LIDERES
Colaboración de Don Armando Elberg
Inside the Ivory Tower
By Susan Peterson, Michael J. Tierney, Daniel Maliniak
Professors of international relations shape future policy debates and mold the next generation of leaders. So who are these dons of diplomacy, and what do they believe?
Fuente: {Internet}Foreign Policy, November/December 2005
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood," said British economist John Maynard Keynes. "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air," he continued, "are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back."
"Academic scribblers" have enormous potential to shape the worldviews of tomorrow’s leaders. In the case of American scholars of international relations, they are almost certainly framing foreign-policy debates and training the future policymakers of the world’s only superpower. If you doubt the connection, just consider the current Bush administration. The political philosopher Leo Strauss and other political scientists at the University of Chicago are often credited with shaping the thinking of the "neoconservatives" who serve in the top rungs of the administration. Yet academics inhabit a rarefied world about which many people, including some policymakers, know little. In the most comprehensive survey of its kind, we unlock the door to the academy, examining what these scholars write and think about international politics, and what they are teaching tomorrow’s leaders.
For our survey, we attempted to contact all political scientists who research or teach international relations at 1,157 four-year colleges and universities in the United States. These schools included all national research universities, masters-granting institutions, and liberal arts colleges identified by U.S. News and World Report, as well as seven military colleges. In the end, 1,084 scholars, or roughly 47 percent of all American scholars of international relations, participated. These respondents included many of the most renowned and influential scholars in the field.
The picture of the discipline that emerges is a complex one. Some stereotypes are strengthened. Sixty-nine percent of international relations professors, for example, describe themselves as liberal; a scant 13 percent see themselves as conservative. They overwhelmingly opposed the U.S. war in Iraq, almost unanimously believe that the United States is less respected in the world because of it, and they think that this loss of respect poses a significant problem for U.S. foreign policy. Seventy-seven percent of them support free trade, and only 10 percent believe the United States should beef up its military budget.
Other stereotypes, however, are stripped away. International relations scholars are not locked in their ivory towers. In fact, many of them moonlight in important parts of the foreign-policy making apparatus, serving as consultants to the U.S. government (25 percent), nongovernmental organizations (15 percent), think tanks (14 percent), the private sector (11 percent), and international organizations (9 percent). And professors are more engaged in practical questions than popular myth would have it: Forty-five percent conduct research designed, at least in part, to have specific policy applications.
Like much of the political and business world, the field of international relations remains dominated by men: No women rank among the top 25 scholars with the greatest impact on the discipline over the past 20 years. And, despite their purportedly global outlook, American scholars are a relatively insular group who primarily assign American authors to their students. This insularity might be explained by the fact that a handful of schools churn out a disproportionate number of scholars. International relations faculty are trained at a wide range of institutions, but 25 percent received their doctorates from one of six schools-Columbia; Harvard; the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the University of Michigan; or Stanford.
The international relations field today is surprisingly young: Half of the professors who teach at U.S. colleges received their Ph.D.s in the past 12 years. Even more surprising is how young scholars change the focus of their teaching over time. Early on, when young faculty are fresh out of graduate school, they focus their teaching on theoretical questions and scholarly debates. But, as their careers progress, professors are inclined to teach their students more about real-world policy debates and less about scholarly arguments. The image of the ancient, tenured professor reading from decades-old notes needs to be revised.
When professors do reach for the theoretical toolbox, they frequently pull out the classics, notably realism, with its focus on states and power, and liberalism, with its emphasis on economic interdependence and international institutions. Beyond these two schools of thought, however, some interesting results appear. Constructivism, which highlights the power of ideology and beliefs in international politics, is the hot new thing in academic research; more than 80 percent of scholars report that it is on the rise. Nevertheless, it gets little airtime in introductory classes. Marxism, on the other hand, may be on history’s ash heap, but it still finds its way onto the reading list. Indeed, nearly 14 percent of introductory course material is still devoted to Marxist ideas.
Students today may look for broad exposure to regional issues, but the professors teaching them often have little regional expertise. Forty-four percent of professors surveyed spend a significant amount of time discussing the Middle East in their introductory classes, but only 7 percent have an expertise in the region. Professors are convinced that East Asia will be the most strategically important region 20 years from now, but only 9 percent say they have a research expertise in that part of the world. Instead, American professors tend to be specialists in international security, international political economy, and U.S. foreign policy. Students seeking insight into the world’s current and future hotspots will have to go beyond International Relations 101.
Susan Peterson is dean for educational policy and professor of government at the college of William and Mary.
Michael J. Tierney is assistant professor of government at the College of William and Mary.
Daniel Maliniak is an undergraduate at the College of William and Mary.
