How not to bridge the gap in international relations.
Over the past decade or more, an increasing number of US initiatives and institutions has taken on the challenge of promoting policy-relevant research and bridging the academia–policy divide. Much of the emphasis of such programmes has been on how scholars can better engage the policy community and...
| Published in: | International Affairs Vol. 98; no. 5; pp. 1763 - 1782 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Sep2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=159422867&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 159422867 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00205850 INA jtl: International Affairs issn: 00205850 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2022 vid: 98 iid: 5 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 159422867 10.1093/ia/iiac102 ppf: 1763 ppct: 19 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T db: hlh ui: 159422867 – @attributes: type: P db: hlh ui: 159422867 tig: atl: How not to bridge the gap in international relations. aug: au: Barma, Naazneen H. Goldgeier, James su: International relations Integrity Government policy Peacebuilding sug: subj: International relations Integrity Government policy Foreign affairs International Affairs Peacebuilding ab: Over the past decade or more, an increasing number of US initiatives and institutions has taken on the challenge of promoting policy-relevant research and bridging the academia–policy divide. Much of the emphasis of such programmes has been on how scholars can better engage the policy community and the broader public. Less attention has been paid to the pitfalls to avoid when seeking to bridge the gap. In this article, we argue that the more that scholars are engaged in producing and disseminating policy-relevant research, the more essential it is to consider how they can build a set of bridging standards to accompany their ideas. We identify four key dimensions of how scholars engage in policy and public debates and discuss how paying careful attention to these four 'I's—Influence, Interlocutors, Integrity and Inclusion—can mitigate the most egregious instances of falling prey to a cult of relevance in bridging the gap. We then explore these factors in a discussion of two case-studies that highlight challenges that arise for those scholars who seek to contribute to policy and public debates: the applications of theories to US foreign policy surrounding the so-called democratic peace; and the efforts of international relations scholars to contribute to peace-building in post-conflict states. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|