« January 2010 | Main | March 2010 »
This weekend in the reading roundup:
Photo credit: junhopark
Please see the message from Matt Davies below, in his capacity as the head convenor of 'The Critical Limits of the Financial Crisis: World, Politics, Aesthetics, and Re-politicization' section for the upcoming Standing Group on International Relations Conference in Stockholm. As an associate convenor, I'd just like to reiterate our desire to solicit as many interesting papers as possible!
Call For Papers
The SGIR 7th Pan-European Conference on IR will take place in Stockholm, Sweden, from September 9-11, 2010. The deadline for submitting paper or panel proposals is 28 February and proposals must be submitted on-line at here.
There are 43 sections for the conference, all dealing in different ways with the conference theme, “Politics in Hard Times.” Our section, number 9, “The Critical Limits to the Financial Crisis: World Politics, Aesthetics, and Re-politicization” especially invites panels that bring together both specialists in political economy and specialists in aesthetic or cultural theory for dialog about the contemporary crisis and how finance fits in it, or papers that could contribute to these kinds of panels. The section’s call for papers can be found here.We have had several inquiries about what this might mean and just to be clear, we do not see these contributions as being limited to papers that examine “the aesthetics of finance” understood narrowly (though such proposals would be most welcome). The panels should bring together diverse approaches to common concerns: for example, a political economic analysis of the role of the housing bubble in the financial crisis could be brought into dialog with a paper on the aesthetics of housing in times of boom or bust. Finance and visuality have been brought together in very interesting ways in cultural political economy, and the notion of “financial architecture” provides another common meeting ground between political economy and aesthetics.
Please contact any of the section convenors, listed on the section’s call for papers, if you have any questions and please feel free to circulate this call to any interested colleagues across the Arts, Humanities, or Social Sciences.
Photo credits: TRAFFIK [US] and calico_13
Breakthrough, an international human rights advocacy group, has put together an excellent resource to draw attention to what can only be described as the appalling treatment of immigrants in American detention centers.
Spearheading the campaign Homeland Guantanamos: The Untold Story of Immigrant Detention in the U.S. is a video game that is:
Having played the game, I was very impressed with the delicate balance achieved between the quality of the gaming experience and maintaining the gravitas that the subject deserves.
Moreover, the use of video first person testimonials from those who have been detained--or had family members detained--was extremely powerful without feeling exploitative. Hearing and seeing those--even if just a tiny portion-- who have been caught in the Kafkaesque world of ICE custody packs a real visceral punch than goes beyond reading lists or third party accounts of (alleged) violations.
And perhaps what is most admirable of all is that those who speak are given the opportunity to reveal their multiple and overlapping identities that demonstrate the violence inherent in defining someone simply as a 'migrant'. Yet, none of the people profiled are represented as passive victims; their agency, forms of resistance while detained, and hopes that current practices can be overturned come through as they share their experiences.
Although, I'm not in a position to evaluate how successful the Homeland Guantanamos campaign has been, it certainly presents its message in an innovative way that communicates the message effectively. Thus, it will be interesting to see if the use of non-traditional mediums like video games and emerging forms of social networking are adopted by other organizations seeking to make the world a more humane and just place? What do you think?
Photo credit: Menner de Braker
Colleagues at the Centre for International and Security Studies at York University in Canada have announced a call for papers for the third annual Popular Culture and World Politics Conference (PCWP). Previous events have been hosted by Politics at Bristol University (2008) and Politics at Newcastle University (2009). Both both were fantastic.
Given that a fair number of this blog's readers are artists and/or cultural producers, please note that we--that is academics studying world politics and popular culture--are particularly interested in finding out from you how political commitments--very broadly defined--may or may not influence the medium and messages of your work. Thus, I'd like to emphasize that PCWP III is really interested in 'receiving proposals for the performance, presentation, screening or display of cultural works which seek to produce a (world) politics in their practice.' And I promise, we don't bite!
Anyhow, please see the call for papers below or click on the original link here.
Call for Papers:
Popular Culture and World Politics (PCWP III)
04-05 November 2010
York University, Toronto, Canada
There is a growing movement in and around the study of international politics to think about the intersections of world politics and the production, circulation, content and consumption of various popular cultural forms. This burgeoning scholarship has reached a point in which it is possible to move well beyond the important initial forays that emphasised the content of cultural forms-as-text, seeking metaphorical connections between the cultural and the political, to explore the interwoven possibilities and limits of the cultural and political.
