Artistic exploration in the IR classroom

Since the aesthetic turn in IR (Bleiker Reference Bleiker2001), art has become a common tool in the discipline to address some of the pedagogic questions that we have. Activities like listening to music (Soper Reference Soper2010; Hawn Reference Hawn2013; De Oliveira, Silveira, and Lopes Reference De Oliveira, Balau Silveira and Bittencourt Rodrigues2021), showing movies and watching TV series (Weber Reference Weber2001; Engert and Spencer Reference Engert and Spencer2009; Valeriano Reference Valeriano2013; Pautz Reference Pautz2015; Holland Reference Holland2016; Stenberg and Switek Reference Stenberg and Switek2022), engaging with works of art (Miller Reference Miller2000; Ramel Reference Ramel2018), playing (board) games (Orsini Reference Orsini2018; Oberle, Leunig, and Ivens Reference Oberle, Leunig and Ivens2020) and conceiving of simulations (Horn, Rubin, and Schouenborg Reference Horn, Rubin and Schouenborg2016; Meibauer and Nøhr Reference Meibauer and Nøhr2018; Leib and Ruppel Reference Leib and Ruppel2020; Kruskopf, Ketonen, and Mattlin Reference Kruskopf, Ketonen and Mattlin2021; Zwolski Reference Zwolski2021; Wehlan and Reinke Reference Wehlan and Reinke2023), reading graphic novels (Juneau and Sucharov Reference Juneau and Sucharov2010) and spy novels (James Reference James2021) as well as combining audio-visual materials (Asal, Miller, and Vitek Reference Asal, Miller and Vitek2024) have made their way into IR classrooms since the early 2000s. Even performing arts methods, such as dance workshops (Rösch Reference Rösch2018), theatre plays (Ahmadov Reference Ahmadov2019), and art gallery assignments (Smith Reference Smith, Frueh, Ala, Murphy and Diehl2025), feature today in the IR teaching toolbox. While the benefits of using art sources in IR classrooms vary depending on its genre as well as the learning objective of the course, most studies argue that art is best use for the enhancement of student learning skills, such as critical thinking, active learning, and a better understanding of theory, in addition to its entertaining nature to seize students’ attention. Aesthetic IR pedagogy also invites students and teachers to experience and think about world politics differently (Ramel Reference Ramel2018) by making room for the previously unacknowledged fates of marginalized groups (Juneau and Sucharov Reference Juneau and Sucharov2010), the everyday as a site of world-making (Asal, Miller, and Vitek Reference Asal, Miller and Vitek2024), and the role of what Iver Neumann (Reference Neumann2012: 126) calls the ‘wings’ for high politics (Valeriano Reference Valeriano2013). This means that the use of art enables students to approach world politics as something in which they also have a stake as actors, creators, and co-producers of knowledge (Blair, Griggs, and Mackillop Reference Blair, Griggs and Mackillop2018; Ramel Reference Ramel2018).

To join this trend, our study aims to make two contributions. First, we highlight the benefits of drawing as a learning method to add to our teaching toolbox. While visuals, as exemplified in photos, pictures, or films, play an ever-increasing role in IR (Prior Reference Prior2014; Callahan Reference Callahan2015; Bleiker Reference Bleiker2018; Harman Reference Harman2019; Möller Reference Möller2019; Stappert, Gadinger, Budnitsky et al. Reference Stappert, Gadinger, Budnitsky, Ecker-Ehrhardt, Geis, Shim, Krumbacher and Tripathi2025), the pedagogical value of visual arts in IR classrooms (Ramel Reference Ramel2018) as well as the practice of producing them as a learning method (Obradovic-Wochnik and Hayes Reference Obradovic-Wochnik and Hayes2017) has yet to be explored in greater detail. Similar to the benefits of using needlework or performing dances (Rösch Reference Rösch2018; Andrä, Bliesemann de Guevara, Cole et al. Reference Andrä, Bliesemann de Guevara, Cole and House2020), drawing as such a practice of producing visuals helps to go beyond standard models of how we teach IR (Kaempf Reference Kaempf and Szarejko2022) as students can creatively engage with their emotions towards world politics from fear to joy. By recognizing unspoken thoughts and articulating feelings (Kearney and Hyle Reference Kearney and Hyle2004; Donnelly and Hogan Reference Donnelly and Hogan2013; Feeney and Hogan Reference Feeney and Hogan2019), drawing gives their traumas and hopes an outlet where words may fail. Drawing, of course, is not the only aesthetic method that allows emotions and feelings to be expressed. What makes it unique is that the performance of drawing is not bound to the same level of competence as is the case with other means, such as reading novels, watching films, or dancing, that require a considerable amount of time to consume or basic techniques to practice. In contrast, drawing is more accessible because all that is needed is a pen and paper. No specific skills necessarily have to be acquired beforehand, making it particularly useful for creating an inclusive learning experience without much preparation or training in advance.

