnham, P., 'Marx, International Political Economy and Globalisation' Capital and Class, 25(3), 2001, pp. 103-112.

12

Bieler, A., and Morton, A., ‘A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order and Historical Change: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Relations’ Capital and Class 28(1), 2004, pp. 85-113. Callinicos, A., 'Marxism and the International' The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6(3), 2004, pp. 426-433. Cox, R., 'Social Forces, States and World Orders', Millennium, 10(2) 1981, pp. 126-155. Cox, R., ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 12(2), 1983, pp. 162-175. Devetak, R., ‘Chapter 7 - Critical Theory’, in Burchill et. al. Theories of International Relations, 5th ed. (London: Macmillan, 2013), pp. 162-186. El-Ojeili, C., ‘Reflections of Wallerstein: The Modern World-System, Four Decades On’, Critical Sociology, 41(4-5), 2014, pp. 679-700. Germain, R. D. and Kenny, M., ‘Engaging Gramsci: International relations theory and the new Gramscians’, Review of International Studies, 24(1), 1998, pp. 3-21. *Gill, S., and Law, D., ‘Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital’ International Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 1989, pp. 475-499. Gramsci, A., Selections from the Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 2005) Linklater, A., ‘Chapter 5 - Marx and Marxism,’ in Burchill et. al. Theories of International Relations, 5th ed. (London: Macmillan, 2013), pp. 113-137. Maclean, J., ‘Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17(2), 1988, pp. 295-319. Rupert, M., ‘Chapter 8 - Marxism and Critical Theory’, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) pp. 148-165. Wallerstein, I., ‘Chapter 2 - The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy’ in World–Systems Analysis. An Introduction (London: Duke University Press, 2004), pp. 23-40. Wallerstein, I., ‘The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 1974. [Week Eighteen, Reading Week – No Teaching or Office Hours] Week Nineteen – Constructivism and Chemical Weapons This week, we will examine constructivist approaches to IR, which emerged in the 1980s as an offshoot of social theory. Those of you who study sociology may recognize the phrase ‘social construction,’ a concept we will be delving into this week. Constructivists are interested in how norms, ideas, and behaviours become entrenched in international relations. This makes the approach highly malleable as theoretical lens. As always, we will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, so that you can decide what to make of the theory.

13

To get a sense of this theory in practice, we will examine what constructivists have said about the changing attitudes towards the use of chemical weapons. Key questions to consider this week are: what are the main aims and objective of constructivist scholars? What do constructivists have to say about norms, identity and culture in international relations? Do constructivists think that international relations can be changed? Do they give us scope for optimism? Does constructivism provide a convincing explanation for changing attitudes towards the use of chemical weapons? Essential Reading Reus-Smit, C., ‘Chapter 9 - Constructivism’, in Burchill et. al. Theories of International Relations, 5th ed. (London: Macmillan, 2013), pp. 217-240. Price, R., ‘A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo’ International Organization 49(1), 1995, pp. 73-103. Further Reading Adler, E., ‘Chapter 5 - Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions and Debates’ in Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B. (eds.) Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2013), pp. 112-144. Bjorkdahl, A., ‘Norms in International Relations: Some Conceptual and Methodological Reflections’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 15(1), 2002, pp. 9-23. Carpenter, C., ‘Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms’, International Organization, 65(1), 2011, pp. 69-102. Checkel, J. T., ‘The Constructive Turn in International Relations Theory’, World Politics, 50(2), 1998, pp. pp. 324-348. Fierke, K., ‘Chapter 9 - Constructivism’ in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: OUP, 2016) 166-184. Finnemore, M., and Sikkink K., ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, 52(4), pp. 887-917. Finnemore, M., and Sikkink K., ‘Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 2001, pp. 391-416. Hopf, T., ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security, 23(1), 1998, pp. 171-200. Hurrell, A. and Macdonald, T., ‘Chapter 3 - Ethics and Norms in International Relations’, in Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B. (eds.) Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2013), pp. 57-84. Kratochwil, F., ‘Chapter 5 - Constructivism: What It Is (Not) and How It Matters’, in Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating (eds.) Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 80-98.

