Assessing Bias in the Statecraft IR Simulation

Abstract

The Statecraft IR simulation has received a significant amount of attention in the pedagogical literature. Some instructors have asserted that Statecraft is biased toward the behavior and learning goals of realism, calling into question the utility of the simulation as a teaching tool. Using thirteen iterations of the simulation we empirically evaluate the number of points earned by each team, grouped on a scale of realist-idealist ideology. Our results show no statistical difference between realist and idealist groups in total number of award points or any specific award goal. Rather, we find Statecraft is a versatile simulation that allows instructors to emphasize and students to pursue both realist and idealist objectives.

KEYWORD:

• Pedagogy
• simulations
• realism
• idealism
• bias

Notes

1 The international relations simulation is the original simulation by Statecraftsims, which has expanded to five additional simulations (statecraftsims.com).

2 Thanks to Dr. James Fielder at the Midwest Political Science Conference in 2018 for this insight.

3 It is possible to complete these goals individually if a group has acquired a vast amount of power though conquest, but this is rare in our experience.

4 For a detailed description on data collection see Smith and Michelsen (2017) pp. 5–7

5 IRB approval for this study was gained at both Washington State University and Western Carolina University

6 This variable was consolidated to total points earned per group, to control for variation in group size, which could have skewed the results. There is no inherent advantage or disadvantage to group size in Statecraft.

7 The authors used the ideological survey from Rousseau (2006) because it was pedagogically developed for the purpose of measuring realist and idealist ideology, founded in literature. The authors believe that using the Foreign Policy Attitude test, built into the simulation, would have the same behavioral outcome, but chose to use the Rousseau measure for enhanced academic rigor. Although some students will figure out that they have been sorted based on like-minded survey results discussion of the importance should be downplayed or not discussed. By keeping our designing of the simulation secret from the students until the simulation is completed, we can discuss with the students what their own actions have created. When this works as it has in our simulations, the results are more compelling to students than when we select historical examples that illustrate our concepts. As with any social exercise, the outcomes will not necessarily conform exactly to our predictions. This would make the educational benefit less obvious, beyond the overall benefit of participating in the simulation.

8 The correlation between the variables is −0.09 (p value 0.3).

Additional information

Funding

Our research and this article have not been subsidized by Statecraft and the authors do not have any affiliation with Statecraft.

Notes on contributors

Hayden J. Smith

Dr. Hayden Smith is Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Western Carolina University. As a political psychologist his research focuses on individual and group level perceptions and cognitive level decision-making and has published scholarly articles in the Journal of Asymmetric Conflict and the Journal of Political Science Education. He currently has a book under contract with Lexington Press titled Realist and Idealist Decision Making in US Foreign Policy.

Niall Michelsen

Dr. Niall Michelsen Is Associate Professor of Political Science at Western Carolina University where he has been teaching since 2001. He has published scholarly articles and book chapters on international politics, focusing on nuclear issues and issues of international cooperation and conflict. He regularly teaches courses on US Foreign Policy, the Nuclear Age, and Global Issues. He currently has a book under contract with Lexington Press titled Youth Enfranchisement and the Renewal of American Democracy.