Second, drawing not only provides a teaching method but it also has normative-epistemological implications. Drawing is an example of ‘subversive pedagog[y]’ (Schick and Timperley Reference Schick and Timperley2024: 218), as it can help learners to develop a proactive and positive approach when dealing with pessimistic world issues. In light of ‘increased surveillance and policing of what is being taught in the classroom, and neoliberal administrative structuring’ that stifles creativity, drawing turns into a subversive, even radical practice as it brings ‘joy’ (Hall and Steele Reference Hall and Steele2024: 232). Drawing brings joy because it provides a platform for our students to imagine different, more collaborative, and therefore peaceful realities. This is achieved because, to use the words of Emma Hutchison (Reference Hutchison2021: 186), drawing provides for and cultivates ‘a sensitive and reflexive learning community’ among students and teachers by eliciting ‘the best from the inevitable differences that exist in classrooms [and] … providing the opportunity for them to draw on and share their own experiences so that we could all be challenged and enriched’. Using drawing as such an ethics of care to teach IR, however, does not fall into the trap of suggesting to establish some kind of naïve peace, but, as shown below, drawing can be positive in the sense of providing ‘critical hope’ (Schick Reference Schick, Hayden and Schick2016: 41). This is because it has the ‘capacity to bear and hold within them tensions, struggles, and differences, and thereby to contribute not to an idealized ‘harmonious’ but a more real-type agonistic peace’ (Bliesemann de Guevara and Cole Reference Bliesemann de Guevara and Cole2024). Drawing, therefore, offers a form of hope that shows affinities to the Frankfurt School’s ‘living on in the ruins’ (Bargués, Chandler, Schindler et al. Reference Bargués, Chandler, Schindler and Waldow2024: 187) after World War 2 with similar benefits as social practices and rituals for diplomacy (Pouliot and Cornut Reference Pouliot and Cornut2015; Adler-Nissen Reference Adler-Nissen2016; Bueger and Gadinger Reference Bueger and Gadinger2018; Aalberts, Kurowska, Leander et al. Reference Aalberts, Kurowska, Leander, Mälksoo, Heath-Kelly, Lobato and Svensson2020; Rösch Reference Rösch2025). Three thematic dimensions make up drawing as a positive teaching tool that provides critical hope. First, drawing helps people to approach their life-worlds positively (‘cultivating curiosity’). Second, it enables people to develop their agency in world politics, and, finally, they can nurture a sense of care for humanity through drawing (‘building empathy’).Footnote ¹ These themes are further elaborated below when discussing our teaching practices, but before doing so, we first reflect on our methodology.

Methodology

To identify whether students experience these three thematic dimensions of critical hope through drawing, the study adopted a mixed-methods approach by combining class observations and surveys in two undergraduate courses at one of our institutions (2022–2024): International Peace Studies (200-level IR major course with approx. 40–70 students) and Introduction to International Relations (100-level Liberal Arts course with typically 70–110 students) in which students had the opportunity to draw individually or collectively. Their learning objectives include experiencing (the process of) peace and conflict by studying it together, possessing a broad understanding of what it means to work together beyond national borders, raising awareness of being an active agent of peace at the international stage, and training to apply to the real world what they have learned from books. The university where our data was collected is ideally suited for this teaching method owing to its educational emphasis on practical knowledge, interdisciplinary approach, and the international composition of the student body. Two-thirds of students in both classes were from Asia and Oceania, while one-third were from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Americas, summing up to more than 20 nationalities.

