Read on Twitter
Dan Maliniak, Sue Peterson, @MikeTierneyIR, and I hope you’ll consider adding our new edited volume, Bridging the Theory-Practice Divide in International Relations, to your summer reading list. Link: http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/bridging-theory-practice-divide-international-relations A quick thread follows...
Along with a rock star set of contributors, we study the theory-practice divide in 8 substantive issue areas in IR and offer a new explanation for the theory-practice divide that draws on the epistemic communities literature.
Some past work argues that professional incentives within the academy drive the theory-practice divide. But professional incentives are largely fixed, while engagement with policy among IR scholars varies considerably across substantive issue areas and over time. Why?
We argue that this is the result of variation in the level of uncertainty surrounding policy problems and the porousness of the policy process across substantive issue areas and over time.
When policy problems exhibit less uncertainty, policy decisions are taken at high levels, and/or other disciplines already have mindshare with practitioners, IR scholars will find fewer opportunities to engage and have less influence (nuclear strategy, trade/monetary policy).
When policy problems are more emergent, addressed repeatedly by lower-level actors, or where other disciplines have not already established working relationships with practitioners, we anticipate a greater role for IR scholars (human rights, civil conflict).
This argument probably applies just as well within a given issue area as it does across it, but much of the volume is focused squarely on cross issue area comparisons.
Our contributors also looked for evidence that the use of increasingly sophisticated methodological tools by IR scholars is to blame for the divide and found little evidence suggesting such a dynamic. Time constraints and mode of communication seemed to be bigger issues.
Three big lessons for me on this front. First, @BtGProjectDC, @monkeycageblog, @ConversationUS and others are the right strategy. They build skills, contacts, and platforms needed to make our work accessible regardless of sophistication of underlying theory, design, or method.
. @CarnegieCorp has played the key role in funding these and similar efforts. @sjdelrosso and @aastanley have been hugely important in sustaining this funding over many years. Their support made this edited volume possible and continues to help us do our work at @trip_irsurvey.
Second, we have a primary responsibility as scholars to provide our policy students the tools they need to consume modern social science. We don't need practitioners to be able to do our work, but we need them to recognize good work when they see it.
Third, the substantive content (as opposed to methodological training) we deliver is likely to have lasting effects on how students at policy schools think about the world once they take jobs in the policy world.
Our contributors study the divide over the course of 18 (!) chapters. We invited leading scholars to write a chapter characterizing the divide in their substantive area of expertise and leading policy practitioners in the same area to offer a response.
. @AmandaMurdie studies the role of IR scholars and scholarship in human rights policy and @SarahMendelson, former US Ambassador to ECOSOC, offers a response.
. @greenprofgreen & @thomasnhale explore how the study of global environmental issues has historically been undervalued and understudied in IR. Marc Levy responds that IR scholars should be less restrained in their work and more involved in creating shared visions of the future.
. @C_J_Schneider investigates the theory-practice divide in aid and development with a case study of @AidData. She outlines opportunities for bridging the divide. Former Chief Economist at @USAID, Steven Radelet responds.
Jon Pevehouse and Ed Mansfield write on trade policy and politics. Robert Zoellick, former President of the @WorldBank responds, drawing on decades of experience making and executing policy across a range of organizations.
David Steinberg and @tompepinsky provide evidence on the limited role of policy-focused research in the IR subfield of international money and finance. @ddemekas, who worked in positions throughout the IMF, responds and argues for an increased role for IR scholars.
. @sekreps and @jessicalpweeks study the divide in interstate war while Peter Feaver, drawing on his experience at the National Security Council and in other policy jobs, offers a response.
. @mgfindley and @josephkyoung suggest that scholarship on intrastate conflict has modest direct and even smaller indirect effects on policy. @sxedwards of @amnesty responds.
. @PaulCAvey & @mcdesch explore why political scientists studying nuclear strategy became less policy-relevant after the Cold War. @johnrharvey questions the premise and provides a practitioner’s perspective with a focus on @StanfordCISAC initiatives.
The contributors rely mostly on data from @trip_irsurvey, but also use their own original data and data from the @mcdesch and @PaulCAvey survey of national security policy makers.
We are indebted to many folks. A short and incomplete list includes @CarnegieCorp, @sjdelrosso, @aastanley, and all the past and present TRIP project managers ( @darinself, @kadenps, @ljhundley, @jess_lois, @emilybjack, @EricParajon, Elizabeth Martin, and Hannah Petrie).
We also could not have done this without the help of an army of undergraduate research assistants at @global_wm. I'm sure @mjtier will have more to say about their efforts. Thanks to @EricParajon and TRIP RAs @marytrimble21, Morgan Doll, & Maggie Manson for help on this thread.
So, that wasn't very quick after all. For sticking with me through it, you can use "TS20" to get 30% off and free shipping through @Georgetown_UP: http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/bridging-theory-practice-divide-international-relations
