Kim Richard Nossal, "Home-Grown IR: The Canadianization of International Relations," Journal of Canadian Studies 35 (Spring 2000), 95-114

"To know themselves," the Commission on Canadian Studies argued in 1975, "Canadians must have a knowledge and understanding of the international context in which their country has developed and exists... To know ourselves we must know others and be able to see ourselves in relation to others." But in the view of T.H.B. Symons-the Commission's only member-such knowledge and information was not being imparted, at least not in Canada's universities. The study of Canadian foreign policy and international relations from a Canadian perspective was in his opinion sadly underdeveloped, reflecting what he argued was a broader lack of attention given to all aspects of Canadian studies in an academy that was dominated by non-Canadian scholars focussed on non-Canadian issues, using non-Canadian methodologies and assumptions, and assigning their students non-Canadian texts and readings (Symons 1975, 85-88).

A quarter of a century later, Symons would be hardpressed to recognize the landscape that he found so bleak in 1975. Foreign policy studies and courses in international relations flourish at universities across the country. Indeed, every Canadian university has courses on international relations (IR) or Canada's place in the world; many have members of faculty whose primary responsibility is to teach and to conduct research on Canadian foreign policy; and not a few universities have specialized centres devoted to the study of Canada's international relations or defence or foreign policy. Moreover, federal government programs have led to the establishment of numerous centres of Canadian studies around the world where research and teaching about Canada takes place (Wright 1985). And in Canada those who profess IR today are overwhelmingly Canadian, both literally in terms of their citizenship, and in their academic training.

The literature on international relations and Canadian foreign policy that Symons found so meagre has exploded, in both English and French. In addition to disciplinary journals such as the Canadian Journal of Political Science, three scholarly journals-Études internationales, International Journal, and Canadian Foreign Policy-are devoted to Canadian foreign policy and international relations. And the assumptions and methodologies that guide IR scholarship are as much home-grown than they are foreign; indeed, as I will show, Canadian students of international relations have overwhelmingly rejected the dominant theoretical perspective of the American academy. In short, it can be argued that in the field of IR and Canadian foreign policy, the vision articulated by Symons and other Canadian nationalists in the early 1970s was almost perfectly realized.

Yet the growth of a clearer and more explicit Canadian focus over the twenty-five years after the Symons report resulted in an interesting paradox: the push for "Canadianization" in the early 1970s was extraordinarily successful. But the particular way it evolved ended up creating the conditions where the explicitly national project of that era is today in some doubt. As dependence on American imports declined, and as an indigenous IR scholarly capacity increased and proliferated across the country, what we have seen is the growth in the Canadian academy of some perspectives on international relations that are deeply skeptical of the Canadian national project: international political economy, post-modernism, critical theory, feminism, and post-nationalism. These tend to be the approaches of choice among many colleagues who have joined the Canadian academy in the last decade, and who will soon replace the large cohort of Canadianists which was hired in the immediate wake of the Symons report.

The purpose of this article is to explore the Canadianization of IR in Canada in the wake of the Symons report, focussing in particular on changes in curriculum, research, hiring, and the approaches to the discipline. However, it must be noted that "Canadianization," in the context of the debates of the late 1960s and early 1970s that gave rise to the Symons report, was an issue almost entirely limited to Canada's English-language universities. Symons's report, though nominally pan-Canadian, was in effect addressed to English-speaking Canadians: when he referred to Canadian universities, he really meant English-language universities. In this article, I adopt the same restrictive focus. While teaching and research on IR in Canada's francophone universities have not been entirely disconnected from the patterns we see in Canada's English-language institutions, the development of the francophone IR discipline is sufficiently different that it should be explored separately.

The Symons Critique: Canadian IR as an American(ized) Social Science

Symons left in no doubt that he felt Canadian universities were simply not doing what needed to be done "to know ourselves" in the area of international relations. Although some positive developments were noted, the report nonetheless asserted that "the amount of attention directed to international relations and foreign policy studies is still well below the needs of our society." The bill of particulars elaborated by Symons was wide-ranging:

Teaching and research about Canadian foreign policy and about international affairs from a Canadian perspective have been particularly neglected. There are, for example, no textbooks written by Canadians for Canadian students in the field of international relations... Nor are there any textbooks specifically directed to the teaching of Canadian foreign policy (Symons 1975, 86; emphasis in original)

Much of the tone of the critique was unabashedly forensic, mirroring the nationalist mood-and discourse-of the era (Granatstein 1996). Thus Symons pronounced it "startling" that there were so few undergraduate programs in international relations; "astonishing" that so few university programs focussed on the Asia Pacific or Latin America; "strange" that there was so little study of the Commonwealth and la francophonie; "puzzling" that there were so few courses on Canadian-American relations (Symons 1975, 86, 87).

And much of the critique was openly directed at the Americanization of IR in the Canadian academy, unwittingly anticipating Stanley Hoffmann's observation that IR was an American social science by two years (Hoffmann 1977; Crawford and Jarvis 2000). For example, Symons argued that "the general neglect" of international relations by Canadian universities was compounded by "the fact that much of the teaching that has been conducted in this field in Canada has been heavily dependent upon the use of methodologies and assumptions developed in the American context which are often inappropriate to the Canadian experience." It should be noted that this observation mirrored the concerns expressed in the section on political science (Symons 1975,65-71), where Symons noted that the discipline of political science in Canada tended to be an inappropriate "miniature replica" of the political science discipline as pursued in the United States (see also Smiley 1974). Reflecting a common assumption that scholarly orientation is affected by both citizenship and where one received one's doctoral training,1 Symons surmised that the state of political science in Canada "must be related to the large number of political scientists in Canada who are not Canadians, and particularly to many of those who are citizens of the United States and/or obtained much of their academic training in that country" (Symons 1975, 68). Symons also gave credence to the concerns expressed by political scientists like Alan Cairns (1975, 201) that Canadian political science would experience a "unidirectional integration" with the American discipline.