Before discussing the role of observations and surveys in more detail, we take a step back here to reflect on our own and our students’ positionality. As we all have diverse backgrounds, with some students having experienced war and conflicts first-hand, we have to be careful in helping ‘each other learn to confront … the questions that are central to living in a public’ (McWilliams Barndt Reference McWilliams Barndt2025: 2). This means that to avoid (re-)traumatization, the tasks slowly build upon each other by moving from individual exercises to collective ones. What is more, students were free in their drawings to choose their subjects, and with the collaborative drawing project on World War 2, we went back to a time that neither they nor any of their friends and family members were directly involved with. Although we have yet to encounter a student expressing any negative emotional burden about participating during the last ten years of drawing practices in IR classrooms, we acknowledge in our teaching that there is a potential for anxiety. However, ‘anxiety is an inherent part of the research process’, as Karl Gustaffson and Linus Hagström (Reference Gustafsson and Hagström2024: 476) recently elaborated on, and, if mitigated carefully, it is a productive part.

For the observations, we proceeded with a ‘close and attentive observation and description of the events’, suggested by Jonathan Luke Austin and Isabel Bramsen (Reference Austin and Bramsen2024: 965), that unfolded in the process of drawing in our classrooms. Since this was followed by a discussion of the results with our students ‘as entry points for studying the social world’, we used their notion of a ‘performative observation’ (Austin and Bramsen Reference Austin and Bramsen2024: 972) as a yardstick because this helped us see the visuals that unfolded in front of us, both the students drawing and the drawings that they produced, ‘as a means of uncovering the ideationally structured nature of all sociality. In this view, visual material is analyzed to “gain a far more nuanced idea of how participants derive meaning”’ (Ibid., italics in original). What we ‘see’ or ‘observe’ therefore is more the interactive process of drawing practices (how participants use their drawing to express or interpret their understanding of peace and war) than the artifact itself.

For the surveys, students in International Peace Studies (2022–2024) were asked to answer a series of questions at the end of the semester that let them reflect on their learning IR through art forms and how it affected their learning process compared to conventional means such as books, journal articles, or lecturing. The questionnaire was anonymous and made up of a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended questions. From the 119 students registered, 94 (78.99%) returned the questionnaire. Questionnaires were thematically analyzed through an interpretative lens. Inspired by scholarship on discourse and emotions in IR, we proceeded inductively by aiming to distill emotional reactions from the students’ answers. In their work, Simon Koschut, Hall, Wolf et al. (Reference Koschut, Hall, Wolf, Solomon, Hutchison and Bleiker2017: 483–484) proposed a procedure that we adapted for our purposes. First, we scanned the answers for emotional responses to identify patterns. As emotions are context-dependent in space and time (Eustace, Lean, Livingston et al. Reference Eustace, Lean, Livingston, Plamper, Reddy and Rosenwein2012), and our students have diverse backgrounds, we followed up with group discussions to verify their meaning and understand nuances in their connotations. Second, while we did not make use of a comparison group, ‘emotional othering’ (Koschut et al. Reference Koschut, Hall, Wolf, Solomon, Hutchison and Bleiker2017: 484) by doing the questionnaire over the course of several years helped us to identify cross-links, continuations, or changes to students’ answers. Survey results further reveal how participants compare the benefits of their aesthetic learning experience with traditional styles of lecturing. In the following, we share our teaching practices before providing feedback from participants on the use of drawing in IR classrooms.

Drawing as a learning practice: ‘Visualizing Peace’ and ‘Designing Museum’

Traditionally in introductory courses on IR and peace and conflict studies, students are first introduced to various concepts and theories before exploring actors, methods, and issues. However, in our experience, this conventional way of teaching risks causing two main problems. First, starting a class with abstract readings to discuss ideas is neither beneficial in inciting students’ curiosity in the field, nor does it help them discover the importance of understanding concepts and theories. This potentially causes defensive inactivity among students and may result in what Patrick Jackson (Reference Jackson2003) once called the ‘“sage on the stage” teaching’ with a limited learning experience for students. Second, this type of learning does not provide for inclusive and collaborative learning, as students learn individually. As a consequence, they find it difficult to listen to and work with others when they are exposed to conflicting narratives.

