We Are a Community of Practice, Not a Paradigm! How to Meaningfully Integrate Gender and Feminist Approaches in IR Syllabi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The most frequent practice in teaching western undergraduate students about international relations (IR) is either to avoid gender studies altogether or at best to compartmentalize them to a single week. This practice marginalizes feminist research by amalgamating highly heterogeneous publications under the pretense that “they look at gender.” Rather than treating gender studies as a unified research program, they should be linked to the full range of theories, approaches, or topics they are relevant to, based on their normative and ontological assumptions. In the end, gender-oriented scholars do not form a would-be paradigm, but a community of practice. This community, however, can itself perpetuate colonial exclusions and silencing. This study is based on a content analysis of fifty western undergraduate “Introduction to IR” syllabi from 2015 to 2020, as well as a reflection on my own experience since 2011 as a student, teaching assistant, guest lecturer, and professor in ten IR courses at three western universities.
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 | 0.067 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".