14

Onuf, N., Making Sense, Making Worlds: Constructivism in Social Theory and International Relations (Oxon: Routledge, 2013) Palan, P., ‘A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 26(4), 2000, pp. 575-598. Reus-Smit, C., ‘Imagining Society; Constructivism and the English School,’ in British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4(3), 2002, pp. 487-509. Weldes, J., ‘Constructing National Interests’, European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 1996, pp. 275-318. Wendt, A., 'Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics', International Organisation Vol 46 (2), 1992, pp. 391-425. Week Twenty – Post-Structuralism and Trust This week, we will be focusing on post-structuralism, which is sometimes referred to as post-modernism. Post-structuralism draws on the works of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Giorgio Agamben, and Emmanuel Levinas, amongst others – resulting in many different post-structural accounts of IR Theory. We will therefore focus on key overlapping themes, including a focus on discourse, methods for deconstruction, and the role of power and knowledge. Post-structuralism is often described as an ‘approach’ or ‘ethos’ rather than an IR Theory, which has resulted in praise and criticism, both of which we will explore together. To get a sense of this theory in practice, we will consider recent post-structuralist literature on the role of trust in international relations. Questions to consider this week are: who has the power in international relations according to post-structuralists? What role do the notions of ‘language’ and ‘text’ play in poststructuralist accounts? Poststructuralists argue that there is no 'Truth' only truths - do you agree? Why is it important to deconstruct the notion of trust in international relations, and how can post-structuralists help us understand this importance? Essential Reading Devetak, R., ‘Chapter 8 - Post-Structuralism’, in Burchill et. al. Theories of International Relations, 5th ed. (London: Macmillan, 2013), pp. 187-216. Considine, L., ‘Back to the Rough Ground! A Grammatical Approach to Trust and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(1)1 (2015), pp. 109-127. Further Reading Ashley, R., 'Chapter 11 - The Achievements of Poststructuralism', in K. Booth, S. Smith, and M. Zalewski (eds.) International Relations Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press, 1996), pp. 240-253. Callinicos, A., ‘Chapter 3 - The Aporias of Poststructuralism’ in Against Postmodernism: a Marxist Critique (Durham: Polity Press, 1989), pp. 62-91. Campbell, D., ‘Chapter 11 - Poststructuralism’, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) 203-228.

15

Campbell, D., ‘Global Inscription: How Foreign Policy Constitutes the United States’, Alternatives 15(3), 1990, pp. 283-286. Der Derian, J. and Shapiro, M., (eds) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Lanham: Lexington Books, 1989). Doty, R., ‘The Logic of Différance in International Relations: US Colonization of the Philippines,’ in Francis Beer and Robert Hariman (eds.) Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations (Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1996). Edkins, J. and Pin-Fat, V., ‘Through the Wire: Relations of Power and Relations of Violence’, Millennium, 34(1), 2005, pp. 1-24. Edkins, J., and Vaughan-Williams, N., (eds.), Critical Theorists and International Relations (Oxon: Routledge, 2009). Hansen, L., ‘Discourse Analysis, Identity, and Foreign Policy’, in Hansen, L., Security as Practice. Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, (London: Routledge, 2006). Milliken, J., ‘The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods,’ European Journal of International Relations, 5(2), 1999, pp. 225-254. Rabinow, P., The Foucault Reader, (London: Penguin, 1984). Rengger, N., and Hoffman, M., 'Chapter 7 - Modernity, Post-Modernism and International Relations', in Doherty, J. (eds.) Postmodernism in the Social Sciences (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 1990), pp. 127-147. Rosenau, P., ‘Once Again into the Fray: International Relations Confronts Humanities.’ Millennium, 19(1) (1990), pp. 83-110. Shapiro, M. J., ‘Textualizing Global Politics’, in Der Derian, J. and Shapiro, M. J. (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989). Weber, C., ‘Reconsidering Statehood: Examining the Sovereignty/Intervention Boundary,’ Review of International Studies, 18(3), 1992, pp. 199-216. Week Twenty-One – Feminism and Security This week, we turn to feminism as an IR Theory. Feminism is well established outside of IR, so we will be learning what feminists have said about IR as a discipline, existing IR theories, and specific subjects of IR that seem to ignore the role and importance of women and gender more broadly. Feminist IR has had many offshoots, and we will be considering three of these: liberal, standpoint and post-structural. As always, we will consider the merits and weaknesses of the approach, and discuss what role the theory plays for analysing international relations. To get a sense of theory in practice, we will explore what feminists have had to say about security and warfare in recent times. What are the key commonalities and differences between liberal, standpoint and post-structural feminist perspectives? What are the key concerns, aims and objectives of feminist/gender perspectives in IR? On what grounds can it be argued that International