Fuente: {Internet} http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
By Susan Peterson, Michael J. Tierney, Daniel Maliniak
Professors of international relations shape future policy debates and mold the next generation of leaders. So who are these dons of diplomacy, and what do they believe?
Fuente: {Internet}Foreign Policy, November/December 2005
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood," said British economist John Maynard Keynes. "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air," he continued, "are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back."
"Academic scribblers" have enormous potential to shape the worldviews of tomorrow’s leaders. In the case of American scholars of international relations, they are almost certainly framing foreign-policy debates and training the future policymakers of the world’s only superpower. If you doubt the connection, just consider the current Bush administration. The political philosopher Leo Strauss and other political scientists at the University of Chicago are often credited with shaping the thinking of the "neoconservatives" who serve in the top rungs of the administration. Yet academics inhabit a rarefied world about which many people, including some policymakers, know little. In the most comprehensive survey of its kind, we unlock the door to the academy, examining what these scholars write and think about international politics, and what they are teaching tomorrow’s leaders.
For our survey, we attempted to contact all political scientists who research or teach international relations at 1,157 four-year colleges and universities in the United States. These schools included all national research universities, masters-granting institutions, and liberal arts colleges identified by U.S. News and World Report, as well as seven military colleges. In the end, 1,084 scholars, or roughly 47 percent of all American scholars of international relations, participated. These respondents included many of the most renowned and influential scholars in the field.
The picture of the discipline that emerges is a complex one. Some stereotypes are strengthened. Sixty-nine percent of international relations professors, for example, describe themselves as liberal; a scant 13 percent see themselves as conservative. They overwhelmingly opposed the U.S. war in Iraq, almost unanimously believe that the United States is less respected in the world because of it, and they think that this loss of respect poses a significant problem for U.S. foreign policy. Seventy-seven percent of them support free trade, and only 10 percent believe the United States should beef up its military budget.
Other stereotypes, however, are stripped away. International relations scholars are not locked in their ivory towers. In fact, many of them moonlight in important parts of the foreign-policy making apparatus, serving as consultants to the U.S. government (25 percent), nongovernmental organizations (15 percent), think tanks (14 percent), the private sector (11 percent), and international organizations (9 percent). And professors are more engaged in practical questions than popular myth would have it: Forty-five percent conduct research designed, at least in part, to have specific policy applications.
Like much of the political and business world, the field of international relations remains dominated by men: No women rank among the top 25 scholars with the greatest impact on the discipline over the past 20 years. And, despite their purportedly global outlook, American scholars are a relatively insular group who primarily assign American authors to their students. This insularity might be explained by the fact that a handful of schools churn out a disproportionate number of scholars. International relations faculty are trained at a wide range of institutions, but 25 percent received their doctorates from one of six schools-Columbia; Harvard; the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the University of Michigan; or Stanford.
The international relations field today is surprisingly young: Half of the professors who teach at U.S. colleges received their Ph.D.s in the past 12 years. Even more surprising is how young scholars change the focus of their teaching over time. Early on, when young faculty are fresh out of graduate school, they focus their teaching on theoretical questions and scholarly debates. But, as their careers progress, professors are inclined to teach their students more about real-world policy debates and less about scholarly arguments. The image of the ancient, tenured professor reading from decades-old notes needs to be revised.
When professors do reach for the theoretical toolbox, they frequently pull out the classics, notably realism, with its focus on states and power, and liberalism, with its emphasis on economic interdependence and international institutions. Beyond these two schools of thought, however, some interesting results appear. Constructivism, which highlights the power of ideology and beliefs in international politics, is the hot new thing in academic research; more than 80 percent of scholars report that it is on the rise. Nevertheless, it gets little airtime in introductory classes. Marxism, on the other hand, may be on history’s ash heap, but it still finds its way onto the reading list. Indeed, nearly 14 percent of introductory course material is still devoted to Marxist ideas.
Students today may look for broad exposure to regional issues, but the professors teaching them often have little regional expertise. Forty-four percent of professors surveyed spend a significant amount of time discussing the Middle East in their introductory classes, but only 7 percent have an expertise in the region. Professors are convinced that East Asia will be the most strategically important region 20 years from now, but only 9 percent say they have a research expertise in that part of the world. Instead, American professors tend to be specialists in international security, international political economy, and U.S. foreign policy. Students seeking insight into the world’s current and future hotspots will have to go beyond International Relations 101.
Susan Peterson is dean for educational policy and professor of government at the college of William and Mary.
Michael J. Tierney is assistant professor of government at the College of William and Mary.
Daniel Maliniak is an undergraduate at the College of William and Mary.
Fuente: {Internet} http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
posted by EDITOR at 11:46 a. m.
0 Comments:
Publicar un comentario
<< Home