Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T23:36:48.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On pedagogical responsibility: a response to Roy Jones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Response
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Held, David (ed.) Prospects for Democracy: North, South, East, West (Cambridge, 1993)Google Scholar.

2 For an excellent analysis of the peculiarities of epistemological discussion in this discipline, see George, Jim, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re) Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, CO, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Linklater, Andrew, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, 2nd edn (London, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 I have developed this theme further in ‘Violence, Modernity, Silence: From Max Weber to International Relations’, in Campbell, David and Dillon, Michael (eds.), The Political Subject of Violence (Manchester, 1993), pp. 137–60Google Scholar.

5 Jones, Roy, ‘The English School of International Relations: A case for Closure’, Review of International Studies, 7, (1981), pp. 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, , ‘The Myth of the Special Case in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 14, (1989), pp. 267–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Jones, ‘The Myth of the Special Case’, p. 274.

7 Walker, R. B. J., ‘Pedagogies on the Edge: World Politics Without “International Relations”’, in Gonick, Lev S. and Weisband, Edward (eds.), Teaching World Politics: Contending Pedagogies for a New World Order (Boulder, CO, 1991), pp. 171–86Google Scholar.