The York Centre for International and Security Studies is pleased to invite you to Popular Culture and World Politics III, to be held in Toronto 4-5 November 2010. Following two successful events, hosted by the University of Bristol in 2008 and the University of Newcastle in 2009, Popular Culture and World Politics III seeks to continue the growing conversation on the intersections of various forms of popular culture and the study of world politics, from a range of disciplines and practices in the social sciences, humanities and the arts.
We welcome proposals for performances, screenings, panels, or individual papers, on any aspect of world politics and popular culture. In particular, we seek proposals which address any of the following themes or issues:
If you are interested in attending the conference please Click here and submit a brief abstract of your paper (no more than 250 words) before 2 April 2010.
I hope to see many of you there!
Photo credit: lowfatbrains
This weekend in the reading roundup:
Some food for thought...
Photo credit: jurvetson
The controversy surrounding the targeted killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, (allegedly) by members of the Israeli Mossad continues to grow in the UK. While the focus has been on the use of UK and Irish passports to facilitate the entry of agents into Dubai, there are some other interesting issues brought forward by this case.
The first is to keep in mind that targeted killings in the Israeli context are an adminstrative decision taken within the cabinet and office of the Prime Minister. And as administration decisions, they are shaped by a political-legal context.
This context is one that has been recently influenced by legal advice given to the Israeli government as well as two high profile constitutional challenges to legality of assassination under the Basic Law. A 2002 recommendation by the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Israel Defense Forces outlined four essential conditions that must be satisfied before a targeted killing can take place. First, the Palestinian Authority must ignore appeals for arrests of persons of interest. Second, Israeli security forces must reach the conclusion through careful assessment that they cannot arrest the persons of interest themselves. Third, any attack must be proportional. Fourth, a targeted killing should only be done to prevent an imminent or future attack; retribution or revenge are not justifications. These conditions were supported in rulings given by the Israeli High Court in 2002 and 2006 affirming the legality of targeted killing, with the later decision adding the requirement of an independent investigation following every instance.
Beyond the important issues of legality at both the national and international levels, I think it is also beneficial to analyse how it has become possible for a tactical success to be both a strategic and political failure under the terms and calculations by which the Israel state governs its own conduct.
Israeli standard operation procedure in intelligence matters is to neither confirm nor deny reports of tactical operations. Yet, according to a report in the Jerusalem Post, at least two Israeli cabinet members--Interior Minister Eli Yishai and Science and Technology Minister Daniel Herschkowitz--have already pretty much come out and credited the Mossad with involvement.
If the Mossad was involved, as stated above, the decision to assassinate would have been made at the level of the Prime Minister with the involvement of members of the cabinet. However, it is not necessarily the case that Binyamin Netanyahu or other members of the cabinet would have been specifically briefed on the logistical details of the operation (i.e., the use of foreign passports) though I would suspect that some indication that it might be taking place in a third party state would have been indicated given the potential political fallout. But since this operation was taking place outside of Israel or Palestine and Israeli citizens face travel restrictions in the region, the Prime Minister and others would have had to have been tacitly aware that entry into Dubai by agents was not going to be on Israeli passports.
In addition, while no government likes the idea of their passports being used--or forged-- to facilitate the intelligence operations of other states, what I think is qualitatively different in this case is that living British citizens have had their identities stolen. Culturally, the fear of identity theft is quite profound. Thus, I suspect that many people who might not have been particularly bothered by the murder itself--or Israel's use of targeted killing more generally--find themselves very ill at ease at the idea that agents of a foreign government might decide to steal their identity in order to commit actions that could burden them with profound legal liabilities while having profound consequences for their ability to travel, earn a living, or live in the absence of fear of reprisal.
So beyond the usual concerns of conducting a targeted killing, this operation assumed additional risks. While hindsight is always 20-20, this indirect--and non-consensual--involvement of additional state parties by using their passports and, more importantly, stealing the identities of their citizens was diplomatically reckless.