To address these potential pitfalls, we introduced drawing to two undergraduate courses. The drawing tasks have been developed in conjunction to build upon each other. The aim was to help students ease into these unfamiliar assignments and provide them with the time and space to reflect on their experiences and mitigate their emotional reactions. In the course on International Peace Studies, we gave students a drawing assignment on ‘Visualizing Peace’ during the very first class before any lectures or readings were given. We made it clear that no prior knowledge or artistic talent is needed and gave them a simple instruction: ‘Draw an image that pops up in your mind when you think of the word “peace” and provide a title with one line of description’. The suggested time was 15 minutes, but we observed that many students voluntarily spent more time drawing. As the examples in Figure 1 highlight, even though students approached peace very differently, there were common themes adopted across varieties of peace concepts (how peace looks different from one another and why it is important to work with others to find a shared ground) as well as processes to achieve peace (eg reducing stereotypes, building empathy, making sacrifices). Some went further in reflecting on the interplay between macro and micro forms of peace (the role of individuals), while others referred to historic moments of hope. The Christmas Truce in 1914 was one of the most popular drawings that instigated heated discussions.

Figure 1.

Examples of ‘Visualizing Peace’ drawings. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 1. Long description

Panel A: An illustration titled ‘Lenses of Peace’ showing multiple lenses labeled with different aspects of peace. Panel B: An illustration titled ‘Perspectives’ with mirrors from different angles representing various viewpoints. Panel C: An illustration titled ‘Peace’ featuring four doll-like figures that look different but hold the same mind, peace. Panel D: A black and white drawing/illustration titled ‘Peace and Orchestra’ showing a group of people playing musical instruments. Panel E: An illustration titled ‘A Sandcastle’ with a sandcastle and the word ‘Peace ?’ written in the sand. Panel F: An illustration titled ‘Bake the Peace’ showing various baking utensils and ingredients. Panel G: An illustration titled ‘Face the Fear, Breaking the Cycle’ depicting a hand reaching out to a monster transformed to an angel. Panel H: An illustration titled ‘Agree to Disagree’ showing two figures with different ideas b and g shaking hands. Panel I: An illustration titled ‘Sharing is Caring’ with two hands sharing an icecream. Panel J: An illustration titled ‘Put yourself into someone’s shoes’ showing a pair of shoes. Panel K: An illustration titled “Freedom’ depicting a young girl wearing a no sleeve shirt. Panel L: An illustration titled ‘Macro Peace & Micro Peace’ showing two figures holding hands while war is going on. Panel M: A drawing titled ‘1914 Christmas Truce’ depicting soldiers agreeing on a truce. Panel N: An illustration titled ‘Berlin Wall Fall 1999’ with a crowd of people. Panel O: An illustration titled ‘Rhythm of Coexistence’ with red carps in a river.

In the Introduction to International Relations course, a collaborative drawing project to design a World War 2 Museum on campus was implemented in the latter part of the course, as it requires time for students to get to know each other and acquire a certain level of knowledge through lectures, reading, and research-based assignments. World War 2 has been deliberately chosen. While World War 2 seems to be relegated more and more to the distant past, with hardly anyone alive who has experienced this war personally, it continues to affect our teaching and life-worlds (Bode and Heo Reference Bode and Heo2017). This is because we noticed that our students all learned about World War 2 during their secondary education, albeit in different ways. However, despite this exposure, no student was directly affected by it and, other than using a contemporary conflict, they were not traumatized by it. During the lectures, students therefore explored how the events of World War 2 are still being used today to shape (narratives of) world politics by discussing, for example, speeches by Vladimir Putin and Emmanual Macron on Victory in Europe Day (Cohen Reference Cohen2022; Dewan Reference Dewan2022). They were also given the opportunity to learn how the war is remembered in Asia, and how colonial legacy in particular has become a history card to play. For the ‘Designing Museum’ drawing project, students were first asked to write a research-based individual essay (500 words) on one of the following two topics:

