Search

Scholarship indicates that women and gender are underrepresented in Political Science textbooks, particularly those in American Politics. We complement those analyses by focusing on the “companion ...

Teaching research-paper writing in a step-wise and interactive fashion exposes students to methodology and empowers them. Contemporary undergraduates have generally not learned how to write research papers, and teaching methodology has long been a challenge. Seeking to accomplish both simultaneously gives students an applied way to better understand their political science courses and, more importantly, provides them with experiences that transform them as learners. The process includes high-impact educational practices which compel students to (a) integrate across the curriculum; (b) engage in “real” research; (c) experience learning as a social process; and (d) make revising and rethinking habitual. Undergraduates thus become more capable and confident learners with a greater ability to succeed in future endeavors.

To honor the 25th anniversary of the conference that ultimately produced Gendered States, a group of feminist International Relations (IR) scholars convened a workshop in Melbourne, Australia, and ...

In the winter of 2009 a collection of feminist scholars, PhD candidates, and constitutional lawyers from around the world held a conference at Queens College in Ontario, Canada to share ideas about...

Feminism has not been a broad-based movement in Russia, despite the efforts of many dedicated individuals. After leaving behind communism, which forced a warped Marxist version on society (requirin...

Given the title of this book, some might think its relevance depends on whether Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States. The authors, however, emphasize that they are evaluating a...

Learning how to write a research paper is an important skill for political science majors, and faculty can also benefit when their students develop their research-paper-writing talents. Few departments, however, teach these skills explicitly, and many curricula seem to be based on the assumption that students will arrive at college with adequate basic writing skills. Several programs also suppose that a major will develop the ability to write a research paper through her experience with political science and other courses. These expectations are faulty, as most students are not “proficient” writers when they move to campus (McGrath 2004; NCWASC 2003, 16–7; Persky, Daane, and Jin 2003, 20–1), and writing a research paper in political science is a specific skill set that must be developed (Scholes 1998, 95; Russell 2002, 9–10). The approach I advocate here is to demystify the paper and the process for students by identifying and explaining the different parts of a typical paper—introduction, literature review, model and hypothesis, research design, analysis and assessment, and conclusion—and showing how the paper-writing process is broken into manageable tasks. While faculty know the components of research papers, most students have no idea what these sections should contain or what their titles mean. In addition, because revision and editing are essential general writing skills linked with the overall substantive learning process (NCWASC 2003, 1, 9; Maimon 2002, x), I suggest that students submit their papers in pieces, benefiting from feedback from faculty, peers, and themselves. In this essay, I unpack the parts of the paper and the writing process, providing suggestions for teaching about these segments and integrating research-paper-writing skills into the curriculum.

In Security First, Amitai Etzioni insightfully diagnoses the problems with existing American foreign policy and prescribes creating security and valuing life as corrective guiding principles. Peacebuilding scholars would welcome Etzioni's focus, arguing that an efficacious state and a sense of nation help achieve his goals. In addition, developing respect for the dignity of all citizens in war-torn societies is an important ingredient to moving forward. Etzioni's stress on developing a “moral culture,” which emerges from the dominant indigenous religion, is more problematic, however. Frequently, major religions have threatened the security and life chances of religious and other minorities, as well as of women and girls. Since using religion as a cornerstone undermines the idea of Security First and the Primacy of Life, the U.S. would be better served and more ethical advocating the inclusion of liberal principles in states' founding documents, even if those promises cannot be immediately realized.

Over the economic crises of the 1990s, global economic understandings shifted from the early classical orthodoxy of the ‘Washington Consensus’ to a later Keynesian support for demand stimulus and capital controls. However, Russian policy – particularly after the 1998 ruble crisis – partly deviated from these broader trends, combining Keynesian capital controls with classical budgetary restraint. In offering a ‘constructivist-institutionalist’ explanation for this policy mix, we assume that agents can always interpret or construct events as varying types of crises, reshaping state society relations in the process. We then argue that classical interpretations of the early 1990s' crises legitimated orthodox policies and more importantly – alienated the Russian state from society. Given this backdrop, while later interpretations of the 1998 ruble crisis legitimated capital controls, the prior alienation of state from society precluded any domestic Keynesian coalition. Global pressures must, from this vantage point, be situated in specific social and institutional contexts.

What is the salience of historical events and why are certain ones central to the narratives of politicians of opposing views? Students of nation-state building frequently contend that key moments of glory or disaster are central for telling the story of the nation and thereby uniting the people. The Hungarian experience in interpreting the revolutionary events of 1956 and 1989, therefore, is not unique; rather it highlights an important phenomenon of politics in authoritarian as well as democratic systems. As elites compete for power, particularly during times of crisis, they often offer particular interpretations of key historical events. How well they can convince and mold public perceptions of both the contemporary situation and its historical analogy affect the power that leaders can wield. In contemporary American politics, a duel between two analogies (9/11-mushroom cloud versus Iraq-Vietnam) is currently raging, and whichever memory wins will have important short-run political consequences in the United States.

The transformation of industrial enterprises from formerly state-owned entities, operating within a centrally managed economic system, to relatively autonomous, market-oriented firms, making independent production and investment decisions, represents a cornerstone of Russia's transition plan. Indeed, such a transformation underlay the Chubais privatization program, as proponents of the plan argued that private ownership of industrial enterprises would ensure needed organizational and technological restructuring. The results of the first stage of the privatization program suggested, however, that the transformation of industrial enterprises-far from being assured by a change in ownership-would be a more difficult, lengthy, and uncertain process than had initially been anticipated. This re-evaluation is linked to three broad trends. First, the inconsistent and unstable macroeconomic policies in the early transitional period helped to create an environment in which short-term survival (without a significant adjustment in how industry operates) became the sole objective of firms. Second

Students of post-communist labor relations have argued that the social contract would deteriorate with privatization, as managers secured ownership rights and enterprises reoriented toward the market. To examine this expectation, we investigated the state of labor relations in two enterprises in the metallurgical industry. In St Petersburg, marketization brought little positive change in production and the social contract decayed, while Tula's management embarked on an ambitious reform program, rewriting the social contract. We attribute the variations in the outcomes to differing regional conditions that affected the mutual dependence of labor and management and, hence, “exit options” of both parties.

In 1991, the USA and USSR reached an accord to make significant cutbacks in their strategic arenals. A few months after the agreement was signed, the superpowers also unilaterally decided to undertake steps to decrease their readiness for war, eliminate tactical nuclear weapons, and accelerate the START reductions. While the outcomes may appear to follow from the collapse of Soviet power or domestic political developments, a closer examination suggests that a singular focus on neither power considerations nor internal politics can explain adequately these instances of arms control. Instead, leaders appear to have played a principal role, simultaneously balancing domestic political considerations against international challenges and opportunities.

In December 1993, observers of Russian politics were surprised that Vladimir Zhirinovskii and his party performed so well in the parliamentary elections and that the reformers did not attract more voters. Two explanations for this outcome have become widely accepted. The first maintains that Russians were expressing their discontent with economic hardships, while the second contends that the balance of political forces accounts for the reformists’ defeat. To the contrary, it appears that it was not the unwillingness of Russians to participate in market reforms and to accept key aspects of the government's programmes, nor was it the combination of the division of the democrats, the invisibility of Yeltsin and the unity of the right wing that produced the unexpected results. Rather, the arrogance of the reformers and the alienation of the Russian public explain the election outcome. These two factors explain why the democrats split as they did and why the type of campaigns waged had such an impact on the fo...