Assessing the United States Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowship

Committee to Review the United States Institute of Peace Senior Fellows Program

Development, Security, and Cooperation

Policy and Global Affairs

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Assessing the United States Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowship Committee to Review the United States Institute of Peace Senior Fellows Program Development, Security, and Cooperation Policy and Global Affairs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This project was supported by the United States Institute of Peace. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13:978-0-309-13014-1 International Standard Book Number 10:0-309-13014-X Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334- 3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Suggested citation: National Research Council. 2008. Assessing the United States Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowship. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Committee to Review the United States Institute of Peace Senior Fellows Program Major General William F. Burns (USA, retired), Chair, Carlisle, PA. Burt S. Barnow, Associate Director for Research and Principal Research Scientist, Institute for Policy Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Joyce Davis, Senior Vice President, WITF, Inc., Harrisburg, PA. P. Terrence Hopmann, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Conflict Management Program, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC; Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Brown University, Providence, RI. Kathryn E. Newcomer, Professor and Associate Director, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Johanna Mendelson Forman, Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC. Karin von Hippel, Co-Director, Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, and Senior Fellow, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC. Christine Wing, Senior Fellow and Project Coordinator, Strengthening Multilateral Approaches to Nuclear and Biological Weapons, Center on International Cooperation, New York University, New York, NY. I. William Zartman, Jacob Blaustein Professor of International Organizations and Conflict Resolution, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC. Staff Jo Husbands, Ph.D., Senior Project Director John Sislin, Ph.D., Study Director v

OCR for page R1
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Beginning in 1987, the United States Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowship Program has brought just over 250 academics, practitioners, diplomats, and other individuals to Washington, DC, for ten-month residencies. The accomplishments of this group of experts over the past two decades have contributed directly to a better understanding and further analysis of the contributions of negotiations, conflict resolution measures, and specific policies such as arms control and humanitarian assistance to establishing and maintaining peace in volatile regions of the world. The authors of this report are pleased to contribute further to this effort through an evaluation of the program. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Harley Balzer, Georgetown University; Sheila Buckley, Independent Consultant; Hrach Gregorian, Institute of World Affairs; Virginia Haufler, University of Maryland; Bruce Jentleson, Duke University; Robert Litwak, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; and George Lopez, University of Notre Dame. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lawrence Brown, University of Pennsylvania. Appointed by the National Academies, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. The committee wants to thank the members of the National Research Council staff who provided extensive input during the project. John Sislin, the study director, collected data, including fielding the surveys, and provided the analyses that went into this report. Jim Voytuk provided survey software. Jo Husbands participated in the design vi

OCR for page R1
of the project and provided comments throughout the process. The committee is also grateful to staff at the United States Institute of Peace who provided data on Fellows and applicants alike. Finally, the committee is especially grateful to those former Fellows who participated in the study by completing the Fellows’ survey, as well as those individuals who filled out the peace and security experts’ survey. Although filling out surveys is tedious and often unrewarding, the committee hopes that the completion of this report will be valuable to the United States Institute of Peace in its continuing mission to increase knowledge on peace and security topics, as well as to others involved in senior fellowship programs such as this one. Major General William F. Burns (USA, ret.), Chair vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents Preface and Acknowledgments v Summary 1 1 Overview 7 2 Characteristics of Applicants, Fellows, and Research Topics 19 3 Views of Former Fellows 35 4 Perceptions of the Peace and Security Community 61 5 Recommendations for the Next Step 71 Bibliography 77 Appendixes A. Committee Members Biographical Information 78 B. Survey of Former Fellows 82 C. Survey of Peace and Security Experts 87 D. Top Foreign Policy Problems Identified by Chicago Council on Foreign Relations Interviews with Foreign Policy Leaders, 1986–2002 93 ix