Based on their assignment, groups were formed with students sharing similar interests. They had one hour to design a museum that they would like to build on a global/international campus. As the examples from Figure 2 demonstrate, students used a variety of creative means to visualize their ideas for such a museum. Even though no specific instructions were given on what approach to take, most museums incorporated multiple perspectives of contested narratives stemming from the legacy of World War 2. If the most frequently chosen angle was to expose dual narratives from colonized/colonizer or winner/loser perspectives, as seen in ‘British colonialism in India’, ‘Southeast Asian Colonial History Museum’, ‘Occupation Museum’ or ‘Exhibition of Two Powers’, ‘Remembering Hiroshima Differently’, this explicitly highlighted that the purpose of their museum is ‘to see history from different perspectives to open opportunities of space and dialogue to foster empathy for each other and have united vision of humanity’. Students also expressed their wish to have a museum that does not solely rely on dominant state narratives in ‘Museum of People’ and one that talks more about hope in ‘Museum of Peace Recovery’ even in times of war and conflicts.

Figure 2.

Examples of ‘Designing Museum’ drawing projects. Reprinted with permission.

Based on these two art projects, ‘Visualizing Peace’ and ‘Designing Museum’, we carried out an interpretative analysis of drawing as a teaching method, thematized into three dimensions: cultivating curiosity, developing agency, and building empathy. The ‘Visualizing Peace’ project largely incited curiosity among students and helped to develop their awareness of agency. As students wanted to express their own agency and were curious about how their classmates perceive peace through art, they not only listened to others but also asked questions. The group discussion proceeded like a gallery tour that invited them to discover multiple perspectives on peace narratives. Without having been introduced to concepts like negative/positive, liberal, hybrid, stable, everyday, or phenomenological peace before, students started to approximate different understandings of peace and their consequences through their drawings. They were also more eager to study how IR scholars define peace as they faced such a large spectrum of ideas. After the drawing exercise, several even felt encouraged to go beyond the required reading and continued to research questions of peace on their own. In so doing, they became independent and proactive researchers themselves (Lantis, Kille, and Krain Reference Lantis, Kille and Krain2019, Cotoman, Davies, Kawagoe et al. Reference Cotoman, Davies, Kawagoe, Niihashi, Rahman, Tomita, Watanabe and Rösch2022; Ramel and Vergonjeanne Reference Ramel and Vergonjeanne2022; Heo and Rösch Reference Heo, Rösch, Frueh, Ala, Murphy and Diehl2025). Students were ready to learn more because they experienced that abstract concepts relate to their daily lives and wanted to know how their personal thoughts can be connected to (serious) books. As seen in Figure 1 and further revealed through survey responses, the drawing exercise allowed students to express their own agency in our world, reflecting Char Miller’s (Reference Miller2000: 217) argument on how art has ‘the potential to make students see things in a brand-new light and examine seemingly natural or benign elements in their lives’.

In addition to agency-focused benefits, the ‘Designing Museum’ project created a unique opportunity for participants to build empathy for world politics. Exposed to contested narratives of war and conflict through readings, lectures, and writing assignments, students had to constantly negotiate with their groupmates on designing the content, layout, and purpose of a World War 2 museum, and this with a spirit of inclusivity and collaboration. Bringing people together by giving them a common language (Bleiker Reference Bleiker2001), the arts have an analytical usefulness for learning how to listen and how to work with others, which we consider an essential element for IR learning and peace and conflict resolution in particular. Furthermore, we observed that their outcome often expressed hope rather than despair. It is rewarding to discover how creative students can be in wanting to present the idea of what message they want visitors to take away from their museum without forcing one official narrative based on what Hong Kal (Reference Kal, Shin, Park and Yang2007) calls ‘nationalistic purity’. In other words, it opened room to reflect on the potential of a binational museum (MacGregor Reference MacGregor2018) or a care for humanity beyond national borders.