The imprudence becomes all the more apparent when the general consensus amongst analysts is that the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is not a substantial loss to Hamas. Reports on his life history emphasize that although he was heavily involved in bringing arms into Palestine, he was not a particularly high-profile or publicly charismatic member of the organization. Moreover, his function as an arms dealer and smuggler are easily replaceable. The risks taken in the commissioning of his assassination therefore seem well out of proportion to his strategic significance. Thus, one wonders if this was less a case of preventing an imminent or future attack (as advised under the JAG guidelines) and simply a case of retribution? If so, this operation would be at direct odds with the already lenient procedural rules governing the use of targeted killing in Israel.
The key question then is whether the death of al-Mabhouh will be framed this way within Israeli political discourses and if so, what the--if any-- longer range political consequences might be for the Likud government.
Update:
'Israel remains silent...' from guardian.co.uk
Photo credit: mrbill
This is the last post of a three part series outlining some of the benefits that UK universities can offer prospective students from North America (or elsewhere) who wish to pursue degree studies in Politics or International Relations. Provisos and caveats can be found here.
Previous posts have looked at the undergraduate and Masters levels. Today, I turn to the doctorate...7 Reasons to Consider Pursuing a Ph.D. in Politics or International Relations at a UK University
1. You already have a really good idea of the topic you want to research and do not want to spend 2.5 years taking additional courses, studying for comprehensive examinations, and obtaining research proposal approval. At UK institutions, you spend your first year undertaking advanced research training that goes towards drafting a research proposal. The length of time that it takes to write a proposal that meets the standards of your committee usually varies from between three months and nine months. Once your proposal is approved, you will be fully immersed in your dissertation.
2. Your proposed programme of research is in some way different with respect to the norms of North American political science. The behavioural revolution never established as strong a foothold in the UK as it did in the United States or Canada. If you are interested in qualitative research, critical social theories, philosophical approaches to the study of politics, feminisms, or post-positivist political analysis--amongst other developments deemed 'unorthodox' by North American standards--you will be joining a large research community of like-minded scholars in the UK. Not only does this give an opportunity to connect with some of the leading figures in these areas, it also means that you are able to avoid a lot of the 'disciplining by the discipline' that can occur in North America. Often as a researcher engaged in non-traditional work, you can become a target for colleagues, committee members, and other established academics who feel a responsibility to police an imaginary border between what is proper political science and what is not. This kind of 'mentoring' is more rare in the UK.
3. You want to receive quality supervision from your committee. Horror stories about a lack of supervision are rife in North America, whether at world leading universities or lesser known institutions. While universities in the UK are not without their own problems, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) --a significant research funding body--has spent the past several years tightening up supervisory norms and making institutional eligibility for research funding tied to Ph.D. completion rates. This has made quality supervision a priority. For example, at Newcastle University you are guaranteed a minimum 10 meetings a year with your supervisory team. Other universities have similar policies that are in place to ensure that your progress is being monitored and that you have the opportunity to receive feedback from your committee on a regular basis.
4. You want to complete your Ph.D. and get it finished relatively quickly. As mentioned above, Ph.D. completion rates and the time that it takes to finish are tied to institutional research funding eligibility so UK universities take them very seriously. Typically it takes between 3-4 years to complete a Ph.D in politics or international relations. Any doctoral candidates with research council funding taking longer than four years to complete will count against their institution for ESRC monitoring purposes. Thus there is an incentive to ensure that you are making good progress right from the start of your programme as well as producing a quality piece of research that will pass a defense (or what is called a viva in the UK). By comparison, North American attrition rates in doctoral programmes are typically far higher than in the UK and most doctoral programmes are officially 5 years in length, with completion times often averaging around 7.5 years.
5. Your career is not determined by supervisory pedigree or institutional reputation. The results of the recent Research Assessment Exercise have shown that world class research is occurring across a wide spectrum of politics and international relations departments in the UK. Thus, rather than tying your worth and potential to who your lead supervisor is/was or how highly ranked your programme is according to a media outlet, UK academics will generally judge you on the relative merits (or demerits) of your research and publication record.
6. You want to be treated as a colleague by other academics.Institutional cultures in North American departments often dictate that doctoral candidates should be seen and not heard. Moreover, this practice is often internalized by Ph.D. students to the point where they introduce themselves via the name of their supervisor--e.g., I'm working under Professor X and my name is...' Things are generally more collegial in UK institutions and doctoral candidates are very often seen as valuable contributors to the teaching and research environment. For example, at Newcastle University , our Ph.D.s are often involved in research projects with members of staff. We ask them to participate in major decision-making processes including new hires. Our Ph.Ds also run a seminar series that focuses on bringing in early career scholars to present research papers.