It should be noted, however, that Symons's critique was not an impartial and objective assessment. He tended to ignore or downplay some fairly obvious evidence that contradicted his negative assessment of the state of Canadian studies in foreign policy and international relations. While it is true that faculty members capable of teaching Canadian foreign policy courses were not spread widely across the system in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it simply cannot be said that there was as little capacity in this area as the Symons report suggests. On the contrary: there were faculty members with a strong Canadian foreign policy capacity at the University of Toronto, McGill University, and Carleton University. Nor was the literature on Canadian foreign policy as slim and undeveloped as Symons suggested. Indeed, a bibliography of works on Canadian foreign relations, published while Symons was gathering his information, ran to over 6200 entries (Page 1973). The Canadian Institute of International Affairs was still publishing the biennial Canada in World Affairs series, and its quarterly journal, International Journal, was a major outlet for students of Canada's foreign relations. Likewise, the Carleton Library series, published in association with McClelland and Stewart, was producing a number of books on Canadian foreign policy (Glazebrook 1966; Holmes 1970; Swanson 1973). The collection edited by Clarkson (1968) was indicative of a small but vibrant body of critical scholarship. Finally, Symons's assertion that there were no textbooks on the subject of Canadian foreign policy simply ignored the existence of a number of Canadian foreign policy texts (Eayrs 1960; Farrell 1969; Granatstein 1969; and Thomson and Swanson 1971).

However, while the very negative comments in the Symons report on the state of international relations in Canada might not have been entirely accurate, they nonetheless resonated in the nationalist atmosphere of the late 1960s and early 1970s (Bercuson et al. 1984, 133-35; Granatstein 1996, 192-216). Nor were Symons's negative comments unique to the area of international relations; rather, they were replicated for many disciplines. Moreover, those comments must be put in the broader context of widespread concerns in the late 1960s and early 1970s about the Americanization of the Canadian academy (for example, Steele and Mathews 1970). For the numerous recommendations for the "Canadianization" of the academy fit well with the nationalism that swept Canada's English-language universities during this era. Indeed, it was that broader mood that explains why the recommendations of To Know Ourselves for a massive increase in Canadian studies at Canadian universities were in fact already being put in place even before Symons submitted his report to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada in 1975. As Granatstein has argued (1996, 215), the Symons report simply legitimized what was already being implemented.

Most importantly, the process of Canadianization was to be given a particular fillip by an important change in federal government policy introduced shortly after the appearance of the Symons report. Ottawa had already ended the two-year tax holiday that had attracted so many scholars from Britain and the United States during the period of university expansion in the 1960s. In 1977, the Canadian government introduced a series of discriminatory hiring rules that privileged Canadian citizens or landed immigrants in all hiring competitions at Canadian universities. Under the new rules, before universities could consider foreigners for a full-time academic position, they were required to show federal authorities that no Canadian was qualified for the position. The new regulations worked quickly: within a couple of years the majority of faculty hired by Canadian universities were Canadian citizens or permanent residents. As Granatstein (1996, 214) put it, "The problem-if there was one-had evaporated."

After Symons: The Canadianization of IR

Developments in international relations and Canadian foreign policy studies after the early 1970s tended to mirror these broader trends. First, university curriculums began to change-indeed even before Symons reported. In the decade after 1968, courses on Canadian foreign policy were added to the curriculum at a growing number of universities. To be sure, the process of Canadianizing the international relations curriculum was not always smooth or unproblematic. At McMaster University, for example, a course on Canadian foreign policy was added in 1970 only after a student protest; likewise, Clarkson (1972) recounts the impediments to the introduction of courses on Canadian-American relations. Indeed, Symons noted the antipathy to Canadian studies in some quarters: "The Commission encountered, more than once, senior scholars and administrators who scarcely troubled to disguise their view that Canada's international relations were at best a minor subject for university study and that they should stay that way" (Symons 1975, 88).

Second, changes in curriculum being pushed by the nationalist movement helped push changes in the pattern of hiring. At the end of the 1960s, the majority of those teaching IR at Canadian universities had received their PhDs from American universities; and many of them were American citizens. By the early 1970s, this slowly began to change. Faculty positions were beginning to be specifically authorized in the area of Canadian foreign policy, partly in order to cover the new courses being added to the curriculum. Moreover, narrowly defining positions in such a fashion tended to encourage the hiring of candidates from Canadian doctoral programs. The demands of a Canadian-oriented curriculum, combined with the changes in immigration policy in 1977 noted above, had a pronounced impact on the academic pedigree of the newly hired junior professors. Not only was the citizenship of professors hired after 1977 being affected by immigration legislation, but the number (and percentage) of Canadian-trained PhDs hired increased dramatically, as Table 1 shows.

Table 1: Individuals entering English-language Canadian universities to teach IR, 1970-1999, by year of entry and country of doctoral studies

NOTES: Data includes entries on full-time tenure-track or equivalent appointments to teach IR and/or Canadian foreign policy. Sessional or contractually limited appointments included only when subsequently converted to tenure track. Movements by scholars already within the Canadian system not included. Year of appointment may not coincide with year PhD obtained. Some candidates were ABD (all-but-dissertation); doctorates not completed in all cases.

SOURCES: Biographical data as reported in, inter alia: Canadian Political Science Association, Directory of Political Scientists in Canada (different years); the last published directory of the International Studies Association, Biographical Membership Directory, 1992-1993; and university calendars and websites.

