Chapter 3
Views of Former Fellows

One of the key steps in the assessment of the Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowship was to survey former Fellows. The survey was sent to 184 out of 246 former Fellows.1 One hundred sixteen Fellows responded to the survey, a response rate of about 63 percent (the distribution of survey responses is shown in Table 3-1).

Table 3-1 Distribution of respondents by year of Fellowship

Fellowship Year

Fellows

Contacted

Responded

1987

8

3

1

1988

10

6

3

1989

11

7

4

1990

12

5

4

1991

9

4

2

1992

17

12

4

1993

12

7

3

1994

15

9

4

1995

15

12

8

1996

14

11

10

1997

16

13

9

1998

10

9

4

1999

15

9

6

2000

11

8

4

2001

13

12

6

2002

10

9

10

2003

13

13

5

2004

12

11

7

2005

11

11

7

2006

11

11

4

2007

8

8

8

Total

253

190

113

SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff.

NOTES: The number contacted includes six fellows who had each received two fellowships. The total number under the “responded” column excludes three Fellows who did not answer this question. One Fellow appears to have entered the wrong year in 2002.

Two possible sources of error in surveys are unit non-response (that is, some individuals who were sent the questionnaire do not respond, and their responses would

1

The remaining Fellows could not be reached; some were deceased and some could not be located.



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 35
Chapter 3 Views of Former Fellows One of the key steps in the assessment of the Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowship was to survey former Fellows. The survey was sent to 184 out of 246 former Fellows.1 One hundred sixteen Fellows responded to the survey, a response rate of about 63 percent (the distribution of survey responses is shown in Table 3-1). Table 3-1 Distribution of respondents by year of Fellowship Fellowship Year Fellows Contacted Responded 1987 8 3 1 1988 10 6 3 1989 11 7 4 1990 12 5 4 1991 9 4 2 1992 17 12 4 1993 12 7 3 1994 15 9 4 1995 15 12 8 1996 14 11 10 1997 16 13 9 1998 10 9 4 1999 15 9 6 2000 11 8 4 2001 13 12 6 2002 10 9 10 2003 13 13 5 2004 12 11 7 2005 11 11 7 2006 11 11 4 2007 8 8 8 Total 253 190 113 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTES: The number contacted includes six fellows who had each received two fellowships. The total number under the “responded” column excludes three Fellows who did not answer this question. One Fellow appears to have entered the wrong year in 2002. Two possible sources of error in surveys are unit non-response (that is, some individuals who were sent the questionnaire do not respond, and their responses would 1 The remaining Fellows could not be reached; some were deceased and some could not be located. 35

OCR for page 35
have differed significantly from the responses of those who did respond) and item non- response (respondents do not answer all the questions). The former is a concern in the committee’s efforts to conduct a census of former Fellows. USIP did not have contact information for all Fellows. It is likely that Fellows who have “dropped off the radar” also have had less interaction with USIP. It may be that they also have different views about the Fellowship Program. Likewise, as noted previously, a number of Fellows who were contacted did not respond. These Fellows might also have different views. This potential nonresponse error should be considered in the following discussion of findings from the respondents. In all cases, findings are relevant only to the respondents and should not be extrapolated to USIP Fellows as a whole. Concerning item nonresponse, most respondents answered almost all questions; therefore, it does not appear that this is a source of error in the findings presented below. Throughout the survey, item non- response was between 1 and 9 percent; in other words, between 105 and 115 respondents answered individual questions. For many questions, only one respondent failed to answer the question. ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING THE FELLOWSHIP First, the committee asked what sort of professional activities Fellows had engaged in during their Fellowship. The question was worded: “During your Fellowship, did you engage in any of the following professional or career development activities (check all that apply)?” As Figure 3-1 illustrates, the most frequent response was attending workshops, lectures, or seminars in the Fellow’s research area. As the data show, Fellows were very engaged during their residency, with many of them selecting all four activities. Attended workshops, lectures, seminars in your research area Gave guest lectures Advised or mentored others Organized seminars or workshops 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 3-1 Percentage of respondents reporting professional or career development activities. SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: n = 115. 36

