Duke University · POLSCI 763S · Fall 2025
A Genealogy of IR Scholarship
Built on Professor Rachel Myrick’s Fall 2025 version of POLSCI 763S (Foundational Scholarship in International Relations) at Duke University. There is no single standard way to teach foundational IR scholarship; this tree reorganizes the readings from Professor Myrick’s syllabus into a genealogy, paired with my notes. The trunk and its branches trace how paradigms evolved and split; a separate color axis marks which level of analysis each theory works at.
What this tree is
This page reorganizes a semester of foundational IR readings into a single genealogy. The course had five aims: to grasp the field’s major concepts and debates, to read classic texts against one another, to learn the basics of theory-building and research design, to apply theory to real-world problems, and to find openings for one’s own research. Reading week by week, those aims kept pointing back to one structure underneath, a family tree of paradigms that keep answering, and re-answering, the same few questions.
The story runs from classical realism’s focus on human nature (Thucydides, Carr, Morgenthau), through Waltz’s move to structure, to the liberal and institutionalist reply that cooperation can survive anarchy, to constructivism’s claim that anarchy and interest are made rather than given, with critical voices hanging off the trunk to ask what each paradigm cannot see. The lower band is where these paradigms meet real fights: the causes of war, alliances, institutions, and power transition. Click any node to read the week behind it: the readings, my notes on the discussion questions, the weekly exercise, and how the theory lands in current events.
How to Read This Tree
- Paradigm is the trunk; level of analysis is a cross-cutting axis: The vertical flow and the branchings show how paradigms evolve and oppose one another over time. Level I / II / III is a different dimension: it marks where a theory places its causal explanation, the individual and cognition, domestic politics, or the international structure. Because of that, level cuts across all the paradigms; it does not flow along any single branch.
- Where the framework comes from: The three levels descend from Waltz’s 1959 Man, the State, and War and its three images, human nature, the state, and the international system. Its core insight: the level an analyst chooses systematically decides what can be explained and what is ignored. A large part of every paradigm war is really an argument over which level should carry the explanation.
- How it appears here: Because level is a cross-cutting dimension rather than a timeline, it does not occupy the vertical axis. Instead it shows up as colored badges on each node (see the legend). You can see at a glance which level a school uses, and notice that Waltz’s 1979 turn uses the third image (structure) to suppress the first two. That “argument over levels” is itself one of the moves on the tree.
Legend · Levels of Analysis
A node may carry more than one badge when it works across levels. Dashed cards are critiques that hang off the trunk.
The Genealogy
Left rail: real years. Columns, left to right: critiques · the realism branch · the liberal / institutionalist branch · the constructivist branch. Hover the dashed keyword chips to read how one node answers another. Open any week, then use the ← / → arrow keys to move to the previous / next week.
Application: Where the Paradigms Fight
Weeks 8–11 are issue battlegrounds. Each pulls several paradigms downstream and lets them clash over one real question.
Causes of War
Rationalist bargaining (Fearon: information & commitment problems) ↔ cognitive accounts (Jervis: misperception) ↔ domestic politics (Levy: diversionary war). Lake’s “Two Cheers” partly critiques bargaining theory; Goddard adds indivisibility.
Week 9Alliances
Balance of threat (Walt) and bandwagoning for profit (Schweller) extend structural realism; Risse-Kappen and Kang inject identity and regional context.
Week 10International Institutions
Rational-design institutionalism (Koremenos) treats institutions as states’ instruments; Barnett & Finnemore give IOs autonomous, constructed authority.
Week 11Power Transition
Hegemonic-cycle (Gilpin) and offensive realism (Mearsheimer) frame rising-power conflict; Goddard and Shifrinson ask when transitions stay peaceful.