The Teacher Teaching International Relations in a Changing World: Four Approaches* Arie M. Kacowicz, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Since the late 1980s, teaching an introductory course of international relations has become a challenging assignment, given the rapid changes that have occurred in international relations in the last few years. The way instruction lags behind the reali- ties of our international environment might have serious implications for the research agenda of international studies toward the 21st century. As a teaching assistant, I have had the opportunity to compare four dif- ferent approaches to the study of intenational relations in introductory courses taught at the undergraduate level between 1984 and 1991 and to observe student reactions and how well the courses adapted to changing situations in the real world. I have labelled the four approaches assessed here as the "building-blocks" approach, the "comprehensive" approach, the "epistemology" approach, and the "paradigmatic" approach. Description of the Four Approaches The Building-Blocks Approach: Theories and Approaches in International Relations Research (Professor Yaacov Y. I. Vertzberger) This was a second-year introduc- tory course taught at the department of international relations of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. The course followed the first-year "Intro- duction to Theories of International Relations," and formed part of the core three-year undergraduate pro- gram, which included two courses in diplomatic history from 1870 to the present, an introductory course on philosophy of international relations and world order, and a course on international law and international organizations. The course curriculum assumed that the students had learned the basic analytical concepts of international relations in their first 76 year (e.g., levels of analysis, political Realism, power and influence, national goals and national interests, means and ends of foreign policy, decision-making approaches, the international system, and world order). Since the department of inter- national relations offered parallel courses in diplomatic history and in international law, the course allowed for a higher degree of specialization and detail in the areas of theory and methodology, as compared to other introductory courses in international relations. The course included 26 lectures (once per week throughout the aca- demic year), and 13 discussion group sessions (every other week). Each week a different theoretical building- block was added to the analytical structure of the course. The lectures covered four main sections: (1) the actors in the international system (the state, international alliances, inter- national organizations, and trans- national actors); (2) interactions among actors in the international system (linkage politics, status and national roles, international com- munications, international guarantees and commitments, international con- flicts and conflict management, bargaining and negotiation); (3) main processes in the international system (integration and disintegration, inter- national political economy, techno- logical changes, interdependence, international regimes, continuity and change in the international system); and (4) research methods and approaches (traditional and scientific methods, case studies and compara- tive methods, content analysis and event data, forecasting, and theory and policy making). As a teaching assistant, I was responsible for the discussion ses- sions, in which a certain theory or analytical concept was applied in a particular historical or contemporary case. In these sessions, the students had the chance to analyze the abstractions from the lectures and reading assignments in a more tangi- ble and concrete manner. For exam- ple, we discussed the theory of alli- ances with reference to NATO and the Berlin Crisis of 1961, or in the context of the Warsaw Pact and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Comprehensive Approach: Introduction to International Relations (Princeton, Spring 1989. Professor Steve Walt) Politics 240 is designed as the only introductory course to international relations for first-year students who do not necessarily major in politics at Princeton University. In addition, the department of politics offers a vari- ety of courses in international rela- tions for sophomores, juniors, and seniors, including American Foreign Policy, The Great Powers in Inter- national Politics, International Legal Order, International Organizations, Theories of International Relations, Introduction to World Order, the Soviet Union in World Affairs, War and Peace in the Nuclear Age, and Chinese Foreign Policy. Yet, the three versions of Politics 240 in which I worked at Princeton had to encompass, in a one-term course, fragments of what is offered in four different introductory courses in four terms at the Hebrew University (two in theories and two in international history). The results of this abridging effort varied from instructor to instructor, according to personal interest and research. For instance, in the case of Steve Walt, his course offered a general overview of dif- ferent historical and theoretical themes in international relations with an emphasis on international security studies, which I labelled as the com- prehensive approach. In terms of dynamics, the course was divided into 23 lectures (twice per week) throughout the term, and weekly discussion groups (precep- torial discussions). The lectures were clustered into four main sections: (1) PS: Political Science & Politics