OCR for page 35
In addition, as shown in Table 3-2 respondents were given the opportunity to mention other activities. Seventeen respondents identified other activities, although many of those would fall into the category of workshops and meetings. A few, however, mentioned giving media interviews, one mentioned advocacy on Capitol Hill, and one mentioned training diplomats. We then compared recent former Fellows to the earlier period of the program to see if there were any differences. One hundred thirteen respondents gave the year of their Fellowship. They were aggregated into two groups: 1987 to 2001 and 2002 to 2007. It was hypothesized that there might be some difference in the Fellows’ experiences or views prior to and after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. This might be the result of a changed climate in Washington, DC; international scholars studying in the United States; focus on terrorism; a continued shift to a focus on non-state actors, etc. Table 3-2 Percentage of respondents reporting professional or career development activities by year of Fellowship. 1987- 2002- Activity 2001 2007 Gave guest lectures 93% 95% Advised or mentored others 61% 63% Organized seminars or workshops 50% 46% Attended workshops, lectures, seminars in your research area 97% 98% Number of Fellows 72 41 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. 37

OCR for page 35
Fellows in both groups were quite similiarly involved in activities. Second, the committee asked about the activities in which the Fellows engaged. The question was worded: “During your Fellowship, which of the following activities did you engage in (check all that apply)?” More than half of respondents gave guest lectures, gave media interviews, conducted research aside from their proposed research project, appeared on TV or radio talk shows, and wrote book manuscripts. Gave guest lecture(s) Gave media interviews Conducted research aside from proposed research project Appeared on TV or radio talk shows Wrote book manuscript(s) Wrote op-ed(s) for newspapers Wrote book chapter manuscript(s) Informally advised US government agencies Wrote special report(s) Wrote article(s) for refereed journals Wrote article(s) for other journals or magazines Participated in congressional briefing(s) Gave congressional testimony 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 3-2 Percentage of respondents reporting engagement in activities, by type. SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: n = 115. One interesting finding was that a majority of Fellows also conducted research outside of their main area of research during their residency at USIP. 38

OCR for page 35
The committee then considered whether Fellows in more recent years engaged in different types of productive output than their counterparts in earlier years. Table 3-3 looks at various research and written products comparing the Fellows from the two time periods. Table 3-3 Percentage of Fellows engaging in various measures of productivity by year of Fellowship. 1987- 2002- Activity 2001 2007 Conducted research aside from proposed research project 54% 59% Wrote article(s) for refereed journals 43% 39% Wrote article(s) for other journals or magazines 39% 41% Wrote special report(s) 39% 44% Wrote book manuscript(s) 49% 56% Wrote book chapter manuscript(s) 44% 44% Number of Fellows 72 41 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. As Table 3-3 shows, Fellows in more recent years may be producing more products, as a higher precentage of these Fellows were conducting additional research, writing articles for non-referreed journals, writing special reports, and preparing book manuscripts. However, the survey does not allow for a definitive answer, since it measures neither quantity within a category (number of articles produced by a Fellow) nor quality. Additionally, there are direct and indirect impacts of the Fellows’ work. Future research would be needed to address these impacts. Moreover, the survey does not shed light on whether this potentially greater output of Fellows is positive or negative for the Fellow or USIP. A future direction for assessment could be to undertake an analysis of resumes/curricula vitae to identify what Fellows produce (e.g., articles, books, presentations, etc.) during their Fellowship and related to the Fellowship, as compared with other output before and after their stay at USIP. Table 3-4 focuses specifically on the outreach activities of the more recent Fellows compared with the earlier Fellows. As Table 3-4 shows, more recent Fellows have participated more in media outreach, but less than earlier Fellows in interacting with Congress. (An important note on both of these activities is that they are likely to be initiated by the media and Congressional staff and those requests probably go through USIP staff to Fellows. It is possible that changes in staff handling such requests has influenced how often Fellows engage in these activities.) 39

OCR for page 35
Table 3-4 Percentage of Fellows engaging in various activities by year of Fellowship 1987- 2002- Activity 2001 2007 Wrote op-ed(s) for newspapers 43% 49% Gave guest lecture(s) 89% 88% Gave media interviews 64% 76% Appeared on TV or radio talk shows 47% 59% Participated in Congressional briefing(s) 22% 17% Gave Congressional testimony 11% 7% Informally advised U.S. government agencies 43% 44% Number of Fellows 72 41 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. It may be instructive in future assessments to consider whether Fellows’ opportunities to interact with Congress are declining and what this might mean for USIP’s ability to bring important research to the attention of Congress, or whether Fellows in recent years are less interested in interacting with Congress. VIEWS ABOUT THE FELLOWSHIP Overwhelmingly, the respondents had a high regard for the program, as noted in Figure 3-3. Two-thirds of respondents selected “excellent.” 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Poor (1) 2 3 4 Excellent (5) Figure 3-3 Respondents’ perception of the overall quality of the Fellowship program SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: n = 114. The same is true for Fellows in earlier years versus those in more recent years, shown in Table 3-5. 40

