I have just uploaded the syllabi for the two courses I’m teaching this semester:
- The Balance of Power; grad/undergrad lecture; [syllabus]
This lecture course explores the role of the balance of power in the theory and practice of international relations. We will cover the development of different theoretical views on the balance of power as well as the history of the international balance of power since the turn of the twentieth century. The emphasis is analytic rather than historical. We will also address what the balance of power can highlight on recent, post-Cold War events and trends. By the end of the course, students should be conversant in the theoretical aspects of balance-of-power scholarship and also have a broad picture of the historical development of the rise and fall of great powers in the last hundred years. The course meets three times a week: twice for a lecture plus once for a discussion section. - Military Power; grad/undergrad seminar; [syllabus]
This seminar explores the foundations, application, evolution, and limits of military power. We will read the main foundational text on the topic — Clausewitz’s On War — and pair it with contemporary readings that complement it on the several aspects referred above. We will cover topics such as the relation between military power and politics, technology, coercion, and ethics, as well as the sources of military effectiveness, the problems of civil-military relations, and contemporary topics such as the revolution in military affairs and the problems with military occupations. By the end of the course, students should be able to have a general grasp of the main questions pertaining to the use of military power and its relation to (international and domestic) politics.
Here’s an analogy I thought of today: classes are like dining rooms; workshops are like kitchens. During classes, particularly seminars — as in restaurant dining rooms — you get a chance to develop your taste, figure out what you like and what you don’t, and expose yourself to different ways of cooking / writing. In a workshop setting — as in a kitchen — you get a chance to try out and develop the skills that will enable you to cook / write what you like. That’s why it is so important for graduate students — and undergrads with intellectual aspirations — to move as fast as possible into a workshop setting, first as attendants (and sharp questioners), then as discussants, and finally as presenters. Classes don’t get you there; you don’t get exposed to the process of producing scholarship, only its product.
After a week of traveling and fighting a cold — which meant virtually zero blogging — I’m back. 
Each of these captures an essential part of the research process. The first one points at an inescapable tension, that between utility and complexity. A simple argument often has a certain “falsity” to it, as it leaves out important parts of the world. Simple arguments are powerful but often blunt. A complex argument, though perhaps it captures the world in more realistic and nuanced ways, is often useless. Complex arguments often have so many moving parts they lose generalizability. Aiming at a compromise between the opposite pulls of simplicity and complexity is central to writing a successful piece of scholarship — be it a term paper or a doctoral dissertation. My approach is to start with something simple and then let the process develop like an accordion in action: expand it to capture the complexity and nuance of the world, thus challenging the initial intuition, then compress it again, discarding the accessory and refocusing on the core of the argument, then expand it again, and so on and so forth. 
Reflecting on my first year of teaching and advising, I often find myself thinking about the Hubris-Humility Index.