OCR for page R1
List of Tables and Figures TABLES TABLE 1-1 Summary of research questions, sources of information, and data collection techniques,12 TABLE 1-2 Data from USIP,13 TABLE 1-3 Number of Fellowships and number contacted by year of Fellowship,15 TABLE 2-1 Type of employment of Fellows, 1987–2007, and applicants, 1997–2007, 24 TABLE 2-2 Types of research foci, 25 TABLE 2-3 Applicant research focus, 1997–2007, 26 TABLE 2-4 Applicant research focus by topic, 27 TABLE 2-5 Research topics of Fellows, 1987–2007, 28 TABLE 2-6 Research topics of Fellows by topic area, 29 TABLE 2-7 Geographic areas of focus, 29 TABLE 2-8 Geographic focus of applicants’ proposed research by year, 30 TABLE 2-9 Geographic focus of applicants’ proposed research by percentage, 31 TABLE 2-10 Geographic focus of Fellows’ research by year, 32 TABLE 2-11 Geographic focus of Fellows’ research by percentage, 33 TABLE 3-1 Distribution of respondents by year of Fellowship, 35 TABLE 3-2 Percentage of respondents reporting professional or career development activities by year of Fellowship, 37 TABLE 3-3 Percentage of Fellows engaging in various measures of productivity by year of Fellowship, 39 TABLE 3-4 Percentage of Fellows engaging in various activities by year of Fellowship, 40 TABLE 3-5 Respondents’ perception of the overall quality of the Fellowship Program by period of Fellowship, 41 x

OCR for page R1
TABLE 3-6 Degree, by year of Fellowship, to which Fellows’ expectations regarding mentoring or advising were met, 42 TABLE 3-7 Percentage of respondents, by period of Fellowship, who agreed that the Fellowship was useful in increasing network of colleagues, 44 TABLE 3-8 Major themes and examples of respondents’ views of best and worst features of the Fellowship, 47 TABLE 3-9 Fellows’ post-Fellowship activities by year of Fellowship, 51 TABLE 3-10 Percentage of respondents, by period of Fellowship, who agreed with various statements about the Fellowship, 53 TABLE 3-11 Whether respondents would recommend the Fellowship to others, 57 TABLE 3-12 Whether respondents have recommended the Fellowship to others, 57 TABLE 4-1 Familiarity with various senior peace and security fellowships, 63 TABLE 4-2 Mean familiarity with various senior peace and security fellowships, 64 TABLE 4-3 Prestige of various senior peace and security fellowships, 65 TABLE 4-4 Weighted prestige of various senior peace and security fellowships, 66 TABLE 4-5 Percentage of respondents who knew any USIP Jennings Randolph Senior Fellows, 66 TABLE 4-6 Respondents’ views on importance of the Fellowships, 67 TABLE 4-7 Respondents’ views on Fellows’ output, 67 TABLE 4-8 Respondents’ views on return on investment of the program, 68 TABLE 4-9 Whether respondent has ever recommended to anyone that s/he should apply for the Fellowship, 68 TABLE 4-10 Relationship between familiarity and recommendation by respondent, 69 TABLE 5-1 Top 5 foreign policy problems identified in Chicago Council on Foreign Relations interviews with foreign policy leaders, 1986–2002 , 73 xi

OCR for page R1
FIGURES FIGURE 2-1 Number of Senior Fellowships awarded, 1987–2007, 19 FIGURE 2-2 Number of applicants, 1997–2007, 20 FIGURE 2-3 Ratio of number of Fellowships to applicants, 1997–2007, 21 FIGURE 2-4 Percentage of female Fellows, 1987–2007, and applicants, 1997–2007, 22 FIGURE 2-5. Percentage of Fellows, 1987–2007, and applicants, 1997–2007, who were U.S. citizens, 23 FIGURE 3-1 Percentage of respondents reporting professional or career development activities, 36 FIGURE 3-2 Percentage of respondents reporting engagement in activities by type, 38 FIGURE 3-3 Respondents’ perception of the overall quality of the Fellowship program, 40 FIGURE 3-4 Degree to which Fellowship met Fellows’ expectations by program aspect, 42 FIGURE 3-5 Degree of usefulness of Fellowship for Fellow by aspect, 43 FIGURE 3-6 Extent of opportunity to interact with various networks, 44 FIGURE 3-7 Percentage of respondents who agreed that ten months is the right duration for the Fellowship, 45 FIGURE 3-8 Post-Fellowship activities, 50 FIGURE 3-9 Percentage of respondents who agreed with various statements about the Fellowship, 52 FIGURE 3-10 Percentage of respondents’ saying the Fellowship was helpful in various ways, 54 FIGURE 3-11 Changes to respondents’ networks by type of actor, 55 FIGURE 3-12 Respondents’ degree of satisfaction with various characteristics of the Fellowship, 56 BOX 4-1 Descriptions of Senior Fellowships Programs, 62 xii