In my experience IR (as taught in universities) it quite outdated. It is still quite focused on state-state relationships, when the world has moved beyond these. The real struggles are happening between states and non-state actors across many unconventional battlefields.
Really? I took quite a few international related course and they could not stop focusing on the interaction between states and non-state actors. In their defense the curriculum gave broad subjects, and material which allowed the classes to take the discussion in a lot of directions.
Is that really the fault of the classroom then? I mean all those theoretical frameworks were developed during a time when state-state relationships were dominant. I think it's the duty of the present day field to determine whether those frameworks still take the same stage as they did in the years past, and if they can possibly translate to our current international environment. Is it possible we may need new theoretical frameworks for this century?
I definitely think that we need new theoretical frameworks for this century. We also may need to pay greater attention to less prominent theories like Critical Theory. The fault lies equally among the thought leaders of IR, as well as the university professors teaching a new generation of IR students. Realist authors like Mearshimer and Waltz are easy to teach, but they should be presented as historical artifacts. Just like Fukuyama's The End of History is.
I went to school in DC so they're starting to push the boundaries on that. It's still not fully understood though so it's easier to teach state-to-state and then say "this is less relevant post Cold War"