7. You want the opportunity to network with leading scholars in your research area. Conferencing tends to be difficult in North America simply because of the logistics of getting people together from a bunch of institutions that may be thousands of miles apart. Distances are quite manageable in the UK making regular 1-2 day events possible. Therefore, beyond the major disciplinary events like the Political Studies Association meeting or the British International Studies Association conference, there are numerous smaller conferences and workshops taking place throughout the year. Moreover, funding for these conferences is often contingent on the organizers offering a reduced--if not free--rate for doctoral students. Thus, there are plenty of opportunities in the UK to see, meet, and connect with academics from other UK institutions.
Photo credit to ME°°
This post is part two of a three part series exploring reasons why prospective students from North America might want to pursue a degree in Politics or International Relations at a UK university. Most of this information should also be relevant to other prospective students from abroad. Explanations of the intentions behind the series and caveats about the advice given can be found here.
5 Reasons to Consider a Masters in Politics or International Relations at a UK University
1. The theories and approaches taken to the study of politics and international relations in the UK are extremely diverse. While there are institutions with globally recognized strengths in quantitative methods, the UK is positioned at the leading edge of qualitative research in the field. Important perspectives often downplayed or ignored in North American academia such as Feminisms, Political Sociology, Marxism, Critical Realism, International History, Poststructuralism, and Postcolonialism have vibrant research communities across the UK with specific institutions being recognized as centers of excellence in these areas.
There is also a greater recognition of the benefits of pursuing scholarship that is interdisciplinary by drawing upon insights from other areas like media studies, philosophy, English, economics, and geography. Moreover, the fields of politics and international relations are generally less sectarian and rigid than in North America; most share the feeling that whatever approach one uses-- whether it be quantitative, qualitative, or philosophical--and whatever theoretical positions underpin it can make a contribution to understanding the complex relationships constituted by power, economics, politics, and society.
2. The majority of MA degrees in Politics and International Relations are only one year in length. Your first term takes place from October to the end of January (with a break at Christmas). The second term takes place from February to the middle of June (with a long break at Easter). The summer is then used to work on your dissertation under the guidance of your research supervisor--which is generally in the region of 10,000-15,000 words. While it is a very intensive experience, it means that you are able to fully immerse yourself into the subject. Moreover, MA dissertations do not involve an oral defense or viva as is often the case at North American institutions.
3. You want a Masters degree in politics and international relations that stands out from the crowd. UK departments have been very innovative in developing programmes that allow one to focus on a specific aspect of politics and international relations, including new and emerging fields. This allows graduates to highlight a specific sub-field expertise with their degree title. For example, at Newcastle University , we offer a range of degrees including European Union Studies, International Political Economy, International Studies, International Politics (Critical Geopolitics), International Politics (Global Justice and Ethics), and International Politics (Globalization, Poverty, and Development). Thus, one is can demonstrate that they have received a MA degree in International Politics and, for example, that the degree itself was focussed on a specific specialization in Global Justice and Ethics.
With MA degrees become more and more common amongst those pursuing professional occupations in the civil service, private sector, and NGO communities, being able to demonstrate a specialization is an advantage that can be tailored to specific job applications. Moreover, much like I've noted previously with respect to an undergraduate degree, having studied abroad is an indication that you are able to embrace change, take calculated risks, work in a diverse environment, show initiative, and be independent, all of which are highly sought qualities in prospective employees.
4. You are interested in pursuing a Masters degree in politics or international relations but have an undergraduate degree in another subject area. In North America, MA programmes are usually suspicious of applicants who do not have a prior degree in the subject area or an equivalent in terms of experience. As such, it can often be difficult to get accepted onto these programmes even with a strong GPA from your undergraduate degree. This is not the case in the UK: MA degree programmes will generally accept you if you have the required grades, regardless of the subject for which those grades were obtained. This makes the MA experience extremely interesting for both students and instructors as multiple perspectives shaped by different disciplinary backgrounds can be brought to bear on seminar discussions.
5. You want to be taught and supervised by active researchers in your subject area. Most UK universities place a heavy emphasis on research. Thus, it is expected that everyone--from junior lecturers to senior professors--is engaged in research that is being published in leading academic journals and presses. To take advantage of this research activity, many MA seminars are very focused in terms of the topics that are covered. This means that your seminars are likely be lead by someone currently engaged in research on the specific issue being discussed. This gives you the advantage of gaining first-hand insight into the latest advancements in the field by an expert.
