A Foreign Policy conducted survey reveals some interesting statistics on international relations education in America. Here are some of the numbers:
- 69% of international relations professors describe themselves as liberal
- 13% see themselves as conservative
- overwhelmingly opposed the U.S. war in Iraq
- 77% of them support free trade
- 10% believe the United States should beef up its military budget
- No women rank among the top 25 scholars with the greatest impact on the discipline over the past 20 years
I found this very interesting as well:
When professors do reach for the theoretical toolbox, they frequently pull out the classics, notably realism, with its focus on states and power, and liberalism, with its emphasis on economic interdependence and international institutions. Beyond these two schools of thought, however, some interesting results appear. Constructivism, which highlights the power of ideology and beliefs in international politics, is the hot new thing in academic research; more than 80 percent of scholars report that it is on the rise. Nevertheless, it gets little airtime in introductory classes. Marxism, on the other hand, may be on history’s ash heap, but it still finds its way onto the reading list. Indeed, nearly 14 percent of introductory course material is still devoted to Marxist ideas.
I know we must have a number of IR people out there ( ahem , Dr. Dan and bp32), what say you?
Wot! Wot! goes out to Grendel

Comments to this entry
Dan
November 6, 2005
7:27 pm
Feminism has been ghettoized into feminist theories of political science, which is too bad as it has a lot to contribute to geneticist and construcitivist discussions.
Interesting, despite a rather liberal ideological tilt (free trade, low military spending, Iraq War pacifism, etc) not too much Europhilia. And pretty strong francophobia, too
Mike
November 6, 2005
7:37 pm
Mike
November 6, 2005
7:39 pm
Saru
November 6, 2005
10:23 pm
I suppose we might attribute that in part to the recent success of Thomas Friedman, Jagdish Bhagwati, Martin Wolf, et. al. for popularizing globalization.
Still, my undergraduate and graduate education has left me with the impression that more than 13% of IR professors would voice at least some opposition to, say, trade liberalization under the WTO, free-trade areas, Bush's trade policy agenda, etc...
I'd be interested to know the exact wording of this particular question, to know how those profs. would qualify their support of free trade, and to know how they would define "free trade."
Kushibo
November 6, 2005
11:44 pm
All these radical students in Korea who went to college learning in study groups about Marx and Cumings, they did so because their teachers wouldn't (usually couldn't) address Marxism: Marxism was the enemy. So instead of channeling the debate into a useful discussion of the merits and especially the failings of Marxism, they turned it into an enticing taboo. And that gives you the Korea Democratic Labor Party, thank you very much.
As for my IR teachers, they were about half and half (using pro-Bush or pro-Gore and pro-Sunshine Policy or anti-Sunshine Policy as lithmus tests). None of them, as far as I'm aware, thought the War in Iraq was a wise policy, but most did support sending ROK troops to Iraq.
larry
November 7, 2005
1:23 am
Anarchists must be watched, communal societies must be wooed, individualism must be encouraged, and totalitarian societies must be destroyed.
adamu
November 7, 2005
5:07 am
Personally I guess I'd come down on the free trade/liberal end of the IR ideology breakdown. When countries depend on each other they tend to be more reluctant to fuck around and start a war.
My professors in the IR theory classes I took tended to be pretty conservative actually. My Korean Foreign Policy teacher, to name one, was the very quotable Balbina Hwang from Georgetown and the Heritage Foundation.
Younghusband
November 7, 2005
5:21 am
Yeah I sort of discovered this as well in about my 3rd year of undergrad. I wish I had of taken Geography, which would have been a perfect segue into what I am doing now, and what I am and was truly interested in. If I were to do it all over again I would take a lot more modern history courses and definitely some Econ courses. Linguistics was an interesting and formative experience, but not altogether useful for what I am doing now. Oh well, I guess a large breadth of experience is an advantage I have over my classmates, which are all History/PoliSci majors.
snow
November 7, 2005
11:36 am
I think not, as it seems that society (Korean and Canadian) is overwhelmingly indoctrinated with the idea that corporations and the pursuit of money are evil (it seems that an individual pursuit is ok, especially in Korea, but not by companies). Maybe it's the people I know and work with (teachers mostly), but I very frequently hear comments about how evil and greedy corporations are. It's truly tiresome.
Saru
November 7, 2005
2:17 pm
I almost burst out laughing at truth in this. I wonder what percentage of liberal arts graduates would agree.
Mutantfrog
November 7, 2005
4:26 pm
I was a double major in English Lit and E Asian Studies with a decent number of history classes and a smattering of all kinds of liberal arts classes, and I think they've basically served well. Looking back, there are certain weak classes that I wish I could trade for maybe having had at least basic econ or something, but the idea of majoring in finance or some other purely workplace oriented major just gives me the chills.
bp32
November 18, 2005
9:46 pm
Yup, its called economics...and technically, capitalist theories of economics are based upon classical notions of liberalism :)
I know I am a little late to the game here but I have written a brief reaction to the study over at the Duck.