Whose voice matters in the teaching and learning of IPE? Implications for policy and policy making
Critical decolonial assessments of International Political Economy (IPE) curricula have found a continued dominance of Euro-Western perspectives. However, these critical assessments have often been of specific programs or courses. In this article, we open the canvas wider in our quantitative assessm...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2021-10-01
|
| Series: | Policy & Society |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1975220 |
| _version_ | 1811328965705465856 |
|---|---|
| author | Logan Cochrane Samuel O. Oloruntoba |
| author_facet | Logan Cochrane Samuel O. Oloruntoba |
| author_sort | Logan Cochrane |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Critical decolonial assessments of International Political Economy (IPE) curricula have found a continued dominance of Euro-Western perspectives. However, these critical assessments have often been of specific programs or courses. In this article, we open the canvas wider in our quantitative assessment of privilege and marginalization, by conducting an analysis of IPE curricula from universities from around the world as well as of one of the most widely used introductory textbooks in the field. We find that scholars based outside of the Euro-West are marginal, while those based in the Euro-West continue to be dominant – in all the assessed course offerings. We also find that female voices are marginal, in all locations. Knowledge production systems privilege Euro-Western male voices and perspectives, furthering a process of systemic cognitive and epistemic injustices. Building upon our analysis of teaching and learning content, this article critically reflects on the implications of when IPE meets policy, and offers avenues for the policy engagement to avoid the same processes of privileging and marginalizing, and thereby better situating policy making to avoid repeating failures resulting from the identified entrenched biases. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T15:35:21Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4011bf7734894e06b3efeb628c630c79 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1449-4035 1839-3373 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T15:35:21Z |
| publishDate | 2021-10-01 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Policy & Society |
| spelling | doaj.art-4011bf7734894e06b3efeb628c630c792022-12-22T02:41:17ZengOxford University PressPolicy & Society1449-40351839-33732021-10-0140454556410.1080/14494035.2021.19752201975220Whose voice matters in the teaching and learning of IPE? Implications for policy and policy makingLogan Cochrane0Samuel O. Oloruntoba1College of Public Policy, HBKUInstitute of African Studies, Carleton UniversityCritical decolonial assessments of International Political Economy (IPE) curricula have found a continued dominance of Euro-Western perspectives. However, these critical assessments have often been of specific programs or courses. In this article, we open the canvas wider in our quantitative assessment of privilege and marginalization, by conducting an analysis of IPE curricula from universities from around the world as well as of one of the most widely used introductory textbooks in the field. We find that scholars based outside of the Euro-West are marginal, while those based in the Euro-West continue to be dominant – in all the assessed course offerings. We also find that female voices are marginal, in all locations. Knowledge production systems privilege Euro-Western male voices and perspectives, furthering a process of systemic cognitive and epistemic injustices. Building upon our analysis of teaching and learning content, this article critically reflects on the implications of when IPE meets policy, and offers avenues for the policy engagement to avoid the same processes of privileging and marginalizing, and thereby better situating policy making to avoid repeating failures resulting from the identified entrenched biases.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1975220international political economypolicyglobal political economydecolonizationcurricula |
| spellingShingle | Logan Cochrane Samuel O. Oloruntoba Whose voice matters in the teaching and learning of IPE? Implications for policy and policy making Policy & Society international political economy policy global political economy decolonization curricula |
| title | Whose voice matters in the teaching and learning of IPE? Implications for policy and policy making |
| title_full | Whose voice matters in the teaching and learning of IPE? Implications for policy and policy making |
| title_fullStr | Whose voice matters in the teaching and learning of IPE? Implications for policy and policy making |
| title_full_unstemmed | Whose voice matters in the teaching and learning of IPE? Implications for policy and policy making |
| title_short | Whose voice matters in the teaching and learning of IPE? Implications for policy and policy making |
| title_sort | whose voice matters in the teaching and learning of ipe implications for policy and policy making |
| topic | international political economy policy global political economy decolonization curricula |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1975220 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT logancochrane whosevoicemattersintheteachingandlearningofipeimplicationsforpolicyandpolicymaking AT samuelooloruntoba whosevoicemattersintheteachingandlearningofipeimplicationsforpolicyandpolicymaking |