Inspiring Students to Think Theoretically About International Relations Through the Game of Diplomacy

Abstract

A growing literature highlights the benefits of playing the classic board game Diplomacy in international relations (IR) courses. But how exactly can it help students to learn not only about different IR theories, but also about what it means to use a theory in the first place? To address this question, I highlight my experiences overseeing the game during the first 2 weeks of seven introductory IR classes. Drawing from debriefing worksheets that 151 students completed after playing it, I examine whether they (1) made (implicit) connections to various theoretical perspectives and (2) developed a critical appreciation of theoretical abstraction and simplification. I find that the game’s social and collaborative components lend themselves to theories beyond neorealism. More importantly, I show that by modeling rather than replicating world politics, Diplomacy introduces students to a counterintuitive idea: that theories can reveal things about reality even as they distort and omit parts of it. Moreover, having students reflect on the game’s limitations encourages them to fill in the gaps, anticipate topics covered throughout the semester, and recognize the challenges of putting theories into practice.

Keywords:

• Simulations
• role playing
• participation
• negotiation
• active learning

Acknowledgments

I thank Carolyn Shaw, Josh Ryan, Kayce Mobley, Kimberly Zagorski, Patrick James, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors of JPSE for their comments and feedback on previous drafts of this article.

Notes

1 For example, I assign International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 4^th edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Jurki, and Steve Smith as the main textbook, which is entirely organized around different theoretical perspectives. Two other major introductory IR textbooks include International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs, by Paul D’Anieri, which devotes a main section to “theoretical approaches” and International Relations, by Joshua Goldstein and Jon C. Pevehouse, which covers “realist theories” and “liberal and social theories.”

2 I used an online version of the game, which allowed me to display the game board via the projector during class and allowed students to continue playing outside of class. See Arnold (2015) for extremely helpful instructions on setting up the game using this online platform.

3 More specifically, 70% of first Fall Semester 2015 class, 56% of second Fall Semester 2015 class, 85% of the Spring Semester 2016 class, 79% of the Fall Semester 2016 class, 76% of the Fall Semester 2017 class, 85% of the first Spring Semester 2018 class, and 88% of the second Spring Semester 2018 class participated in this study.

4 I confronted that question of whether a theory primes students to approach simulations in particular ways during two prisoner’s dilemma simulations. I administered the first of these simulations after covering neorealism; students thus had an idea of how they were expected to respond to the dilemma. They were presented, however, with the prospect of earning bonus points for defying those expectations. In some cases they did; in others they did not. I administered the second simulation after covering neoliberalism, and so I altered it from a one-round to an iterative, multiround prisoner’s dilemma. I was curious to see whether students would take the insights of neoliberalism to heart, account for the “shadow of the future,” and maximize their bonus points through ongoing, mutual cooperation. Or, would they seek vengeance for betrayals that might have occurred in the previous simulations and disregard the opportunity costs (i.e., giving up more bonus points) through a surprise defection? Going with the latter would segue into our next unit on constructivism, given its focus on norms and norm-enforcement. Again, different classes yielded different results. But when students upended theoretical expectations, they reinforced lessons about how the partiality of theories actually calls attention to their omissions and distortions.

5 These 46 students were those who both allowed me to use their debriefing worksheets and gave me permission—per IRB requirements—to use their midterm essays in this study.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eric R. Rittinger

Eric R. Rittinger earned his PhD in political science from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. He is currently an Assistant Professor of political science at Salisbury University. His work has been published in Studies in Comparative International Development, Small Wars & Insurgencies, and International Studies Quarterly.