Table 1 demonstrates that in the quarter century after Symons, those hired to teach IR were increasingly scholars who had been trained in Canada, although it was not until the 1990s that a clear majority of new IR hires were from Canadian universities, increasing in the late 1990s to such an extent that some colleagues worry about how closed the system has become.2

Indeed, the degree of Canadianization tends to be understated in this table. Many individuals with non-Canadian doctorates were those who had completed their bachelor's and/or master's degree at Canadian universities before going to the United States or Britain for doctoral work. On their return to Canada, many of these scholars taught Canadian foreign policy and devoted their research to Canadian topics. Indeed, many of the 42 scholars with non-Canadian PhDs who were hired in the period 1975-1999 fall into this category, representing a substantial contribution to Canadianization despite their non-Canadian scholarly pedigree.

Third, these interrelated developments-the Canadianization of the IR curriculum and the expansion of the number of faculty who were as much Canadianists as they were students of IR-helped to transform IR scholarship in Canada. There was a dramatic increase in research on Canada's external relations. Doctoral dissertations were in eager search of rebirth as books. Curiosity-driven research was given an impetus by the creation of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; "policy relevant" research was underwritten by a coast-to-coast network of strategic and defence centres funded by the Department of National Defence and government-backed centres such as the Canadian Institute of International Peace and Security. The consequence was a proliferation of specialist studies on a wide range of Canadian topics too numerous to be surveyed here; separate literatures developed in the areas of Canadian-American relations and political economy. And a new generation of textbooks on Canadian foreign and defence policy made its appearance (Lyon and Tomlin 1979; Tucker 1980; Dewitt and Kirton 1983; Nossal 1985/1989/1997; Granatstein 1986/1992; Middlemiss and Sokolsky 1989; Munton and Kirton 1992; Keating 1993; Dewitt and Leyton-Brown 1995; Cooper 1997).

It should be noted that this transformation occurred relatively peacefully and smoothly. As Granatstein and others have noted, by the late 1970s the Canadianization issue was no longer as politicized. The more overt anti-Americanism that had so marked departmental debates in the late 1960s and early 1970s simply died away as it became clear that the Canadianizers had won. Thus Canadianization quickly became relatively less controversial, partly because many American scholars returned to the United States in the 1970s, partly because the protectionist legislation placed such powerful constraints on hiring decisions, and partly because the newly hired Canadianists themselves tipped voting balances in so many departments.

Home-Grown IR: Professing International Relations in Canada

The Canadianization of the curriculum, the professoriate, and the research agenda brought with it a distinctly different way of professing international relations in Canada. This is not to suggest that there are national differences in approaches to IR; Tony Porter (2000) is surely right when he argues that there might be "variation across countries in the character of IR theorizing-but ... such variation is not likely to be primarily correlated with nationality." Rather, w hat we see is a considerable divergence in the dominant disciplinary approaches between IR scholars in Canada and their colleagues in the United States. It should be noted that this divergence was not peculiarly Canadian; it is evident in a number of other countries over the last twenty-five years (Wæver 1998; Crawford and Jarvis 2000). However, the following trends were noticeable over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, when more Canadian-trained PhDs began to be hired to teach IR at Canadian universities.

First, Canadian foreign policy studies developed in largely idiosyncratic and essentially national ways. It is true that some of the theoretical approaches used by some students of Canadian foreign policy were often derivative of trends (and fashions) in American scholarship; my own work seeking to apply bureaucratic politics and statist theory to Canadian contexts (Nossal 1979; Nossal 1983-4) are examples of such derivative scholarship. However, it can be argued that the field of Canadian foreign policy studies was primarily marked by a distinctly Canadian approach. As Molot (1990) has cogently argued, Canadian foreign policy studies tended to be concerned with establishing Canada's location in the international system. Reflecting a broader concern in English-language Canadian political culture with Canada's role and status in international affairs, much of the literature was focussed on trying to determine whether Canada was a "middle power" (the comforting preference of the middle mainstream) or a mere satellite of the United States (the preferred description of those who embraced a political economy approach). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a new twist to this debate over location was added, with some wondering whether Canada was some kind of great power-though this was garbed in more modest clothing: Canada as a "foremost nation" (Eayrs 1975; Hillmer and Stevenson 1977) or a "principal power" (Dewitt and Kirton 1983). It is true that this relentless search for location could be-and indeed was-criticized as being both idiosyncratic and parochial (Hawes 1984; Molot 1990; Black and Smith 1993). And it is true that the nature, definition, and location of middle powers in world politics remained essentially contested (Cooper, Higgott, and Nossal 1993). However, there can be little doubt that the foreign policy studies facet of Canadian IR represented an essentially national divergence from mainstream American IR: the debate over location was one about which American foreign policy scholars generally knew little and cared less.

Second, there was also an important methodological divergence between Canadian and American foreign policy scholars. In the American academy, foreign policy studies began with a widespread belief that it was possible, by applying the scientific method, to create a "hard" science of international politics (Rosenau 1971) comparable to physics or chemistry. In this view, one could build theory by collecting enough data on the behaviour of states, analyzing it, and accumulating the findings. This approach-termed behaviouralism-tended to remain popular among American scholars (for example, Hermann 1987), long after most students of foreign policy in Canada had abandoned the hope that the study of foreign policy-Canada's or any other country's-could be properly "scientific." The last book on Canadian foreign policy that could be considered behaviouralist was published over twenty years ago; the ideals of its editor-"to construct scientific theories of foreign policy in which theoretical statements are employed to subsume specific events within generalized patterns" (Tomlin 1978, xi)-are no longer much articulated by students of Canadian foreign policy.

