Scattered and Unsystematic: The Taught Discipline in the Intellectual Life of International Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prompted by Hagmann and Biersteker's (2014) call for a critical pedagogy of international relations, this article addresses the “taught discipline” of international relations arguing that the field needs a sustained and systematic debate on the role of IR pedagogy. In typical disciplinary stocktaking, scholars focus primarily on the “published discipline” and the “practiced discipline,” leaving a gap in our understanding of a major component of academic international relations—teaching. This article maps the discipline's intellectual system of influence and exchange to demonstrate the attenuated influence of the taught discipline. Then it presents critical questions to initiate a robust debate on the place, purpose, and scope of IR pedagogy. The purpose here is to improve the quality and thoughtfulness of classroom teaching, and to explore the underappreciated potential of the taught discipline as a site of rejuvenation in the intellectual life of international relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".