Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Atlantic Community: Saving Political Science from Itself"

Renowned Harvard academic Joseph S. Nye recently noted in a Washington Post op-ed that "not too many top-ranked scholars of international relations are going into government and even fewer return to contribute to academic theory."

Professors don't seem to be getting the call up to government policymaking positions anymore, or perhaps they're no longer interested. According to the 2008 Teaching Research and International Policy poll, by the Institute for Theory and Practice in International Relations, only three out of the 25 top scholars from the past five years had ever held policy positions in government.

Nye says academics are to blame, claiming a focus on policy rather than mathematical models and methodologies can hurt one's career in many university departments. He argues that departments and journals should give "greater weight to real-world relevance."

Indeed, when Joseph Nye debated Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, on this issue at bloggingheads.tv, comments afterwards included that too many academics "get paid to write ridiculously long-winded essays that are 90% filler and have common sense conclusions that don't change anything." The commenter claims that investigative journalism has made a greater contribution to foreign policy in public discourse recently, compared with academics.

The authors of the poll similarly note a discrepancy between the desire of scholars to play an important role in policymaking and the type of research being conducted. Largely focused on international security issues, it gives "the impression that the US is still fighting the Cold War-that threats to national security come largely from great powers and from states that have or seek nuclear weapons" rather than, for example, international environmental issues.

Academics seem to be aware of this disconnect, and are "increasingly skeptical about the utility of much of their own research to policymakers," the authors say. Nearly 40 percent of the 1,743 participants responded that scholars have "no impact" on foreign policy or even the public discourse about it.

Nye argues that academics have an obligation to improve policy where they can - and that this in turn enhances and enriches academic work, and therefore, their ability to teach students.

While it is clear that a solid grounding in theory is necessary for interpreting the world around us, when does the weight shift towards developing solutions in order to change and improve it?

Employing the possibilities of Web 2.0, Atlantic-Community.org aims to be a platform for foreign policy discourse that is solution-oriented, relevant, and accessible to anyone.

Free of hierarchies, students, young professionals, and dedicated citizens can debate global issues alongside senior policy experts. We pool the collective intelligence of our members for the best policy recommendations and summarize the results of our online debates in succinct Atlantic Memos that are sent directly to policymakers in 27 states.

We are dedicated to fostering the next generation of foreign policy thinkers, and hope that we can encourage students to apply their knowledge to find practicable solutions to real life problems, for example through our op-ed competition and by participating in the community.

We are interested in hearing your thoughts. Has the study of international relatio ns bu il t a wall around its ivory tower and thereby sacrificed its relevance, and can the Internet be used to increase the impact of academia on policy?

Related Materials from the Altantic Community:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

May 26, 2009

Andreas Umland

I like this comment! What's this?

My complaints about a somewhat related issue: http://ku-eichstaett.academia.edu/AndreasUmland/Papers/92833/Nation...

July 28, 2009

Courtney Rowe

I like this comment! What's this?

I appreciate Mr. Nye's concerns with regard to the prevalence of international relations scholars in policy making positions; however, it occurs to me that his point-of-view is not without bias.

I believe that there are plenty of international relations scholars who do wish to more actively participate as policy makers, but the field is exponentially competitive. Mr. Nye, not all international relations scholars have had the privilege of graduating from Princeton. In my own experience, more often than not, professors advise me not to pursue a policy making position unless I plan to earn an advanced political science degree from one of the most prestigious national (U.S.) universities. Consequently, these comments do not increase motivation among international relations students who may be considering a policy making track.

Perhaps, international relations scholars have found alternative routes to success in the private and not-for-profit sectors. It's possible that organizations outside of the public sector provide international relations scholars with opportunities that better meet their individual needs, allowing them to stand behind their policy issue of choice.

If Mr. Nye wishes for greater involvement of international relations scholars in policy making, he might encourage his colleagues to create avenues to success similar to those available to political science academics. It is far too premature for international relations as an academic field to disappear from the frontline of policy making.

July 28, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you Courtney for these comments. I do believe that there are channels into government, for example, the PMI, Presidential Management Internship, program for those with terminal Master's degrees from various institutions.

It is true that the top IR schools and Government Departments provide the channels into policy making. The use of new technologies may alter this hierarchy somewhat in the years to come.

In other words, I believe that public discussion fora like Atlantic-Community.org allow for the introduction of ideas, which policymakers may increasingly find relevant. These fora are open to members of the Academy. It is their choice to participate or not.

As an educator, my experience to date is that there are Web resources that provide numerous creative opportunities to link theory and practice. I can think of two websites of particular relevance, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ and the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, http://www.cceia.org/index.html

On the Foreign Affairs site, there is the archive of the many articles from the journal since the 1960s, which can be integrated into curricula modules depending on the subject and region of the world.

There are also the Foreign Affairs LIVE program events archived on You Tube with audience participation at the Council on Foreign Relations and from the Web.