A third area of divergence was in how IR theory developed in both countries. When Symons was looking at IR in Canada, foreign policy analysis was widely seen as the preferred theoretical approach to international relations as a discipline. IR was taught as little more than the sum of the foreign policies of the world's various states, or the interactions of the great powers. Adding the study of Canada was thus a natural outgrowth of that theoretical perspective. But no sooner was Canadian foreign policy entrenched in the curricula of Canada's universities than academic fashion changed. Over the 1970s and 1980s, foreign policy analysis was quickly eclipsed by theoretical perspectives developed to understand the world of world politics that tended to focus on broader, more systemic explanations (Nossal 1990).

While this eclipse occurred in IR theorizing in the United States and in other English-speaking countries, the discipline itself took very different turns in the United States compared to the rest of the world. In the United States, the turn that occurred in the 1970s was in the direction of structural and rationalistic explanations of world politics. A particular favourite was the "neorealist" (or, more properly, the structural realist) approach, which held that world politics could be best explained by the anarchical structure in which states operated: the absence of government demanded that states seek to maximize their power in order to survive (Waltz 1979). Within several years of the publication of Kenneth W. Waltz's Theory of International Politics in 1979, numerous American scholars had been seized with his simple message. And although the neorealist perspective was criticized by some in the United States (see Ashley 1984, for example), it quickly achieved what most in the field have argued is a dominant position as the preferred approach (Smith 1987). Moreover, its position was reinforced by the growing popularity of the rational choice approach among American political scientists,3 and the formal modeling that went with it (Wæver 1997).

But these American trends were not widely embraced in the academy in other parts of the English-speaking world: in both Britain and Australia, for example, neither rational choice nor neorealism is a popular theoretical approach. Certainly they did not migrate north to any appreciable degree. It is true that it is sometimes asserted that the Canadian IR community is in thrall to American realism. For example, in the mid-1980s, a group of junior IR scholars, looking at intellectual trends in Canadian universities, concluded that those who taught IR in the Canadian academy had simply bought into the American-dominated neorealist perspective. "Canadian academics," Axel Dorscht and his colleagues wrote, "not having a significant role in the Canadian foreign policy process, tend to legitimize themselves and their work by publishing in US journals and attending conferences in the United States... In the process, they continuously reconfirm their US-centred view of the world as a valid one" (Dorscht et al. 1986, 3). Likewise, writing about Canadian academics a decade after Dorscht et al., Melakopides (1998, 14) argued that an American-inspired realism dominated their thinking: "Trained in the axioms, aphorisms, and interests of the realist worldview, such scholars imported to the study of Canadian foreign policy the theoretical biases and methodological preferences present in the analysis of the foreign policies of the great powers and superpowers." Keeble and Smith (1999, 9-10) also noted the "realist legacy" that they saw pervading the approach to IR in the Canadian academy.

While the question of realism among Canadian IR scholars continues to generate debate (see Cameron et al. 1999), it is not at all clear that neorealism made the kind of inroads into the Canadian academy claimed by Dorscht et al. in the mid-1980s. On the contrary: an impressionistic survey of the Canadian IR professoriate at the end of the 1990s would suggest that neorealists are hardly in a significant minority, much less a hegemonic position.

And if neorealism did not find great favour among the Canadian IR community; the rational choice approach, so popular in the United States, found virtually none. In 1984, for example, the department at McGill University hired a rational choice scholar to teach IR. This scholar had completed a BA at a Canadian university, and had gone on to take a PhD at the University of Maryland before returning to Canada in 1983. However, by his own account, being an IR "rat choicer" in Canada was a somewhat lonely intellectual existence; by the early 1990s, he had moved back to the United States. (One of his doctoral students who was hired by a Canadian university remains one of the few members of the IR professoriate in Canada who embraces a rational choice approach.)

Indeed, for all of the assertions of American hegemony among the Canadian IR professoriate, there is in fact little evidence to support such claims. On the contrary: over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, the Canadian academy would be increasingly filled with scholars of international relations whose approach differed dramatically and fundamentally from the American IR mainstream. We have seen the emergence of scholars who teach IR from numerous perspectives that would be considered non-mainstream in the United States: international political economy (for example, the contributors to Stubbs and Underhill 2000), feminist perspectives of different kinds (for example, Stienstra 1994-5; Whitworth 1995; Keeble and Smith 1999), and post-positivism (for example, Neufeld 1995; Black and Sjolander 1996). In addition, it is likely that many Canadian IR scholars would readily identify with another approach that has emerged in the United States to challenge the American mainstream-the constructivist school (e.g., Ruggie 1998, Hopf 1998; Klotz and Lynch 2000).4

A related area of divergence was the emergence of a home-grown IR metatheoretical literature, or perhaps more correctly, the emergence of some academics at Canadian universities as contributors to the broader metatheoretical debates that continue to mark the field of IR, at least in English. For example, the theoretical contributions of Robert W. Cox, Stephen Gill, Kal J. Holsti, R.B.J. Walker, and Mark Zacher have all been widely cited by students of IR theory in other countries (see, for example, Cox 1981; Gill 1995; Holsti 1985; Walker 1993; Zacher 1992). And while these scholars are far too diverse (not to mention divergent) in outlook to be considered some kind of "Canadian School" of international relations-comparable to the "English School" or "Copenhagen School"-there can be little doubt that together and separately they constitute a very different voice in the broader IR debate. To be sure, that voice is not always seen as different: for example, in his survey of contemporary IR for the 50th anniversary of International Organization, Wæver (1998) simply lumped Canadian and American students of IR together.