16

Relations is a ‘gendered’ discipline? How do issues of sex and sexuality matter to war and the armed forces? Essential reading Tickner, J. A. and Sjoberg, L., ‘Chapter 10 - Feminism’, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: OUP, 2016) pp. 185-202. Roff, H., ‘Gendering a Warbot: Gender, Sex and The Implications for the Future of War’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 18(1), 2016, pp. 1-18. Further Reading Ackerly, B. and True, J., ‘Reflexivity in Practice: Power and Ethics in Feminist Research on International Relations’, International Studies Review 10(4), 2008, pp. 693-707. Bulmer, S., 'Patriarchal Confusion? Making Sense of Gay and Lesbian Military Identity' International Feminist Journal of Politics, 15(2), 2013, pp. 137-156. Enloe, C., ‘Chapter 5 - Gender makes the World Go Round: Where are the Women?’ in, Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases (eds.) Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014), pp. 174-210. Carpenter, R. C., ‘Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Men and Boys in Conflict Situations’, Security Dialogue, 37(1), 2006, pp. 83-103. Carver, T. et al., ‘Gendering Jones: Feminism, IRs, Masculinities’ Review of International Studies, 24(2), 1998, pp. 283-297. Hooper, C. Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations and Gender Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001). Jones, A., ‘Does ‘Gender’ make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 22(4), 1996, pp. 405-429. Peterson V. S., 'Feminist Theories Within, Invisible To, and Beyond IR' Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10(2), 2004, pp. 1-11. Shepard, L., (eds.) Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations (Basingstoke: Routledge, 2015). Steans, J., 'Engaging from the Margins: Feminist Encounters with the 'Mainstream' of International Relations', British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5(3), 2003, pp. 428-454. Steans, J., ‘Gender, Feminism and International Relations’, in: Jill Steans (eds.), Gender and International Relations: An Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013). Tickner, J. A., ‘Chapter 1 - Engendered Insecurities: Feminist Perspectives on International Relations’ in J. Ann Tickner (eds.), Gender in International Relations. Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), pp. 1-26. Tickner, J. A., ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,’ International Organization, 41(4), 1997, pp. 611-632.

