AbstractWhy do American perspectives of international relations (IR) continue to hold sway over an increasingly diverse discipline? What actually constitutes "Americanness" in IR? Who is considered "American" in IR? These are the central questions we explore in this essay. Drawing on cognitive and behavioral insights from social psychology, we argue that there is a distinct "American approach" to international relations and security studies and that this approach is a product of Western cognitive frames. We identify three factors that represent the American approach's hyper-Westernized framing: individualism, equality, and a preference for causal rather than contextual analysis, and a preference for egalitarianism. We argue that these are reinforced by two social identity processes—academic identity and national identity. The consequences of "being American" in IR and security studies suggest not only problems of attention and accuracy, but an inherent failure to appreciate that Western—and particularly, American—ways of seeing and valuing the world are not universal.
The authors argue that the gender composition of party gatekeepers -- those responsible for candidate recruitment -- plays a crucial role in either encouraging or discouraging women candidates to run for office. Using an original data set that includes constituency-level information for all parties and candidates in the 2004 and 2006 Canadian national elections, the authors find support for this proposition. Women candidates are more likely to be nominated when the gatekeeper -- the local party president -- is a woman rather than a man. The results underline the importance of informal factors for understanding women's political underrepresentation. Adapted from the source document.
in: Political research quarterly: PRQ ; official journal of Western Political Science Association, Pacific Northwest Political Science Association, Southern California Political Science Association, Northern California Political Science Association, Volume 64, Issue 2, p. 460-472
The authors argue that the gender composition of party gatekeepers—those responsible for candidate recruitment— plays a crucial role in either encouraging or discouraging women candidates to run for office. Using an original data set that includes constituency-level information for all parties and candidates in the 2004 and 2006 Canadian national elections, the authors find support for this proposition. Women candidates are more likely to be nominated when the gatekeeper—the local party president—is a woman rather than a man. The results underline the importance of informal factors for understanding women's political underrepresentation.
This chapter focuses on using primary sources to teach students to define propaganda and explain how it has been used in a historical context, especially as it relates to US political history. Students have always known the internet and have witnessed fake news as it circulates the web, but they may not know that information has been used for purposes ofpersuasion throughout history. The activity provided in this chapter makes use of special collections materials pertaining to historical propaganda and affords students the opportunityto critically analyze and interpret primary sources.
This article makes the case for feminist IR to build knowledge of international institutions. It emerges from a roundtable titled 'Challenges and Opportunities for Feminist IR: Researching Gendered Institutions' which took place at the International Studies Association Annual Convention in Baltimore in 2017. Here, we engage in self-reflexivity, drawing on our conversation to consider what it means for feminist scholars to 'study up'. We argue that feminist IR conceptions of narratives and the everyday make a valuable contribution to feminist institutionalist understandings of the formal and informal. We also draw attention to the value of postcolonial approaches and multi-site analyses of international institutions for creating a counter-narrative to hegemonic accounts emerging from both the institutions themselves, and scholars studying them without a critical feminist perspective. In so doing, we draw attention to the salience of considering not just what we study as feminist International Relations scholars but how we study it.