August 3, 2011

Ph.D. Comprehensive Examination: International Relations

Directions: Answer one question in each of the three sections below. Be sure to answer all parts of each question. Please indicate clearly which question you are answering. This is a closed book exam to take place in Robinson Hall. You will be given 8 hours to complete the exam.

In preparing your response to the questions please remember that the overall logic and reasoning of your answer is important. While we expect that you will reference relevant literature and research to support your logic, it is not sufficient to rely simply on references. Clearly indicating how and why the literature of the field (in terms of specific ideas, content, and/or data) supports your reasoning is important also. Additionally, where clearly contending schools of thought exist about a subject you should indicate the nature of each schools’ position and which school of thought you see as most persuasive. Where your logic rests on your own unique synthesis and understanding of the literature do not be afraid to under score and elaborate your reasoning

Theory

1.  Some critics argue that there are no important differences between constructivism and neoliberal internationalism for analyzing world politics; and that apparent differences are more a matter of nuance than of substance. Why might they make this claim? Do you agree or disagree? Defend your conclusion using examples from the literature and your own understanding of the principles on which each theory is based.

2.  Imagine that Woodrow Wilson and Hans Morgenthau are discussing the question of whether the United States should have intervened in Iraq in 2003. For each man individually, list and explain criteria or principles he would be likely to apply to build his argument. Would the two agree about the bottom line--whether the intervention was desirable from the perspective of the United States? Defend your conclusion using what you know about their theoretical perspectives and U.S. security in 2003.

Methods

1.  Theory-oriented case studies have gained considerable popularity as a research strategy in IR (e.g., George, A.L. and A. Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press). This general approach has consisted of four methods: the enhanced case study, time series/process tracing analysis, structured, focused comparisons, and aggregate case comparisons. First, describe each of these approaches and its features. Second, discuss the way each method addresses issues of causation. And, third, provide a brief example of application for each method (e.g., a problem that lends itself to small-n case comparisons or to measurement of relevant variables over time).

2.  The just published Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science suggests an increase in the popularity of this approach to research in our field. This question comes in five parts: a) What are the strengths of the experimental approach to research in IR? b) What are some weaknesses? c) Give an example of a theoretical issue or hypothesis in IR that can be evaluated with experimental methods. d) Design the experiment in the form of an outline of the steps. e) Discuss how the research can be strengthened by including other methods.

Topics

1.  In a speech in Prague in 2009, President Barack Obama called for “a world without nuclear weapons.” Is nuclear disarmament desirable? Provide the strongest arguments and evidence on both sides of the debate.

2.  Three questions on the balance of power: A) How would you describe the current balance of power in the world? Does U.S. primacy equal unipolarity, or something more complicated? B) How is that balance of power illuminated in the events of this past several years? Which of them does it help explain and how? C) Most scholars agree that the U.S. will decline relative to China and other nations over the next 50 to 100 years. How will this trend affect international relations?