We would like to thank all our students, recent graduates, and academic and administrative colleagues for our outstanding results in the 2017 National Student Survey (NSS). Every year finalists complete the NSS across the UK and it is a key component of league tables published in the media, in which PAIS is a consistently high performer.
We are delighted to announce that in the 2017 NSS we have achieved an overall satisfaction rating of 94 per cent. We are the leading department in the Faculty of Social Sciences for overall student satisfaction and second in the University (the Institution, as a whole, has achieved 86 per cent) and the Provost has sent us her personal congratulations on this terrific result.
Among Russell Group competitor institutions (an elite group of leading teaching and research universities in the UK), Politics at Warwick is ranked: *
Other key NSS headlines: **
We look forward to working in partnership with our amazing students and dedicated staff to sustain and build on these strong results, which reflect our deep commitment to research-led teaching excellence.
At the start of the new academic year we will feedback in greater detail to all students and we will discuss and take forward ideas for further enhancement of the PAIS student experience via our Student Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC).
To all of our current and incoming students: we hope you enjoy the rest of the summer vacation and we look forward to seeing you all in October.
*These figures are based on the 15 Russell Group institutions for which there is publishable data for the subject of Politics in 2017.
**These figures are based on the 22 University of Warwick academic departments for which there is internal publishable data in 2017
Vincenzo Bove's article “Does Immigration Induce Terrorism?”, co-authored with Tobias Böhmelt from the University of Essex, is the most read article of all published articles in The Journal of Politics within the past 12 months.
The article is available here: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/684679.
After the US dropped one of the biggest explosives ever used in Afghanistan earlier this year, critics objected to the use of the name ‘mother of all bombs.’ In a blog post for LSE's Gender Institute, Jennifer Philippa Eggert analyses the gendered assumptions underlying the criticisms of the bomb’s name, before critically discussing the roles of mothers in violent political movements and counterextremism strategies.
The new book, titled American Grand Strategy under Obama: Competing Discourses (EUP, 2017) examines the breakdown of the elite consensus on America's role in the world. The book explores competing discourses of national security and foreign policy under the Obama presidency, and how the Obama Doctrine posed a practical challenge to the established elite consensus on American exceptionalism and liberal hegemony by emphasising military restraint and 'leading from behind. It argues that under Obama, American grand strategy no longer represented a coherent and consistent equation of material resources and political ends, but a contested discursive space, where identity and policy no longer matched up.
New research published in the European Journal of International Relations – one of the leading journals in the field of political science and international relations – by researchers from the Global Benchmarking Project within the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation (CSGR) has highlighted the problems of ‘bad science’ that are inherent in prominent country ratings and rankings produced by international organisations such as the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Benchmarks now pervade many aspects of everyday life in a growing number of countries, including the UK, and risk distorting processes of performance assessment and the strategic priorities pursued by leaders and managers in sectors ranging from healthcare to aid spending to university teaching and research. The Global Benchmarking Project has catalogued 275 instances of global benchmarks that aim to comparatively assess national performance in world politics, which risk distorting policymaking and political priorities at the global level and how national governments set official objectives and evaluate progress relative to their peers.
In this new article, written by André Broome, Alexandra Homolar, and Matthias Kranke, the authors demonstrate how global benchmarking by international organisations is a significant source of indirect power in world politics, and argue that the use of benchmarking to alter how political actors understand best practices, advocate policy changes, and attribute political responsibility constitutes ‘bad science’, which nonetheless enjoys a significant degree of legitimacy as a result of these organisations’ expert status.
An OnlineFirst version of the article is available to download on an open access basis:
André Broome, Alexandra Homolar, and Matthias Kranke. Bad Science: International Organizations and the Indirect Power of Global Benchmarking. Forthcoming in the European Journal of International Relations.
Add to Start