Lesson Report:
## Title: Week 7 — Constructivism Workshop: From Reading → Principles → Hypotheses (Russia–Ukraine 2022)
This session oriented students to the approaching midterm and the upcoming Thursday assignment, then pivoted into an in-class reading workshop introducing constructivism. The core objective was to operationalize constructivist theory into testable principles and then use them to generate competing hypotheses (to later be compared against realist explanations) for why Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022.
—
## Attendance
– Students explicitly mentioned absent: **0**
– Notes: Instructor noted a **“full house.â€�**
—
## Topics Covered (chronological, with activity/topic names)
### 1) Course pacing + upcoming assessments (midterm + Thursday assignment)
– Instructor framed the class as **Week 7**, emphasizing:
– The semester is approaching the **midterm** (middle of semester).
– There is an **assignment due Thursday**, and today’s work connects directly to it.
– This week’s goal: **develop two competing hypotheses based on two competing theories** and evaluate which is most academically convincing.
### 2) Feedback on “Situation Report� papers (strengths + cross-cutting issues to fix)
– Instructor thanked students and provided global feedback (grades not yet posted; planned over the weekend).
– **Praised strengths:**
– Students generally succeeded at adopting a more **removed/clinical third-person tone** (especially challenging for political science writing).
– Sources were generally **strong and varied**, and incorporated effectively.
– Special praise for those who found and used **foreign-language sources**, even when they didn’t fully know the language.
– **Common improvement areas (to be addressed in coming weeks / toward midterm):**
– **Separating claims from facts**:
– Students sometimes wrote claims as if they were factual statements without attributing them.
– Example pattern flagged: writing a statement like “X wants Yâ€� without identifying **who said it** and whether it’s corroborated.
– **Attribution and corroboration**:
– Needing to specify the **actor making a claim** and confirm across **multiple sources**.
– **Contested vs. confirmed facts**:
– Students sometimes described information as “confirmedâ€� without clarifying **how it was confirmed**, **who confirmed**, or **who contests** it.
– Instructor characterized these as **relatively small complaints**—not necessarily grade-destroying, but key skills for the course.
### 3) Missing work / paper follow-ups (individual logistics)
– Instructor noted two pending paper-related issues:
– **Zeke**: has an extension **until the 6th** (month not specified in transcript).
– **Nino**: paper was strong but **missing bibliography/sources**; asked to email sources **by Friday** to enable grading.
### 4) Reading logistics + rationale for assigned constructivism text
– Instructor apologized for posting the reading late on e-course.
– Quick diagnostic: only **one student** had finished the reading at that point → decision to do guided reading work in class.
– Reading assignment details:
– An **~8-page reading** posted on e-course.
– Instructor originally considered assigning **Jervis** as a critique of constructivism, but decided against it because the version available **didn’t function as the critique** the instructor wanted.
– Substituted a different reading that explains constructivism’s principles in an **accessible** way.
### 5) Activity 1 — “Divide & Conquer� in-class reading (groupwork setup + task)
– Goal: transform an 8-page text into **principles** that can be used to **ask questions** and build hypotheses (parallel to the earlier realism unit).
– Framing by analogy to realism:
– With realism, the class took a large theory and narrowed it into a workable question (e.g., “why do states get into conflict?â€�), then broke it into **3–4 principles** and applied them to Russia–Ukraine 2022.
– Today repeats that process for **constructivism**.
– Students placed into groups of three (as assigned in class):
– **Adam / Azamat / Mehrana**
– **Elena / Mukhadas / Zoe**
– **Sophie / Samira / Albina**
– One additional group referenced but not clearly captured in transcript (“ladies and you know…â€�—names unclear).
– Instructions:
– **Split the reading into chunks** within the group (“divide and conquerâ€�).
– Identify what the author says about the operationalized question:
– **“What do constructivists believe about why states get into conflicts with each other?â€�**
– Take notes; regroup after ~5–10 minutes.