17

Waylen, G., ‘You Still Don’t Understand: Why Troubled Engagements Continue Between Feminists And (Critical) IPE’ Review of International Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2006), pp. 145-164. Weber, C., ‘Good girls, little girls and bad girls: Male paranoia in Robert Keohane’s critique of feminist international relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23(2), 1994, pp. 337-349. Week Twenty-Two – Post-Colonialism and the Eurocentric Nature of IR Theory This week, we turn our attention to post-colonialism. Post-colonialists believe that the triple expression of race, class and gender is needed to understand the nature of world politics. Using this triple expression, post-colonialists argue that the discipline of IR is deeply Eurocentric and imperial. We are going to explore the main tenets of this approach and question what a postcolonial perspective 'adds' to our understanding of international relations, as well as examining some critiques of this position. Post-colonialists emphasize sites of knowledge production, so we are going to examine the relationship between knowledge and power, and situate such debates within the context of your own experiences at the University of Bristol. This will be discussed in the lecture, where we will learn about the movement that asks, ‘why is my curriculum white?’ To get a sense of this theory in practice, you will be reading a piece that takes on an existing IR Theory you may remember from earlier on in the semester – the English School. Questions to consider this week are: What do post-colonial scholars criticise when they charge IR with ‘Eurocentrism’ and why is this critique important? How do theories of IR exclude non-European experiences? Does the experience of the triple oppression of race, class, and gender constitute the basis for a better knowledge of international relations? What are the problems of trying to develop 'non-Western IR theory'? Does the university reproduce exclusions and why does this matter? Essential Reading Epstein, C., ‘The Postcolonial Perspective: An Introduction’, International Theory, 6(2), 2014, pp. 294-311. Seth, Sanjay (2011), ‘Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40 (1), pp. 167-183. Further Reading Abrahamsen, R., ‘African Studies and the Postcolonial Challenge’, African Affairs, 102(407), 2003, pp. 189-210. Acharya, A. and Buzan, B., Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010). Barkawi, T. and Laffey M., ‘Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations’ Millennium 31(1), 2002, pp. 109-127. Biccum, A., ‘Development and the ‘New Imperialism’: A Reinvention of Colonial Discourse in DFID Promotional Literature’, Third World Quarterly, 26(6), 2005, pp. 1005-1020.

18

Bilgin, P., ‘Thinking past ‘Western’ IR?’, Third World Quarterly, 29:1 (2008) pp. 5-23. Chowdhry, G. and Nair, S., ‘Introduction: Power in A Postcolonial World: Race, Gender, And Class in International Relations,’ in Chowdhry, G. and Nair, S. (eds.), Power, Postcolonialism And International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class, (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 1-32. Darby, P., 'Pursuing the Political: A Postcolonial Rethinking of Relations International', Millennium 33(1), 2004, pp. 1-32. Grovogui, S. N., ‘Chapter 12 - Postcolonialism’, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 229-246. Grovogui, S., 'Regimes of Sovereignty: International Morality and the African Condition' European Journal of International Relations, 8(3) 2002, pp. 315-338. Jones, B. G. (eds.), Decolonizing International Relations (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006). Matin, K., ‘Redeeming the Universal: Postcolonialism And the Inner Life of Eurocentrism’, European Journal of International Relations, 19(2), 2013, 535-377. Seth, S. (eds.), Postcolonial Theory and International Relations: A Critical Introduction (Oxon: Routledge, 2013). Taylor, L., ‘Decolonizing International Relations: Perspectives from Latin America’ International Studies Review 14(3), 2012, pp. 386-400. Tickner, A., ‘Core, Periphery and (neo)Imperialist International Relations’ European Journal of International Relations 19(3), 2013, pp. 627-646. Vasilaki, R., ‘Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-Western IR Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 41(1), 2012, pp. 3-22. Week Twenty-Three – Cosmopolitanism and Climate Change In this final week, we turn to cosmopolitanism, a theory that focuses on individuals rather than states as the core concern. Cosmopolitans believe that the world has changed significantly because of globalisation, and are keen to explore global problems that require global solutions. We will learn about the main tenets of the theory, and explore one specific branch in detail – Global Justice. As always, we will explore the strengths and weaknesses of the approach and critically examine what this approach can tell us about contemporary international relations. To get a sense of theory in practice, we will consider what cosmopolitan scholars have had to say about the climate change problem. Questions to consider this week are: what basic moral principles underpin cosmopolitanism? What is the relationship between contemporary cosmopolitan arguments and globalization? Can cosmopolitanism be institutionalized globally? What are the major arguments for how this can be accomplished and are you convinced by them? Is climate change a problem of global justice? How much do we owe to future generations, and why? Who should be responsible for climate change - states, individuals or other actors?