Finally, one small manifestation of a home-grown IR is the emergence of an indigenous IR textbook literature. Ironically, while the IR community has been increasingly Canadianized over the last thirty years, and while the vast majority of academics in Canada approach IR very differently than their American colleagues, IR textbooks written by Americans continue to enjoy a dominant position in the English-language IR market in Canada (as in many other countries: see Holsti 1985)-despite their often blatant ethnocentricity (Alker and Biersteker 1984; Robles 1993; Nossal 2000). Yet over the past two decades, texts authored by scholars at Canadian universities (e.g., Matthews, Rubinoff, and Stein 1984/1989; Haglund and Hawes, 1990; Sens and Stoett, 1998; Nossal, 1998; Jackson and Sørensen, 1999; Madar, 1999) have made their appearance.

Explaining Divergence

I have argued to this point that the nationalist movement of the early 1970s-encapsulated in a sense by the Symons exercise-set in train a process that saw not only the massive growth of Canadian foreign policy studies, but also a wholesale Canadianization of IR as a discipline. By the turn of the century, Canadian IR looks not at all like the IR that is professed in the American academy. What explains this fundamental divergence?

Much of the explanation lies in the often idiosyncratic patterns of "academic social reproduction" in the years after Symons. It should be reiterated here that throughout this period, the process of reproduction was deeply constrained by federal government regulations effectively limiting the candidate pool to Canadian citizens and legal residents of Canada. No other country in the English-speaking world embraced this degree of academic protectionism (though those with a jaundiced eye might suggest that the near-universal tendency of American universities to hire only American-trained PhDs demonstrates that one can have academic protectionism without actually having to legislate it). Given the requirements of the law, it was not surprising that Canadian political science departments increasingly chose students from Canadian doctoral programs. And although, as Table 1 demonstrates, they often chose candidates from non-Canadian universities-overwhelmingly British and American, and overwhelmingly universities perceived to be highly prestigious (Oxford, Harvard, Stanford, and the London School of Economics)-many of those trained in non-Canadian doctoral programs were, as noted above, those who met the restrictive federal immigration requirements.

However, Table 1 does not show how unevenly spread the Canadianization of IR was across the system. While by the mid-1990s the IR cohort in most political science departments comprised a mixture of PhDs from both Canadian and foreign universities, at least three departments-UBC, McGill and Toronto-stand out as exceptions. The IR cohorts at those universities manifested three similarities over the period under review: most if not all of them were US-trained; newly hired faculty also tended to be US-trained; and they did not have Canadian topics at the core of their research agendas. At UBC, six of the seven members of the department who are IR scholars received their doctorates at American universities; the lone Canadian PhD was not hired until the late 1990s. None of the American-trained scholars describe themselves as Canadianists, and indeed throughout this period, UBC often employed non-permanent faculty to teach its Canadian foreign policy course. Likewise, all three of McGill's IR hires after 1975 were scholars from American doctoral programs, and none were Canadianists; McGill, too, has often had to depend on sessionals to fill its Canadian foreign course. At Toronto, a similar situation obtained: from 1977 to 1990, the department made four entry-level appointments in IR, all of whom had doctorates from American universities. Of the seven IR faculty members hired between 1980 and 1999, none had Canadian topics at the core of their research agendas. Given this pattern, it is not surprising that between them, UBC, McGill, and Toronto account for approximately one-third of all candidates with American PhDs hired to teach IR between 1975 and 1999.

Nor does Table 1 show the pattern of academic reproduction in the years after Symons. Table 2 shows where successful IR candidates who were Canadian-trained received their doctorate.

Table 2: Canadian-trained IR appointments, 1970-1999, by doctoral program

These data reveal the way in which the eight English-speaking Canadian doctoral programs in IR "supplied" IR teachers for the Canadian university system in the years after 1975. In the early days of the Canadianization movement-the early and mid-1970s-the University of Toronto was the central Canadian "supplier" of junior IR faculty to other English-language Canadian universities. Of the fifteen Canadian-trained faculty who were hired for IR positions between 1970 and 1979, eight came from U of T. However, as Table 2 demonstrates, Toronto's predominant position collapsed suddenly and dramatically after 1980: in the 70 IR competitions at English-language Canadian universities between 1980 and 1994, candidates with U of T PhDs were hired in but three.

While a number of factors no doubt contributed to Toronto's decline as a "supplier," one important factor is that after 1980 Toronto was no longer as "Canadianized" in its IR offerings as it had been in the 1970s, when the U of T students who took so many IR jobs in that decade had in the main written their doctoral dissertations on Canadian foreign policy topics under the supervision of professors like James G. Eayrs and John W. Holmes, whose central teaching and research concerns were Canada and Canadian foreign policy. However, in 1980 Eayrs moved to Dalhousie, and Holmes, who turned 70 in 1980, progressively withdrew from active doctoral supervision, leaving but one IR faculty member at U of T whose core area of interest was Canadian foreign policy.

Toronto's collapse as a dominant "supplier" had a longer-term impact on the discipline. While counterfactual musing has its limits, it is instructive to consider what the IR professoriate in Canada might have looked like in 2000 had Toronto academically reproduced itself in IR in the 1980s and 1990s at the success rate of 50 per cent of domestic hires that it had achieved in the 1970s. But in fact for fifteen years U of T was essentially out of the game. At the same time, however, demand at Canadian universities for faculty to teach IR and Canadian foreign policy remained high, particularly as these courses increased in popularity over the 1980s and 1990s. As a consequence, hiring departments, always constrained by federal law, increasingly looked to other Canadian doctoral programs in IR. As Table 2 shows, by the end of the century, supply was spread somewhat more evenly. Although students from Queen's enjoyed considerable success in IR competition in the 1990s, no one Canadian doctoral program dominated supply. (It should be noted that Table 2 does not show those IR doctoral students from Canadian departments hired by Canada's French-language universities, community colleges, or universities in other countries.)