### 6) Instructor-led synthesis — Constructivism’s core concept: identity (ideas/norms)
– Whole-class regroup: instructor asked for the key repeated term in the reading.
– Key term identified: **Identity**
– Identity can be broken down into:
– **Ideas**
– **Norms** (distinguished from laws; instructor assumed students already knew the difference)
– Constructivist claim emphasized:
– **Identity determines interests** (a state’s priorities/behavior flow from how it identifies itself).
– Central causal mechanism for conflict:
– Conflict often results from **misalignment of identities**:
– How states see themselves, and how they categorize/label others.
### 7) Illustration/example — Wendt and “missiles don’t equal threat; identity does�
– Instructor used a classic constructivist contrast to realism:
– UK has **many nuclear missiles**; North Korea has **few**.
– A simplistic realist logic might treat the larger arsenal as the bigger threat.
– Constructivist interpretation:
– The threat perception depends primarily on **who holds the missiles** (identity of the actor), not just the objective number.
– The U.S. sees the UK as an **ally/brotherly nation**, while seeing North Korea as **unstable/chaotic/threatening**.
– Takeaway: material facts exist, but states interpret them through an **identity lens** first.
### 8) Breaking identity into two key principles (with a “third� left unresolved)
– Instructor structured constructivist explanation around (at least) two major dimensions:
1) **How a state views itself**
– States attach labels/stories to themselves; these narratives guide interests and actions.
– Example: U.S. self-image as “policeman of the worldâ€� / “hegemonâ€� / “shining city on a hillâ€� → interest in spreading democracy (or what it defines as such).
– Identities are **fluid**: narratives/ideas/norms can shift over time.
2) **How a state views other states**
– States attach identities/labels to others; these shape threat perception and friendship/enmity.
– Example: U.S. view of North Korea as:
– “Hermit kingdom,â€� illegitimate/totalitarian, unpredictable, irrational/loose cannon
– Possibly “irredeemableâ€� or hard to integrate into international order due to isolation and law-breaking
– Emphasis: not whether every detail is “true,â€� but **which facts are selected and emphasized** within the narrative.
– Instructor mentioned a **third feature** of the framework but stated they had “completely forgottenâ€� it during class; the session proceeded focusing on the two main principles above.
### 9) Activity 2 — Turn principles into research questions (constructivist operationalization)
– Students, in groups, converted the two principles into **at least two questions** that could help answer:
– “Why did State A attack State B?â€�
– Instructor emphasized process:
– Questions are stepping stones toward a hypothesis.
– Instructor deferred hearing the questions immediately because the real test was how students would use them to produce hypotheses.
### 10) Activity 3 — Evidence planning: what data would answer your questions? (primary-source push)
– Focus case: **Russia (State A)** and **Ukraine (State B)**, specifically **2022 invasion**.
– Students asked to consider:
– What evidence would be needed to answer:
– How Russia views itself (identity)
– How Russia views Ukraine/others (identity ascribed to the other)
– Instructor explicitly encouraged moving toward **primary sources** rather than relying only on scholars’ interpretations:
– If the question is “What does Russia believe about itself?â€�, students should be prepared to justify **how they know** that:
– What documents/sources demonstrate state self-understanding (implied: speeches, strategy documents, official statements, etc.).
– Instructor noted a common pattern overheard:
– Many groups’ first question was some form of: **“What does the attacker believe about its own identity?â€�**
– Instructor’s follow-up challenge: **“How do you know?â€�** (method/evidence accountability).
### 11) Activity 4 — Hypothesis drafting workshop (Russia–Ukraine 2022)
– Students combined their two questions into **one constructivist hypothesis** in the form:
– “Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022 because…â€�
– Instructor required written hypotheses because each claim would be interrogated with **“How do you know?â€�**
– Groups shared hypotheses (four captured in transcript):
1) **Historical duty / protecting Russians and lands**
– Russia attacked Ukraine to fulfill a perceived **historic duty** to protect **Russian people** and **lands**, grounded in historical background (incl. Soviet history).