Drawing activities are of course not inherently constructive. Jeremy Moulton (Reference Moulton2024: 582) showed that active learning exercises may run risks of student anxieties, especially when dealing with controversial or sensitive history issues. In our experience, however, carefully designed art projects open potentialities for students to imagine ways to mitigate and reconcile issues. If moments of silence, ignoring, or even blaming others are not uncommon when exposed to the clash of conflict narratives in the traditional style of lecturing, collaborative drawing exercises appear to be a locus where students feel freer to express and interact with each other in order to address their shared painful past. We observed that they frequently asked for more time to share and design. Our research therefore argues that drawing projects, whether individual or collaborative, offer space for multiple perspectives to coexist, and their performing style allows students to negotiate and discuss hope more easily than language-based activities, such as exams or term papers, that reproduce en masse what is written in books or journal articles.

Student assessment: curiosity, agency, and empathy

To further understand the potential of drawing as an IR teaching method, we ran surveys in the International Peace Studies course. Conducting these surveys over several years helped us identify patterns that solidified the three thematic dimensions of positive IR in the form of critical hope that we observed in the drawing exercises: cultivating curiosity, developing agency, and building empathy. A vast majority of students who returned the questionnaire (88 out of 94; 93.62%) reacted favorably to the drawing exercise, as they answered positively to the question of ‘How did learning IR through art forms affect your learning process compared to conventional means such as books, articles, and lectures?’ This confirmed our interpretative analysis of drawings made through class observations. While two students (2.13%) chose not to answer the question, even the four students (4.25%) with mixed feelings towards the use of arts in IR classes, as they questioned their efficiency in systematically implementing them or/and understanding the key concepts in a limited time, assessed it overall as positive. One student wrote in this regard that ‘[i]t expanded the horizon of my perspective, especially in the long-term. However, I think there might be an efficiency issue’.

Most participants agreed that the drawing practices significantly contributed to their learning process. Survey responses strongly support our assumption that drawing helps to cultivate curiosity for world politics. In this regard, 35 students (37.23%) used terms like ‘more engaging’, ‘incite my curiosity’, ‘want to learn more’, and ‘easier to remember’ to reflect on their drawing practices. While one participant wrote that ‘watching classmates’ draw and their ideas made me want to learn more about political events I am not familiar with, which does not happen with books’, another one confessed that ‘I even shared some parts of narratives with my friends on the bus. This does not happen with books or articles’. Some emphasized that learning IR through the arts made it more accessible and bridged the academic world with their everyday lives. As such, drawing as a teaching method contributes to answering a central question in IR pedagogy: how to render abstract political theories ‘tangible’ in IR teaching (Donnelly and Hogan Reference Donnelly and Hogan2013; De Oliveira, Silveira, and Lopes Reference De Oliveira, Balau Silveira and Bittencourt Rodrigues2021; Jester Reference Jester2021; Asal, Miller, and Vitek Reference Asal, Miller and Vitek2024; Watanabe Reference Watanabe, Frueh, Ala, Murphy and Diehl2025). A respondent claimed that ‘[u]sing arts provides a medium to better understand complex and abstract terms’. If most participants found art useful to translate political concepts into practical terms, one even reversed it by arguing that peace action became connected to the peace concept through the arts: ‘I used to think that peace was an action verb. But learning IR through art helped me learn the meaning, the significance of our world’.

While these responses already indicate that drawing helped them develop their agency and support IR scholarship, which then claims that the use of the arts in IR classrooms enhances active learning (Soper Reference Soper2010; Ramel Reference Ramel2018; Ahmadov Reference Ahmadov2019; Jester Reference Jester2021; Zwolski Reference Zwolski2021; Cotoman et al. Reference Cotoman, Davies, Kawagoe, Niihashi, Rahman, Tomita, Watanabe and Rösch2022), some answers further reflected in the open-ended questions on their agency. In doing so, they not only considered themselves as learners of IR but also as practitioners of international politics in their everyday lives. Five students (5.32%) said that the drawing exercise as an artistic engagement in IR helped them (re)discover their own agency in societies, in our world, and more broadly in life.