19

Essential Reading Brown, G.W., Held, D., ‘Editor’s Introduction’ in Brown, G.W., Held, D. (eds.), The Cosmopolitanism Reader (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010), pp. 1-14. Dietzel, A. ‘The Paris Agreement: Protecting the Right to Health of Future Generations?’ in Global Policy 8(3) (2017): 313-321. Further Reading Beardsworth, R. Cosmopolitanism and International Relations (Polity Press, 2011). Brock, G., Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Brown, G.W., Held, D., The Cosmopolitanism Reader (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010). Brown, G. W., Grounding Cosmopolitanism: From Kant to the Idea of a Cosmopolitan Constitution (Edinburgh University Press, 2009). Caney, S. ‘Climate Change and the Duties of the Advantaged,’ Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 13 (2010): pp. 203-288. Dietzel A., ‘Global Justice’ in International Relations Theory: A Practical Introduction (eds.) McGlinchey S., Walters R. and. Oprisko R. L. (Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing, 2017). Gardiner, et. al. (eds.) Climate Ethics – Essential Readings, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Lawrence, P., Justice for Future Generations: Climate Change and International Law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2014) Hayden, P., Cosmopolitan Global Politics, (Burlington, Ashgate, 2005). Held, D. Cosmopolitanism; Ideals and Realities (Polity, 2010). Held, D., ‘Cosmopolitanism: Globalization Tamed?’ Review of International Studies, 29, 2003, pp. 465-480. Lu, C., ‘The One and Many Faces of Cosmopolitanism,’ Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 8(2), 2000, pp. 244–267. Moss, J. (eds.) Climate Change and Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). Shue, H. Climate Justice: Vulnerability and Protection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Tan, T., Justice Without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, And Patriotism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004).

20

Appendix A

Instructions on how to submit essays electronically

1. Log in to Blackboard and select the Blackboard course for the unit you are submitting work for. If you cannot see it, please e-mail spais-ug@bristol.ac.uk with your username and ask to be added.

2. Click on the "Submit Work Here" option at the top on the left hand menu and then find the correct assessment from the list.

3. Select ‘view/complete’ for the appropriate piece of work. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have selected both the correct unit and the correct piece of work.

4. The screen will display ‘single file upload’ and your name. Enter your name (for FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) or candidate number (for SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) as a submission title, and then select the file that you wish to upload by clicking the ‘browse’ button. Click on the ‘upload’ button at the bottom.

5. You will then be shown the essay to be submitted. Check that you have selected the correct essay and click the ‘Submit’ button. This step must be completed or the submission is not complete.

6. You will be informed of a successful submission. A digital receipt is displayed on screen and a copy sent to your email address for your records.

Important notes

You are only allowed to submit one file to Blackboard (single file upload), so ensure that all parts of your work – references, bibliography etc. – are included in one single document and that you upload the correct version. You will not be able to change the file once you have uploaded.

Blackboard will accept a variety of file formats, but the School can only accept work submitted in .rtf (Rich Text Format) or .doc/.docx (Word Document) format. If you use another word processing package, please ensure you save in a compatible format.

By submitting your essay, you are confirming that you have read the regulations on plagiarism and confirm that the submission is not plagiarised. You also confirm that the word count stated on the essay is an accurate statement of essay length.

If Blackboard is not working email your assessment to spais-ug@bristol.ac.uk with the unit code and title in the subject line.

How to confirm that your essay has been submitted

You will have received a digital receipt by email and If you click on the assessment again (steps 1-4), you will see the title and submission date of the essay you have submitted. If you click on submit, you will not be able to submit again. This table also displays the date of submission. If you click on the title of the essay, it will open in a new window and you can also see what time the essay was submitted.

21

Appendix B

Summary of Relevant School Regulations

(Further information is in the year handbook)

Attendance at classes SPAIS takes attendance and participation in classes very seriously. Seminars form an essential part of your learning and you need to make sure you arrive on time, have done the required reading and participate fully. Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of illness or for other exceptional reasons. If you are unable to attend a seminar you must inform your seminar tutor, as well as email spais-absence@bristol.ac.uk. You should also provide evidence to explain your absence, such as a self-certification and/or medical note, counselling letter or other official document. If you are unable to provide evidence then please still email spais-absence@bristol.ac.uk to explain why you are unable to attend. If you are ill or are experiencing some other kind of difficulty which is preventing you from attending seminars for a prolonged period, please inform your personal tutor, the Undergraduate Office or the Student Administration Manager. Requirements for credit points In order to be awarded credit points for the unit, you must achieve:

Satisfactory attendance in classes, or satisfactory completion of catch up work in lieu of poor attendance

Satisfactory formative assessment

An overall mark of 40 or above in the summative assessment/s. In some circumstances, a mark of 35 or above can be awarded credit points.

