Here’s the outline for the first assignment for SIS-680: a partial proposal for a piece of comparative case study research. “Partial” because I am not asking you for either a literature summary or a literature critique.
The 2009 edition of the introductory lecture for my SIS-680 course. Something of a remix from last year’s version, and also features a corect synching of the audio and the slides (I think).
Here’s the Summer 2009 edition of the SIS-680 “‘Qualitative’ Research Methodologies” syllabus. I still dislike — as in “abhor” — the category “qualitative,” but that’s what I’m stuck with for the moment.
The final lecturelet for SIS-301; this one’s about Naeem Inayatullah and David Blaney’s book International Relations and the Problem of Difference.
Naeem and David actually have spoken about their approach at a workshop I organized, and a recording of those remarks is available here.
Almost the end of the series! Here’s lecturelet 12, which is somewhat about feminism and somewhat about the broader critical-theoretical tradition that it is part of, at least or especially in IR.
My subjective perception was that I talked a bit fast on a couple of these slides. Fortunately, QuickTime has options that you can use to slow down playback, if that’s necessary.
Based on some class and post-class comments, I decided to whip up a quick supplemental lecturelet on motivational versus intentional explanations. This kind of issue always comes up when one starts delving into constructivist theory, but I don’t think that the explanation I gave in class was sufficient . . . so here’s another attempt.
Still hovering around 50 minutes. Here’s the eleventh installment in the series; this lecture(let) focuses on realist constructivism, and extends/complements last week’s thoughts on liberal constructivism.
One clarification: the “social construction” / “not social construction” fractal is not a replacement for the 2×2 that arranges realism, liberalism, liberal constructivism, and realist constructivism as ideal-typical combinations of commitments; that said, the fractal might be the analytical engine driving the debates. You decide.
Looks like I am stuck on the 48-49 minute length for the moment. Here’s lecture(let) 10, on constructivism, particualrly the more liberal variety. In this lecturelet and the next one I aim to give some sense of how the constructivist turn has interacted with realist and liberal approaches; this week I spend more time on constructivism in general so that we all get the basic logic down, and next week I will talk more in detail about what I see as the realist/liberal contrast within constructivism.
Okay, so maybe 49 minutes is not quite a lecturelet. But it’s shorter than the previous few so-called lecturelets, so that has to count for something. Liberalism is our topic this week: both IR liberalism and the broader liberal tradition from which it (sometimes implicitly) derives.
Someone commented that these were less lecturelets and mroe lectures; I am not sure how much longer they will continue to run to this size, but these past couple of weeks there seems to have been a lot to say. Maybe this is a temporary bulge; we’ll see.
In any event: here’s lecture(let) 8, on IR realism.