OCR for page 35
Table 3-5 Respondents’ perception of the overall quality of the Fellowship program by period of Fellowship Fellow Poor (1) 2 3 4 Excellent (5) Total 1987-2001 0% 0% 1% 27% 71% 70 2002-2007 0% 0% 0% 39% 61% 41 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. Although earlier Fellows were more likely than later Fellows to assess the program as excellent, the percentage difference in Table 3-5 is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The survey next asked what was the most important product that the Fellows had produced during their Fellowship. Overwhelmingly, the response was a written product, most frequently a book or book manuscript, book chapter(s), article(s), or special reports. Very few responses deviated from this trend, though a few did and are noteworthy. Two respondents noted that they had been able to convince policymakers to take action regarding conflicts that were occuring in Europe. Two respondents mentioned op-eds or media products. One respondent mentioned a blog (and commented that “it doesn’t fit within the USIP framework of products”). One respondent complimented the research assistance at USIP in helping him prepare a lecture series. Several resondents mentioned specific research projects that were started at USIP during the Fellowship. A follow-up question in further research to start to get at quality and content issues could be to ask the Fellows, in their view, what was it about their work that made it so important. The next question focused on whether the Fellowship met the expectations of the Fellow across a number of dimensions. As Figure 3-4 shows, there was a high degree of concurrence between what USIP provided and what Fellows expected, in particular, in such areas as the Fellows’ ability to conduct their own research, access to research facilities and resources, ability to attend conferences, meetings, etc., and administrative support from USIP. Areas where there might be room for improvement lie in mentoring or advising and the Fellows’ ability to collaborate with others at USIP. 41

OCR for page 35
ability to conduct your own research ability to attend conferences, meetings, etc. administrative support from USIP access to research facilitites and resources ability to publish your research ability to collaborate with others outside USIP ability to collaborate with others at USIP mentoring or advising 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all (1) 2 3 4 Completely (5) Figure 3-4 Degree to which Fellowship met Fellows’ expectations by program aspect. SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: 115 respondents answered at least part of this question, but some respondents left some choices blank, so for an individual choice (e.g., “ability to publish your research”) the sample size ranged between 106 and 115. Since mentoring was the area where Fellows’ expectations were least met, the committee explored whether this might have been more of an issue more with earlier Fellows than with more recent ones. The results as noted in Table 3-6 are unclear. Table 3-6 Degree, by year of Fellowship, to which Fellows’ expectations regarding mentoring or advising were met Not at all Completely Hard to Fellow (1) 2 3 4 (5) judge Total 1987-2001 0% 8% 20% 30% 26% 17% 66 2002-2007 5% 8% 13% 37% 21% 16% 38 Source: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. 42

OCR for page 35
Since the Jennings Randolph Fellowships are senior fellowships, it is not clear how much mentoring USIP should provide or what the nature of such mentoring should be. It is also not clear from the survey whether Fellows expected a lot or a little mentoring in absolute terms. Next, the survey asked how useful the Fellowship was in enhancing the career of Fellows. As to be expected, the largest benefit was in increasing the Fellows’ knowledge in the area of their Fellowship research project (see Figure 3-5). Almost 100 percent found the Fellowship quite useful (a score of 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5) in this regard. Very positive results were also noted in terms of increasing a Fellow’s network of colleagues. Among the four areas, the least useful one was the role of the Fellowship in improving a Fellow’s research skills. (Of course, senior Fellows presumably already have good research skills.) Increasing your knowledge of your fellowship research project Increasing your network of colleagues Increase your opportunities to publish research Improving research skills or techniques 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all useful (1) 2 3 4 Very useful (5) Figure 3-5 Degree of usefulness of Fellowship for Fellow, by aspect. SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: n = 115. We then looked specifically at networking (see Table 3-7). While a handful of recent Fellows did not find the Fellowship helpful in increasing their network of colleagues, most found the Fellowship very useful. Although the survey could not provide further insight into this result, it is possible that local Fellows and policy Fellows, as opposed to those farther from Washington, DC and academics, may have had less need of using USIP to develop their networks. 43