Photo credits: ToastyKen and Mishel Churkin
Introduction to the Series
This week, I am going to be posting a series of short articles that outline some of the key advantages of studying in the UK for prospective university students from North America--and their parents--who are considering pursuing a degree at any level in politics or international relations.
While the topics covered are specifically geared to North American students, most of the information should also be useful to other prospective students from abroad.
I should note that I am making no universal claim about the superiority--or inferiority--of any national higher education system. What system, institution, and programme is going to best for anyone is related to individual needs, skills, motivations, likes, and dislikes. These lists simply identify some of the less obvious things that might be appealing to some of those who are looking to see what options are available to them in higher education.
One final caveat: The advice given here does not necessarily apply to specific institutions or degree programmes. Given the importance of choosing a programme and institution that is right for you, make sure to be carefully consulting the information offered directly from the provider.
7 Reasons to Consider a UK University for Your Undergraduate Degree
1. You know you want to study politics and/or international relations and wish to specialize immediately. Unlike North American universities where you do not get to focus on a specific subject area until your second or third year, UK universities offer the opportunity to focus your studies from day one. This eliminates the frustration of having to take courses in subject areas that don't really interest you for the first couple of years of study. There are also joint degree or combined studies programmes if your interests span across several subject areas (e.g., politics and sociology, french and international relations). It is also possible to go immediately into professional degrees like Law.
2. You enjoy independent study. UK university programmes are structured to include lots of time for independent study on topics that interest you. There are generally fewer lectures and seminars that need to be attended. This means that courses are more focused in what they cover. Through independent study, you are able to become an active participant in lectures and seminars rather than a passive receptor for the ideas of your instructor. You are also able to gain greater mastery over the subject area.
3. You are motivated by assignments and exams that are meaningful to your final mark. There is less course work in UK classes than in North American equivalents. This means that assignments and exams are more significant in terms of their weighting towards your final mark. Busy work assignments of low weighting that are often a staple of undergrad assessment in North America can often be avoided in the UK.
4. You want to be taught and inspired by active researchers in your subject area. Most UK universities place a heavy emphasis on research. Thus, it is expected that everyone--from the lowest lecturer to the highest professor--is engaged in research that is being published in leading academic journals and presses. Courses offered at an institution will reflect the research expertise of the staff. This will provide you with the opportunity to take a class by someone who is currently publishing on the topic rather than from a person who might read something written by your instructor after it gets published.
5. You want to live in Europe and explore what it has to offer rather than just visit for a summer. The UK is a part of the European Union. Rail travel within the UK is relatively cheap for students. Compared to North America, travel times between destinations are short. Moreover, many major urban centers outside of London (e.g., Manchester, Newcastle, Bristol, Edinburgh, Bradford/Leeds, Glasgow amongst many others) have international airports with daily flights to the continent. Air fares--if ordered well in advance--can be unbelievably inexpensive with budget airlines like RyanAir, Easyjet, or Jets2. Port cities may also have ferry services to places like Ireland, Spain, France, and the Netherlands. Thus, pursuing an undergraduate degree at a UK university offers the opportunity to combine an education with frequent travel opportunities that are simply not possible from North America.
6. You want to distinguish yourself from the pack and pick up an edge for the job market. Being able to demonstrate that you have international experience is always a plus for prospective employers, particularly in today's globalized economy. Moreover, having studied abroad is an indication that you are able to embrace change, take calculated risks, work in a diverse environment, show initiative, and be independent, all of which are highly sought qualities.
7. It's not quite as expensive as you think. Tuition--or what are called fees--for North American students are usually around £10,000-£13,000 ($17,000-$22,000 US) depending on the institution--note that some are higher than this. Living expenses for nine months can range from £7000-£10,000 ($11,500-$17,000 US) depending on the city. While not inexpensive by any stretch of the imagination, this is certainly competitive with many American institutions such as top 20 research universities, the Ivys, and selective liberal arts colleges. Moreover, undergraduate degrees in England and Wales are typically only three years long, cutting your costs by 25% relative to comparable US institutions.
Tomorrow, I'll be posting on Masters level programmes.
Photo credits: Toots Fontaine and clagnut