At Carnegie, the You Tube Channel is a wonderful resource to access, for example, to promote interactive class discussions about the relevance of realism, liberalism, socialism, nationalism, and constructivism given the challenges the world faces today.

The Merrill House programs provide insights from those books most relevant to our discussions about international relations. Interviews with Council members offer thinking about the importance of ethics in international affairs. There is an educator's corner, which makes access very easy by topic and date.

In short, educators have an unprecedented choice of resources at their fingertips to bridge theory and practice in their teaching, if this is their goal.

This being said, I believe Professor Nye is correct about the direction many academic departments continue to take. For this reason, the question becomes how one chooses to work in our profession given the reward structure currently in place. Does one buy into this reward structure or find other ways to make a difference in public speaking, teaching and research?

I do think there are institutions that reward excellence in pedagogy as well as policy relevant publications. Clearly it is important to know the culture of an institution well before embarking on a career there. Thank you, colleagues, for hosting this timely discussion.

Sincerely, Colette Mazzucelli

August 28, 2009

Sophie

I like this comment! What's this?

I recently had the privilege to hear Dr Nye speak at Oxford on the potential culmination of the US-China relationship.

The debate following the talk was quickly dominated by discussions of US decline, a favorite topic among academics. Though the debate was fascinating and certainly relevant, the most interesting part of what Dr Nye said concerned the form that a conflict between the US and China might take. China's developing soft power opens an arena traditionally dominated by the spread of American culture or perhaps financial, technological or consumer conflict might be the next area on which these giants face each other head-on.

It is these kinds of debate which stray outside the theoretical and post-Cold War discussions of US hegemony into the real and actual implications of the current state of the world on international relations. What we can gain from studying theory is the realization that nothing is ever entirely predictable. Every major conflict over the last century brought a new and often shocking type of warfare, but we now have the academic and technological resources to forecast and understand how this relationship might develop.

Without recognizing the true limits of theory, we will never fully be able to interconnect the study of international relations with the reality of policymaking. And it is the ability to see theoretical limitations rather than attempting to create models with numerous modifications or expansions which should be taught alongside theory itself in academic institutions.

September 14, 2009

Che Melson, New York University - MS Global Affairs Candidate

I like this comment! What's this?

A little food for thought per Professor Nye's quote from the beginning of the post, that:

"not too many top-ranked scholars of international relations are going into government and even fewer return to contribute to academic theory".

I think when discussing this "issue" it is very important to also look at the realities of working in government versus working in academe. For starters, the vast majority, if not all of so called "top-ranked scholars" make more money as academics than they would in government and work fewer hours. The term "top-ranked scholar" would generally indicate a tenured person, or at the very least a rising star on their way to tenure. We are essentially talking about someone who has a job for life that allows them the luxury of saying virtually whatever they want whenever they want without fear of loosing their daily bread. Contrast this to government work where one must constantly hold ones tongue and tow the party line for fear of being publicly ridiculed on Fox News, railroaded, scapegoated etc. etc. (not to mention having all of those skeletons in the closet dredged up for all the world to see).

It would seem to me that unfortunately those few who do go into government and don't return to "contribute to academic theory" have probably amassed a good deal of influence and/or power and realized that there is more money to be had and influence to be wielded in the private sector. In short, they have traded the comfy chair in the Ivy tower for a hot seat in the Ivory tower so as to end up on a Lazy-Boy in someone's Lear Jet.

That being said, I agree with Courtney wholeheartedly and would also just throw out there that perhaps those scholars who do wish to effect positive change stay out of government altogether. Like I said I'm just throwing it out there. After all, nobody in the Bush administration listened to Colin Powell about Iraq strategy AND HE WAS A GENERAL!

Food for thought.

September 21, 2009

Marcella Marucci, New York University- MSGA, (8)

I like this comment! What's this?

It seems that balance needs to be the operative word in this discussion. What good are scholars without those who study the scholars' works and go on to implement policies based on the accumulation of their knowledge, ideals, and communal goals? Scholarship alone is not enough. Along the same vein, policy making without scholarship can be catastrophic.

The reasons may be various as to why “not too many top-ranked scholars of international relations are going into government and even fewer return to contribute to academic theory.” As Professor Mazzucelli points out, “the question becomes how one chooses to work in our profession given the reward structure currently in place.” As always, bureaucracy stands in the way. Moreover, there seem to be ample opportunities for academics to bridge the gap and implement policy making into the classroom, but not so the other way around.

I do not believe that the study of international relations has sacrificed its relevance. However, I am also of the belief that one way or another the gap needs to be bridged—a hold needs to be placed on that wall the ivory tower is building and someone needs to recognize that policymakers alone are not always most effective in accomplishing long-term goals. Without a strong foundation in international relations scholarship, policies are merely suggested plans of action in writing—their success determines the rest.

May 25, 2009 | 6 comments | Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion

Atlantic Community: Saving Political Science from Itself