Consensus and Divergence in International Studies: Survey Evidence from 140 International Studies Curriculum Programs

Abstract

There is a growing debate over the extent of consensus or divergence found within interdisciplinary International Studies (IS) programs. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, this debate has taken place in the absence of empirical data. This article advances our understanding of the current state of IS curricula through an analysis of data generated from a survey of 140 interdisciplinary undergraduate IS majors across the United States. The surveyed programs comprise 63 Doctoral/Research institutions, 40 Master's institutions, and 37 Baccalaureate institutions found in 38 states and the District of Columbia. The 140 programs are analyzed in terms of six basic components: introductory course(s), research methods, capstone course(s), area and/or thematic concentrations, study abroad, and foreign language requirements. The findings demonstrate significant areas of both consensus and divergence in IS programs.

Introducing International Studies: Student Engagement in Large Classes

“…Thus, classes need to stimulate, motivate, and activate students to want to learn, to want to explore and delve deeper into their studies. In IS, this is a particularly important trait to have due to its interdisciplinary nature and the possibility to understand the international system in so many different ways (Brown, Pegg, and Shively ).…”

Major Competition? Exploring Perceptions of International Studies Programs among Political Science Department Chairs

“…According to these scholars, this means that IS is influenced by IR but remains a distinct scholarly fi eld on its own merits Brown, Pegg, and Shively 2006 ). Ultimately, however, although interdisciplinarity and independence of the fi eld may be the goal of its advocates, the literature suggests that in practice, political scientists and the subfi eld of IR tend to dominate the bureaucratic administration of IS programs, as well as the research and curriculum emphases surrounding them.…”

Surveying International Studies Programs: Where Do We Stand?

“…As an educational program, IS is even more eclectic. A vast majority of IS programs have no departmental “home” and incorporate coursework from numerous disciplines, including anthropology, economics, geography, history, political science, religion, and sociology (Brown, Pegg, and Shively 2006).…”

“…Given the breadth and diversity of what constitutes “international studies” across our institutions, a growing body of empirical research has sought to assess the intellectual underpinnings of IS education, in particular the curricular components of these programs (Kelleher 1997, 2005; Ishiyama and Breuning 2004; Brown et al. 2006).…”