Presentation of written work Coursework must be word-processed. As a guide, use a clear, easy-to-read font such as Arial or Times New Roman, in at least 11pt. You may double–space or single–space your essays as you prefer. Your tutor will let you know if they have a preference. All pages should be numbered. Ensure that the essay title appears on the first page. All pages should include headers containing the following information:

Formative work Summative work

Name: e.g. Joe Bloggs

Unit e.g. SOCI10004

Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr J. Haynes

Word Count .e.g. 1500 words

**Candidate Number**: e.g. 12345

Unit: e.g. SOCI10004

Seminar Tutor: e.g. Dr J. Haynes

Word Count: e.g. 3000 words

Candidate numbers are required on summative work in order to ensure that marking is anonymous. Note that your candidate number is not the same as your student number. Assessment Length Each piece of coursework must not exceed the stipulated maximum length for the assignment (the ‘word count’) listed in the unit guide. Summative work that exceeds the maximum length will be subject to penalties. The word count is absolute (there is no 10% leeway, as commonly rumoured). Five marks will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the word limit. Thus, an essay that is 1 word

22

over the word limit will be penalised 5 marks; an essay that is 101 words over the word limit will be penalised 10 marks, and so on. The word count includes all text, numbers, footnotes/endnotes, Harvard referencing in the body of the text and direct quotes. It excludes, the title, candidate number, bibliography, and appendices. However, appendices should only be used for reproducing documents, not additional text written by you. Referencing and Plagiarism Where sources are used they must be cited using the Harvard referencing system. Inadequate referencing is likely to result in penalties being imposed. See the Study Skills Guide for advice on referencing and how poor referencing/plagiarism are processed. Unless otherwise stated, essays must contain a bibliography. Extensions Extensions to coursework deadlines will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. If you want to request an extension, complete an extension request form (available at Blackboard/SPAIS_UG Administration/forms to download and School policies) and submit the form with your evidence (e.g. self-certification, medical certificate, death certificate, or hospital letter) to Catherine Foster in the Undergraduate Office. Extension requests cannot be submitted by email, and will not be considered if there is no supporting evidence. If you are waiting for evidence then you can submit the form and state that it has been requested. All extension requests should be submitted at least 72 hours prior to the assessment deadline. If the circumstance occurs after this point, then please either telephone or see the Student Administration Manager in person. In their absence you can contact Catherine Foster in the UG Office, again in person or by telephone. Extensions can only be granted by the Student Administration Manager. They cannot be granted by unit convenors or seminar tutors. You will receive an email to confirm whether your extension request has been granted. Submitting Essays

Formative essays Summative essays

Unless otherwise stated, all formative essay

submissions must be submitted electronically via

Blackboard

All summative essay submissions must be

submitted electronically via Blackboard.

Electronic copies enable an efficient system of receipting, providing the student and the School with a record of exactly when an essay was submitted. It also enables the School to systematically check the length of submitted essays and to safeguard against plagiarism. Late Submissions Penalties are imposed for work submitted late without an approved extension. Any kind of computer/electronic failure is not accepted as a valid reason for an extension, so make sure you back up your work on another computer, memory stick or in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive or Dropbox). Also ensure that the clock on your computer is correct.

23

The following schema of marks deduction for late/non-submission is applied to both formative work and summative work:

Up to 24 hours late, or part thereof Penalty of 10 marks

For each additional 24 hours late, or part

thereof

A further 5 marks deduction for each 24 hours, or

part thereof

Assessment submitted over one week late Treated as a non-submission: fail and mark of zero

recorded. This will be noted on your transcript.