There can be little doubt this broadening in the domestic sources of IR faculty brought with it a change in the way that IR came to be professed at Canadian universities by the end of the century. First, the U of T cohort from the 1970s had a limited longer-term impact on the system as a whole, for all but two of those students were hired at universities where the PhD in international relations was not offered. This is not to suggest that had these students all been hired at PhD-granting institutions they would have simply reproduced mini-versions of themselves and their 1970s doctoral training, unaffected by broader trends in the IR discipline. Rather, it is to note that virtually the entire U of T cohort from the 1970s was unable to engage in any sort of "academic social reproduction" at the doctoral level.

Second, the students from the doctoral programs in IR at Alberta, UBC, Carleton, Dalhousie, McGill, Queen's, and York who were hired after 1980 brought to the professing of IR in Canada a broad range of theoretical perspectives-including traditional foreign policy analysis, international political economy, post-positivist theories, critical theory, and different strands of feminism. While some of these perspectives were "imported," reflecting scholarly fashion and trends originating outside Canada-particularly in Britain, Australia, and Europe-others were quite clearly home-grown.

Most importantly, the "imported" perspectives tended not to reflect the American mainstream. Although Canadian political science departments continued to leaven the ranks of their IR cohorts with scholars who received their PhDs at American and British universities (albeit at a diminishing rate), the approaches to IR favoured in American universities found little favour in Canada, as I noted above. Moreover, this leaning away from American-oriented IR was reinforced by the fact that in the 1980s and early 1990s, the most American-oriented IR programs-UBC, McGill, and Toronto-placed relatively few of their students in other Canadian universities: out of 70 competitions between 1980 and 1994, just over ten per cent of the positions went to candidates from these three universities (three from each, in fact).

One of the clearest consequences of the failure of the American-oriented perspectives to gain a significant toehold in the Canadian academy (and thereby, in the process, squeezing out alternative approaches) is that Canada's home-grown IR came to be marked by considerable theoretical pluralism. A persistent comment made to Porter (2000) in his survey of IR faculty at Canadian universities is that there is no clearly identifiable "mainstream."

However, it can be argued that this is sure to change as the cohort hired in the expansion years of the late 1960s and early 1970s passes from the scene in the next several years as early-retirement schemes continue to induce fiftysomething professors to leave their universities and as others hit the mandatory retirement age of 65 in Ontario. There may be, as Keeble and Smith suggest, a "realist legacy" that will echo into the 2010s, but that echo is likely to be quite faint. Moreover, barring a massive Saul-like conversion by scores of Canadian political scientists, IR "rat choicers" will continue to be as scarce in Canada as they have been in the last two decades. Instead, it is likely that if an IR "mainstream" emerges in Canada, it will be likely be dominated by those with a post-positivist, critical-theoretical, or international political economy perspective.

Conclusion: Implications for the Future

I have argued that were Symons to survey IR in Canada at the beginning of the 21st century, he would not recognize the discipline he had found so Americanized in 1975. But it can also be argued that he would have some difficulty with what his efforts to Canadianize IR wrought. For the prospect that those with an IPE, post-positivist, critical-theoretical, or feminist approach to IR will assume the mantle of IR "mainstream" has, however, interesting implications for the future of Canadian foreign policy studies. It is one of the ironies of the Canadianization project that it was exceedingly successful in Canadianizing IR; but, because of the particular way Canada's home-grown IR evolved, its very success has actually made the study and teaching of Canadian foreign policy far more problematic than it was in the early 1970s when Symons was writing. For there is the prospect of a growing disjuncture between the nature of the Canadian studies project and the theoretical perspectives of an increasingly post-nationalist professoriate.

On the one hand, the study of Canada in the world-Canadian foreign policy studies-constitutes an unreconstructed nationalist project. For Symons and the other proponents of Canadianization in the late 1960s and early 1970s, "Canada" was an unproblematic construct. The very notion of nation-and a single one at that-was conceived of as a normative good. The state-Hobbesian, Weberian, and endowed with sovereignty-was likewise seen as normatively good, for the sovereign state was the means by which the nation, the national economy, and the interests of all Canadians could be best protected.

On the other hand, it is equally clear that many of the theoretical perspectives that enjoy wide currency in the professing of IR in English-speaking Canada are not at all accepting of the nation, the sovereign state, and national interests as normatively good, analytically important, or intellectually interesting. Indeed, many scholars who are post-positivists, critical theorists, feminists, constructivists, and many of those with an international political economy perspective tend to view the nation, the state that is supposed to protect the nation, and the ideal of state sovereignty as all problematic, both theoretically and normatively. For example, IPE sees the sovereign state and the "national economy" as increasingly irrelevant in a globalizing era; critical theory sees the ideology of sovereignty legitimizing an inappropriate division between "inside" and "outside" in world politics; other critical theorists see the ideology of nation hiding patterns of power and social order that serve the interests of some but marginalize others; some strands of feminist theorizing see the nation-state as an androcentric construction that serves mainly to perpetuate gendered patterns of domination and oppression; post-positivists see the nation as nothing more than one kind of identity construction that could just as be easily be reconstructed in another way. In short, the theoretical fashions that are becoming increasingly dominant require that we no longer should speak of Canada, as Symons did so unproblematically in the early 1970s. Instead, it should be "Canada" or even "Canadas"-put in quotation marks or the plural to underline the questionable or problematic nature of thinking in national terms.

It is not clear how this fundamental incompatibility will work itself out in the next decade, when those whose work focussed primarily on Canadian foreign policy will retire. For logically, at least, post-nationalists should prefer that the courses, books, articles, and research projects based on the essentially national project of examining how "Canada" relates to the "outside world" be given the same bridge to the Canada Pension Plan being offered to departing faculty.

