• In terms of geographical focus, many Fellows’ work fit into the “global” category. Focus on Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union seemed to peak from 1994 to 2000. The Middle East and North Africa foci were popular from 1997 to 2001, and from 2003 to 2007 (in particular most of the 2007 Fellows were working on this region). Research on sub-Saharan Africa ranked fourth among the areas of geographic focus for Fellows’ research

Additional data and further information about these trends over time are presented in Chapter 2.

Regarding the third task, and based on the survey of Fellows:

  • A challenge for monitoring and evaluation is that a number of Fellows could not be located.

  • Fellows gave the program high marks.

  • Fellows are very active in conducting research and disseminating information to multiple stakeholders. USIP receives substantial benefit from the Fellows’ residencies in Washington, DC.

  • Fellows have many opportunities to network with others and are generally satisfied with the amount of opportunities.

  • Fellows tend to remain in contact with USIP and participate in USIP activities after the Fellowship ends.

  • Most Fellows reported ten months to be an appropriate duration for the Fellowship, although some thought that the Fellowship should be longer.

  • Finally, Fellows are not certain how well known the Fellowship is, though they think the Fellowship is prestigious.

Finally, regarding the third task and to a lesser extent, the second, the preliminary survey of experts found:

  • A wide majority of respondents (79 percent) had some familiarity with the USIP Fellowship Program. More than two-thirds of respondents knew one or more fellows.

  • External commentators gave the Fellowship relatively high marks for prestige. Forty-three percent of respondents rated the program at least a 4 on a scale of 1 to 5.

  • Respondents reported that the Fellowship was seen to be more important by the experts as a networking opportunity and a means to increase knowledge. There was less agreement on its importance in developing new tools to respond to conflict.

  • The Fellows’ role was seen by respondents as somewhat more important in supporting policymakers by providing information than in performing cutting edge research.

  • Finally, while respondents were familiar with the program and many knew a Fellow, a majority had not recommended to anyone that s/he apply for the Fellowship.

Since this is the first, formal evaluation of the Fellowship Program, the committee placed significant emphasis on providing advice to USIP—in the form of recommendations—for next steps to remove the limitations on information about some aspects of the Fellowship and to advance monitoring and evaluation by the USIP. The recommendations are contained in the final chapter of the report, along with more



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