The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and includes Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays and university closure days.

If an essay submitted less than one week late fails solely due to the imposition of a late penalty, then the mark will be capped at 40.

If a fail due to non-submission is recorded, you will have the opportunity to submit the essay as a second attempt for a capped mark of 40 in order to receive credit points for the unit.

Marks and Feedback In addition to an overall mark, students will receive written feedback on their assessed work.

The process of marking and providing detailed feedback is a labour-intensive one, with most 2-3000 word essays taking at least half an hour to assess and comment upon. Summative work also needs to be checked for plagiarism and length and moderated by a second member of staff to ensure marking is fair and consistent. For these reasons, the University regulations are that feedback will be returned to students within three weeks of the submission deadline.

If work is submitted late, then it may not be possible to return feedback within the three week period.

Fails and Resits If you fail the unit overall, you will normally be required to resubmit or resit. In units where there are two pieces of summative assessment, you will normally only have to re-sit/resubmit the highest-weighted piece of assessment. Exam resits only take place once a year, in late August/early September. If you have to re-sit an exam then you will need to be available during this period. If you are not available to take a resit examination, then you will be required to take a supplementary year in order to retake the unit.

24

Appendix C

Level 4 Marking and Assessment Criteria (First Year)

High 1st (80+) o Outstanding knowledge and intricate understanding of the subject, o Coherently structured argument that shows nuanced recognition of alternative

perspectives and viewpoints o Demonstrates independent thought/intellectual initiative and provides sustained

critical engagement with the material o Demonstrates considerable engagement with literature on and beyond the reading list o Excellent organisation and style of presentation (including referencing) with no or very

few grammatical and spelling errors

1st (70-79)

o Excellent knowledge and understanding of the subject, as well as a recognition of alternative perspectives and viewpoints

o Uses an argument that is logically structured and supported by evidence o Engages with the material critically and demonstrates some capacity for intellectual

initiative/ independent thought o Incorporates one or two sources from beyond the reading list o High quality organisation and style of presentation (including referencing) with few

grammatical or spelling errors and attention to writing style

2:1 (60–69) o Good knowledge and understanding of subject and some recognition of other viewpoints and perspectives

o Evidence of an argument that is logically structured, but it may not be consistently developed

o Some evidence of critical thinking in places o Some attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ o Presentation showing promise: effective writing style but some grammatical and

spelling errors; referencing and bibliographic formatting satisfactory on the whole

2:2 (50–59) o Reasonable knowledge and understanding of subject and an ability to answer the question, but there may be some gaps

o A tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of reason and evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical

o Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than critical. o Little attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit;

displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material

o Satisfactory presentation: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes clumsy; some significant grammatical and spelling errors; inconsistent referencing but generally accurate bibliography

3rd (40–49) o Shows some knowledge and understanding of the subject and some awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues but misses the point of the question

o Demonstrates little/no ability to construct an argument and an underdeveloped or chaotic structure with only minimal attempt to use evidence

o Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources o Poorly presented: writing style unclear with significant grammatical and spelling

errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions

25

Marginal Fail

(35–39)

o Shows limited understanding and knowledge of the subject and omits significant parts of the question

o Little or no argument and incoherent or illogical structure; evidence used inappropriately or incorrectly

o Inadequate use of analytical skills and tendency to assert opinion rather than engage in critique

o Some evidence of reading but little comprehension o Inadequate presentation e.g. not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical

and spelling errors; some attempt to provide references but inconsistent and containing bibliographic omissions

Outright Fail

(0–34)

o Very limited, and seriously flawed, knowledge and understanding ; little understanding of the question or fails to address the question entirely

o No attempt to construct an argument and incoherent or illogical structure o No evidence of analytical skill o Uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow range of sources. o Very poor presentation: poor writing style; significant errors in spelling and grammar

with limited or no attempt at providing references and containing bibliographic omissions.