In practice, of course, it is unlikely that all manifestations of the Canadian national project will be erased, if for no other reason that most of the students who come to university as undergraduates are not at all post-nationalist; they appear to have an undiminished interest in learning about "Canada and the world," seemingly unfazed by the inside/outside, We/They dichotomies that they will learn from many of their professors are so analytically and normatively problematic. This interest is perhaps best reflected in the continued popularity of Canadian foreign policy courses. And a survey of Canadian university calendars reveals that no department has quietly dropped its Canadian foreign policy course from its course listings; indeed, most departments of political science in Canada continue to make an effort to staff these courses, even though the days when a position would be advertised as being in "Canadian foreign policy" (as the one to which I was appointed in 1976 was) are long gone.

In short, Canadian foreign policy studies are not likely to disappear, even though academic fashions have changed and even though the Symons-era cohort will soon be gone. But it is likely that the generation of IR scholars who entered the Canadian academy in the post-Symons period will alter the focus of both their teaching and their scholarship on "Canada and the world" to better fit a post-nationalist perspective. Ironically, in so doing, they will add yet one more area of divergence between those in the American academy-whose approach to IR remains unabashedly nationalist-and those who profess IR in Canada from a post-nationalist perspective, thus entrenching even more firmly Canada's-or is it "Canada's"?-home-grown IR.

Alker, Hayward R., Jr., and Thomas J. Biersteker. 1984. "The dialectics of world order: notes for a future archæologist of international savoir faire." International Studies Quarterly 28 (March): 121-42.

Ashley, Richard K. 1984. "The poverty of neorealism." International Organization. 38 (Spring): 225-61.

Bercuson, David J., Robert Bothwell, and J.L. Granatstein. 1984. The Great Brain Robbery: Canada's Universities on the Road to Ruin. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Black, David R., and Heather A. Smith. 1993. "Notable exceptions? New and arrested directions in Canadian foreign policy literature." Canadian Journal of Political Science. 26 (December): 745-74.

Black, David R., and Claire Turenne Sjolander. 1996. "Multilateralism re-constituted and the discourse of Canadian foreign policy." Studies in Political Economy 49 (Spring): 7-36.

Cairns, Alan C. 1975. "Political science in Canada and the Americanization issue." Canadian Journal of Political Science. 8 (June): 201-30.

Cameron, Maxwell A., et al.. 1999. "Round table on Canadian foreign policy." Canadian Foreign Policy 6 (Spring): 1-24.

Clarkson, Stephen. 1972. "Lament for a non-subject: reflections on teaching Canadian-American relations." International Journal 27 (Spring): 265-75.

Cooper, Andrew F. 1997. Canadian Foreign Policy: Old Habits and New Directions. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Allyn and Bacon Canada.

Cooper, Andrew F., Richard A. Higgott, and Kim Richard Nossal. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Cox, Robert W. 1981. "Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory." Millennium 10 (Summer): 126-55.

Crawford, Robert M. and Darryl S.L. Jarvis, eds. 2000. International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dewitt, David B., and John Kirton. 1983. Canada as a Principal Power. Toronto: John Wiley.

Dewitt, David B., and David Leyton-Brown, eds. 1995. Canada's International Security Policy. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada.

Dorscht, Axel, Ernie Keenes, Gregg Legare, and Jean-François Rioux. 1986. "Canada's foreign foreign policy." International Perspectives (May/June): 3-6.

Eayrs, James. 1960. The Art of the Possible: Government and Foreign Policy in Canada. University of Toronto Press.

________. 1975. "Defining a new place for Canada in the hierarchy of world powers." International Perspectives (May/June): 3-8.

Farrell, R. Barry. 1969. The Making of Canadian Foreign Policy. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall of Canada.

Gill, Stephen. 1995. "Globalisation, market civilisation, and disciplinary neoliberalism." Millennium 24 (3): 399-424.

Glazebrook, G.P. deT. 1966. A History of Canadian Foreign Relations, rev. ed., 2 vols. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Granatstein, J.L., ed. 1969. Canadian Foreign Policy since 1945: Middle Power or Satellite? Toronto: Copp Clark Publishing.

________. ed. 1986. Canadian Foreign Policy: Historical Readings. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.

________. ed. 1992. Towards a New World: Readings in History of Canadian Foreign Policy. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.

________. 1996. Yankee Go Home? Canadians and Anti-Americanism. Toronto: HarperCollins.

Haglund, David G. and Michael K. Hawes, eds. 1990. World Politics: Power, Interdependence and Dependence. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hawes, Michael K. 1984. Principal Power, Middle Power, or Satellite? Competing Perspectives on the Study of Canadian Foreign Policy. Toronto: York University Research Program in Strategic Studies.

Hermann, Charles F., Charles W. Kegley, and James N. Rosenau. 1987. New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy. Boston: Allen and Unwin.

Hoffmann, Stanley. 1977. "An American social science: international relations." Daedalus 106 (Summer): 41-59.

Holmes, John W. 1970. The Better Part of Valour: Essays on Canadian Diplomacy. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Holsti, K.J. 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen and Unwin.

Hopf, Ted. 1998. "The promise of constructivism in international relations theory," International Security, 23:1 (Summer): 171-200

Jackson, Robert, and Georg Sørensen. 1999. Introduction to International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Keating, Tom. 1993. Canada and World Order: The Multilateralist Tradition in Canadian Foreign Policy. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Keeble, Edna and Heather A. Smith. 1999. (Re)defining Traditions: Gender and Canadian Foreign Policy. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Klotz, Audie and Cecelia Lynch. 2000, forthcoming. Constructing Global Politics.

Lyon, Peyton, and Brian W. Tomlin. 1979. Canada as an International Actor. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada.

Madar, Daniel. 1999. Canadian International Relations. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Allyn and Bacon Canada.

