Why Should American Politics Internationalize?

The increasing recognition of a global interdependence among our economies and societies places a significant amount of pressure on educational institutions to prepare future citizens for successful participation in this “new world order.” While there might be general agreement that globalization or internationalization is a “major trend in education” or a “worldwide phenomenon,” there are barriers to internationalization, some of which can be individual—resulting from faculty and student attitudes; some institutional—caused by long-standing policies, practices, and traditions; and some reflecting the attitudes and culture of the wider American society (Green 2003, 11). There are different ways that institutions of higher learning can respond to this phenomenon most effectively, including, for example, changes at the curricular level, broad institutional policies that involve recruitment of foreign students, experiential partnerships with foreign institutions of higher learning, and the creation of campuses in other countries (see Altbach 2002).

American Politics is a significant subfield in political science, representing 20% of all APSA members as well as 20% of graduate student members¹

. It is a subfield that, by its nature, is immersed in America and has seemed particularly resistant to the trend to internationalize. Unlike other subfields that infuse an international perspective organically, American Politics can be insular in its view of how it fits within the larger, global political context. Clearly, this is related to the foundational circumstances and principles of our Republic, and some of the manners in which we have come to understand the U.S. government and politics (e.g., American exceptionalism).

The State of American Politics Courses

An examination of American Politics/Government syllabi was conducted to assess the extent of internationalization in existing American Politics curricula and to begin to develop “best practices” or strategies to increase internationalization²

. For consistency, only syllabi for introductory American Government and American Politics courses were collected³, and only syllabi used in courses running from 2001 through the fall 2006 semester were included in the final sample. The final sample of 152 syllabi was derived by identifying 133 institutions, including universities (both private and state) and liberal arts colleges. The institutions were selected to be representative based upon the various categories/rankings in U.S. News and World Report's Ultimate College Guide 2006. Of the initial 133 institutions, only 87 had syllabi that were sufficiently complete to be used in the analysis. Syllabi from different faculty at the same institution were collected. Only one syllabus per faculty member was included, so each syllabus represents a different faculty member.

I measured an “international” component in different ways. The first was the most rudimentary: the requirement of reading a national newspaper such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. While not directly indicative of an international component, reading a national paper indicates some faculty member interest in exposing students to global news. Of the 152 syllabi, 40, or 26%, required the daily reading of a major national newspaper.

The syllabi were evaluated on whether an element of internationalization was apparent in the following: the goal/purpose of the course; required readings; individual learning units; assignments; and exams. Only 14 syllabi, or 9%, included one or more of these elements of internationalization. I then ranked these 14 courses in order of their degree of internationalization. Three of the syllabi were ranked “high” because there was an overall infusion of internationalization throughout the course. Four syllabi were ranked “medium” because there was a significant attempt to infuse an international element in some specific aspect of the course, as expressed in course objectives and/or in the existence of one or more learning units with an international perspective. For example, in one syllabus, the professor attempted to compare U.S. politics to that of Britain, Germany, and France⁴

. Another course explored the effects of U.S. politics on populations at home and abroad⁵. Finally, another course examined the difference between American government and that of other democracies.

Seven of the syllabi were ranked “low,” as there was some acknowledgement of the importance of a global perspective, but this perspective was not infused throughout the course and was only apparent in either the course objective or in an isolated reading. For example, in one syllabus, one required reading compared racial purity laws in Nazi Germany with those in the U.S.⁶

Other courses contrasted the U.S. presidential system with the prime ministerial system. Another's syllabus stated that the course would compare the U.S. system with “alternate ways of engaging in politics and government.”⁷

I also briefly surveyed the required texts for the courses, among which there was great diversity. Of the 51 different texts that I categorized, only two have a comparative or international element, and each was used by only one course, both of which were included in the list of 14 internationalized courses.

An Internationalized American Politics Course

At the risk of oversimplification, I propose that there are two ways to approach the internationalization of an American Politics course. The first is more or less superficial in nature, and involves the addition of an isolated “international” learning unit, assignment, or required reading to an existing course structure. While in this way, the professor is introducing his or her students to the idea that alternate political structures, processes, institutions, cultures, etc., exist, the superfluous addition of an international component is certainly not integrated with the overall learning objectives of the course. Nevertheless, this approach does offer an opportunity for faculty who are interested in internationalization, but who might lack the time, institutional support, or expertise to develop a more broadly infused course. The reality is that course redesign in many institutions is a complicated matter and not feasible for many faculty.

The second approach to the internationalization of an American Politics course is structural in nature and involves an overall course redesign. In this approach, learning about the American political system is contextualized throughout—the study of America's political system is juxtaposed with that of other political systems. The nature of the infusion depends upon the particular interests and expertise of the faculty member, but the overall outcome is the same: students learn about American politics within the context of the global political system. Their exposure to different systems is part of the learning process and reflected in learning outcomes. These courses, readings, assignments, and student evaluations ensure that students' knowledge about the American political system does not develop in a vacuum. In this way, students are able to compare and contrast their knowledge of, for example, democracy, political socialization, and the party system in the U.S. with that of another democracy, and can fully appreciate the dynamics of American politics. To be clear, I am not advocating the adoption of the Comparative Politics agenda within the American Politics subfield. The purpose of the American Politics course is to instruct students about the institutions and processes of the American political system; but this can be accomplished through putting the U.S. at the center of a “cross-national”⁸

perspective that enables a richer understanding of the U.S.

The following are guidelines for internationalization extracted from the approaches used in the syllabi examined, as well as those I've applied in my classroom.

• Framing the Course/Course Objectives: Structure the course so that the study of American politics is framed within a larger global context. Infuse in each learning unit a comparison of the U.S. case to others.
• Internationalizing the Reading List: Bring an international perspective to American Politics courses through required readings that expose students to non-U.S. political systems and non-U.S. scholars. The Resources section of this paper compiles a list of books with a comparative or international focus that were used in the examined syllabi.
• Learning Units: Bring an international element in specific learning units or modules by introducing concepts that transcend the American politics experience or by comparing and contrasting U.S. institutions and processes with those of other political systems.
• Assignments: Include assignments that require thinking about American politics from a global perspective. Require students to include a non-U.S. case in a paper, or role-play in activities that include an international perspective. Use film and other media materials in the classroom to provide exposure to global issues. Implement distance learning tools, service learning assignments, and other technologies to promote internationalization.
• Exams and Evaluation: Reinforce the importance of a global perspective by including questions in exams that require students to contrast significant differences and relative advantages between the U.S. and other political systems.
• Internships and Extracurricular Activities: Require or award extra-credit for attendance or participation in certain global-oriented activities (such as a campus lecture by a visiting dignitary or membership in an international club) and by mentoring students to consider study abroad and internship programs.

A course that infuses some of the guidelines above will challenge students to think more critically about politics more generally, and the American political system more specifically. From this context, specific learning objectives can be developed that would help assess the success of an internationalized course.