2) **NATO ascension as identity/great-power threat**
– Russia attacked Ukraine because it interpreted Ukraine’s **NATO alignment/ascension** as a threat to Russia’s **global power** and **identity as a great power**.
3) **Denial of Ukrainian nationhood**
– Russia attacked Ukraine because it **never perceived Ukraine as a separate nation** (identity-based non-recognition).
4) **Ideological conflict + drifting from Russian sphere**
– Russia attacked Ukraine due to **ideological conflict** and the impression Ukraine was **drifting away from the Russian sphere of influence**.
### 12) Bridge to Thursday: comparing constructivist vs realist hypotheses + applying to students’ own conflicts
– Instructor previewed Thursday’s plan:
– Evaluate hypotheses for:
– **Logical consistency**
– How they compare/“stack upâ€� against **realist claims**
– Students will take the international conflicts used in their **Situation Report** and draft similar hypotheses for those cases.
– Logistics:
– Instructor will post the hypotheses (took a picture) to the **Telegram chat**; students did not need to type them into Telegram.
– Reminder: finish the reading if not completed.
– Clarified: Students may choose **any conflict** for their work as long as it is **international**.
### 13) End-of-class administrative note — thesis supervision request (Inazik + Albina)
– Instructor asked **Inazik and Albina** to stay briefly:
– Instructor will be supervising their **thesis next year**.
– Requested that, **before spring break**, each sends **1–2 of their best papers** to assess writing and research-planning ability.
– Papers can be from any class (political science preferred but not required), including **FYS**.
—
## Actionable Items (short bullet points; organized by urgency)
### Urgent / Time-sensitive (due dates and immediate follow-up)
– **Nino**: Email missing **bibliography/sources by Friday** (paper cannot be graded without them).
– **Zeke**: Submit situation report paper by the **6th** (per extension).
– **Students**: Complete the **8-page constructivism reading** if not finished (needed for Thursday’s hypothesis testing/comparison).
### Next class (Thursday) — preparation and deliverables
– Be ready to:
– Compare constructivist hypotheses against **realist explanations** (logical consistency + evidentiary support).
– Draft **constructivist-style hypotheses** for each student’s chosen **international conflict** from the situation report.
– Defend hypotheses with **evidence logic** (“How do you know?â€�; preference for primary sources).
### Instructor follow-ups / grading & communication
– Instructor: Finish grading situation report papers over the weekend and return grades.
– Instructor: Post the photographed list of in-class hypotheses to **Telegram** (if not already posted).
### Medium-term (before spring break)
– **Inazik & Albina**: Send **1–2 best prior papers** (any course acceptable) to instructor **before spring break** for thesis supervision prep.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Finish the Constructivism Reading (8 pages) + Extract Key Principles
[You will complete the short constructivism reading and turn it into a clear set of “principles� you can use to explain conflict, because in class we began narrowing constructivism down to the operational question: what do constructivists believe about why states get into conflicts with each other?]
Instructions:
1. Open the constructivism reading posted for this week (the shortened reading of about 8 pages).
2. Read the entire text carefully (if you only partially read it in class, make sure you complete the remaining pages).
3. As you read, take notes aimed at answering this exact operationalized question: **According to constructivists, why do states get into conflicts with each other?**
4. In your notes, extract **3–5 key principles/claims** from the reading that you think best explain constructivism’s logic about conflict (for example, points connected to **identity**, and how states **see themselves** and **see others**).
5. For each principle you write down, add:
1. A short paraphrase in your own words (1–2 sentences).
2. A brief reminder of **where in the reading** it comes from (page number or a short quote/phrase you can locate quickly).
6. Bring these notes with you to the next class so you can use them to build and evaluate hypotheses (as we began doing in class when we broke constructivism into principles and then turned those into questions and hypotheses).