Matthews, Robert O., Arthur G. Rubinoff, and Janice Gross Stein, eds. 1984/1989. International Conflict and Conflict Management: Readings in World Politics, 1st/2nd eds. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada.

Melakopides, Costas. 1998. Pragmatic Idealism: Canadian Foreign Policy, 1945-1995. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Middlemiss, D.W. and J.J. Sokolsky. 1989. Canadian Defence: Decisions and Determinants. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Molot, Maureen Appel. 1990. "Where do we, should we, or can we sit? A review of Canadian foreign policy literature." International Journal of Canadian Studies 1-2 (Spring-Fall): 77-96

Munton, Don and John Kirton, eds. 1992. Canadian Foreign Policy: Selected Cases. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada.

Neufeld, Mark. 1995. "Hegemony and foreign policy analysis: the case of Canada as a middle power." Studies in Political Economy 48 (Autumn): 7-29.

Neumann, Iver B. and Ole Wæver, eds. 1997. The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? London/New York: Routledge.

Nossal, Kim Richard. 1979. "Allison through the (Ottawa) looking glass: bureaucratic politics and foreign policy in a parliamentary system." Canadian Public Administration 22 (Winter): 610-26.

________. 1983-4. "Analyzing the domestic sources of Canadian foreign policy." International Journal 39 (Winter): 1-21

________. 1985/1989/1997. The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy, 3 eds. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada.

________. 1990. "Opening up the black box: the decision-making approach to international politics." In David G. Haglund and Michael K. Hawes, eds.World Politics: Power, Interdependence and Dependence. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: 531-52.

________. 1998. The Patterns of World Politics. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Allyn and Bacon Canada.

________. 2000. "Tales that textbooks tell: ethnocentricity and diversity in American introductions to international relations." In Robert M. Crawford and Darryl S.L. Jarvis, eds., International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Albany: State University of New York Press.

Page, Donald M. 1973. A Bibliography of Works on Canadian Foreign Relations, 1945-1970. Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs.

Porter, Tony. 2000. "Can there be national perspectives on international relations?" In Robert M. Crawford and Darryl S.L. Jarvis, eds., International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Albany: State University of New York Press.

Robles, Alfredo C., Jr. 1993. "How 'international' are international relations syllabi?" PS: Political Science and Politics 26 (September): 526-28.

Rosenau, James N. 1971. The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press.

Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. London: Routledge.

Sens, Allen, and Peter Stoett. 1998. Global Politics: Origins, Currents, Directions. Toronto: ITP Nelson Canada.

Smiley, Donald. 1974. "Must Canadian political science be a miniature replica?" Journal of Canadian Studies. 9 (February)

Smith, Steve. 1987. "Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science." Millennium: Journal of International Studies 16 (Summer): 189-205.

Steele, James, and Robin Mathews. 1970. "The universities: takeover of the mind." In Ian Lumsden, ed. Close the 49th Parallel, Etc: The Americanization of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Stienstra, Deborah. 1994-5. "Can the silence be broken? Gender and Canadian foreign policy." International Journal 50 (Winter): 103-27.

Stubbs, Richard and Geoffrey R.D. Underhill, eds. 2000. Political Economy and the Changing Global Order. 2nd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Swanson, Roger Frank. 1975. Canadian-American Summit Diplomacy, 1923-1973. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Symons, T.H.B. 1975. To Know Ourselves: Report of the Commission on Canadian Studies. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 2 vols.

Thomson, Dale C. and Roger F. Swanson. 1971. Canadian Foreign Policy: Options and Perspectives. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Tomlin, Brian W., ed. 1978. Canada's Foreign Policy: Analysis and Trends. Toronto: Methuen.

Tucker, Michael. 1980. Canadian Foreign Policy: Contemporary Issues and Themes. Toronto: McGraw Hill Ryerson.

Wæver, Ole. 1997. "Figures of international thought : introducing persons instead of paradigms." In Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wæver, eds. The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? London/New York: Routledge: 1-37.

________. 1998. "The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations." International Organization 52 (Autumn): 687-727.

Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Warnock, John. 1973. "International relations as a Canadian academic discipline." Journal of Canadian Studies. 8 (February): 46-56.

Whitworth, Sandra. 1995. "Women, and gender, in the foreign policy review process." In Maxwell A. Cameron and Maureen Appel Molot, eds. Canada Among Nations, 1995: Democracy and Foreign Policy. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.

Wright, Gerald. 1985. "Canadian studies abroad: artificial insemination in academe." In Andrew F. Cooper, ed. Canadian Culture: International Dimensions. Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs: 113-120.

Zacher, Mark W. 1992. "The decaying pillars of the Westphalian temple." In James N. Rosenau and Ernst Otto-Czempiel, eds. Governance without Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 58-101.

1 I also use this assumption, though I do not mean to suggest that where scholars grew up and where they received their PhDs fixes them immutably for their entire lives. Rather, I see citizenship and doctoral pedigree as important for the initial directions in which scholars are socialized.

2 At least three colleagues, all with PhDs from Canadian universities, with whom I consulted about this article expressed the view that the process of Canadianization has ended up producing an overly incestuous IR community, increasingly composed of the graduates of only eight English-speaking doctoral programs in IR.

3 The essence of the rational choice approach to IR is that all political outcomes are the result of aggregations of the personal preferences of millions of individuals seeking to maximize their interests; the interests being maximized are assumed to be overwhelmingly materialistic in nature.

4 Constructivists in IR argue that we cannot understand world politics simply by looking at the anarchical structure of the international system. Rather, world politics is seen as a social construction, in essence "made" by agents who are as much moved by ideational factors-culture, norms, ideas-as by structure and the kind of concrete material interests assumed by rational choice theory.