They narrate how learning IR through the arts ‘paints a clearer picture to me on what REAL IR [sic] is and the contributions I can actually make to society’; ‘allows me to reflect on myself, my present and past, then to think what I can do in my life’; and ‘drives me to keep asking what if I were there. This keeps me motivated to study IR, to be part of those who can change the world’. By connecting the world of books with the world of reality (Galtung Reference Galtung1985), aesthetic IR teaching not only gives positive answers to the rather provocative interrogation, ‘Does peace studies contribute to peace?’ but also contributes to broadening the concept of everyday peace (Mac Ginty Reference Mac Ginty2021; Berents Reference Berents and Mac Ginty2025) as claimed in a particularly powerful student statement:

Most of all, however, survey responses reveal that drawing helped them enhance empathy for world politics as it offers space for multiple perspectives ‘in a very natural way’. Twenty-two students (23.40%) mentioned that drawing practices allowed them to see the same issue from different angles. A respondent, for instance, found it ‘particularly useful in peace studies because I get to see how others perceive peace in their own way, whereas I would not be able to understand them if I learned it through text only’. While students acknowledge the importance of academic texts in IR learning, they also argue that using drawings, both as a producer and a consumer, enables them to freely express their thoughts and get exposed to new insights:

Some responses also stated that it invited them to better understand how or why others think differently, hence becoming more inclusive to embrace differing opinions: ‘With arts, it opens my mind to multiple sides of the story, opens my heart more to the people and value humanity’. A participant added that ‘[c]ultural contexts, by learning from my classmates, how they express peace in their artworks, gave me a sense of understanding their cultural contexts, and expands my horizons of cultural sensitivity’. Cross-cultural awareness (Krain, Kille, and Lantis Reference Krain, Kille and Lantis2015) is an essential mindset to cultivate empathy in IR studies, which can be enhanced by applying art-based approaches (Swimelar Reference Swimelar2020; Wehlan and Reinke Reference Wehlan and Reinke2023; Asal, Miller, and Vitek Reference Asal, Miller and Vitek2024).

Furthermore, our survey results also confirm the importance of emotions for the study and practice of international politics, as it resonates with Nilanjana Premaratna’s and Roland Bleiker’s (Reference Premaratna, Bleiker, Richmond, Pogodda and Ramović2016: 91) argument that art approaches dealing with emotions broaden peace discourses and may offer a ‘starting point of co-creating inclusive narratives in place of the existing divisive ones’. In their reflections, 32 survey respondents (34.04%) referred to the term ‘emotion’, all positively used. Emotional engagement ‘plays directly with what makes us human’, as one student put it, and thus helps individualize conflict and peace narratives: ‘[A]rt makes me think about the human and everyday aspects of conflicts. In a sense, it makes devastating, large-scale atrocity more approachable’. Another student added that ‘[t]here is an exchange of emotions being conveyed, expressed, received through art means. This makes IR more real and close to me’. A particularly considerate answer is worth quoting at some length:

Twelve students (12.77%) mentioned that aesthetic teaching methods afforded them opportunities to see the world more positively. Humanizing IR gets linked to positive terms, such as ‘empathy’, ‘compassion’, ‘care for humanity’, ‘reconciliation’, and even ‘love’, that we rarely use in IR classrooms: ‘[A]rt brings real life into IR from an emotional standpoint. It emphasizes that sympathy, compassion, and life are just as important as all the theories we learn from books’. A participant acknowledged the benefits of drawing in this regard, assessing that ‘[i]t connects much stronger on the emotional scale. To show beauty and love is much easier than telling there is beauty and love’. What is more, another student stressed that ‘I believe emotions are an essential part of how we learn. Empathy allows me to understand the “other” more fully, gives us a perspective different from our own, and allows us to embrace and reconcile with the “other” to build an open-minded society’. These responses are particularly telling. They show that being able to draw in class not only creates positive emotions but also helps students to be more hopeful about world politics, as previous IR scholarship on pedagogy suggested (Rösch Reference Rösch2018; Timperley and Schick Reference Timperley and Schick2022; Lopez Reference Lopez2023; Matesan Reference Matesan2026).