OCR for page 35
Table 3-7 Percentage of respondents, by period of Fellowship, who agreed that the Fellowship was useful in increasing network of colleagues Not at all useful Very useful Fellow (1) 2 3 4 (5) Total 1987-2001 0% 1% 11% 34% 53% 70 2002-2007 3% 0% 8% 23% 68% 40 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. Focusing on a Fellow’s network, the next question asked: “To what extent did your Fellowship provide you with the opportunity to interact with the peace and security community?” Considering scores of 4 and 5 (a great deal), Fellows were most likely to network with academics and practitioners. As can be seen in Figure 3-6, the least amount of interaction was with the media. Practitioners Academics Members of non-profit or non-governmental oragnizations Government officials Members of international organizations Media 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all (1) 2 3 4 A great deal (5) Figure 3-6 Extent of opportunity to interact with various networks. SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff NOTE: n = 115. The finding that Fellows seemed to have fewer interactions with the media at first seems at odds with the findings in Figure 3-2 that about 52 percent of Fellows appeared on TV or radio talk shows and 69 percent gave media interviews. Presumably, Fellows mean a different kind of interaction vis-à-vis this question. Here, too, it would be instructive to 44

OCR for page 35
correlate the results in Figure 3-6 with the position of the individual Fellow (e.g., did academic Fellows interact with practitioners) and perhaps this can be done in future research. Congress set the Fellowship’s duration at up to two years, but in practice it has been ten months. Given the large amount of work Fellows do during their tenure, one might think that they would feel this period is too short. On the other hand, however, Fellows are taking sabbaticals from other positions (such as being a professor) and may want to get back to their full-time jobs. The survey asked respondents whether they considered ten months to be an appropriate amount of time for the Fellowship. A majority of respondents said it was, as noted in Figure 3-7. Unsure 9% No 27% Yes 64% Figure 3-7 Percentage of respondents who agreed that ten months is the right duration for the Fellowship SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: n = 113. It should be noted that many Fellows are academics and a ten-month duration fits well with an academic calendar. This might explain why so many Fellows responded that ten months was about right. In the future USIP might ask during an exit interview with Fellows whether they thought they had had enough time to conduct their research. USIP might then disaggregate these data by the employment status of the Fellow. Among earlier Fellows who responded to that same question, 70 percent said yes, 23 percent said no, and the remaining respondents (7 percent) were unsure (n = 71). Among Fellows in more recent years, only 56 percent said yes, 33 percent said no, and the remaining respondents (10 percent) were unsure (n = 39).2 The survey asked those who said no to elaborate. The most frequent response among those who thought more time was needed was 12 months, though a few said less time was needed (e.g., six months), and a few said 2 Does not equal 100 percent because of rounding. 45

OCR for page 35
Have you continued to stay in touch with USIP staff or programs since your fellowship ended? Have you participated in any USIP events since your fellowship ended? Have you continued to stay in touch with any Jennings Randolph Fellows since your fellowship ended? Have you collaborated with USIP staff or fellows on projects since your fellowship ended? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No N/A Figure 3-8 Post-Fellowship activities SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: Sample sizes differ slightly. They are from top to bottom: 113, 112, 110, and 112. There is a bit of a potential bias upward here, however, in that former Fellows for whom USIP had contact information were also probably more likely to stay in touch with USIP staff or to attend USIP events. This is also an area where there might be some differences based on when Fellows held their Fellowships. Focusing on those who said “yes” as a percentage of those who said “yes” or “no,”―that is, excluding Fellows who replied “not applicable”―Table 3-9 compares Fellows’ post-fellowship activities by period of Fellowship. 50

OCR for page 35
Table 3-9 Fellows’ post-Fellowship activities by year of Fellowship Post-Fellowship activities 1987-2001 N 2002-2007 N Have you continued to stay in touch with USIP staff or programs since your Fellowship ended? 78% 69 80% 35 Have you continued to stay in touch with any Jennings Randolph Fellows since your Fellowship ended? 61% 69 63% 35 Have you participated in any USIP events since your Fellowship ended? 74% 68 55% 33 Have you collaborated with USIP staff or Fellows on projects since your Fellowship ended? 48% 67 48% 33 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. As Table 3-9 shows, the Fellows from more recent years are much less likely to have participated in any USIP events since their Fellowship ended. This might be because earlier Fellows simply had more time to participate, or the ways in which USIP tries to engage its Fellows have changed. This might also reflect changes in the size of the USIP staff and the relationship between the staff and Fellows. It should also be noted that many Fellows move away from the Washington area after their Fellowship ends. So, in that sense, these numbers are quite high, but it may also partially explain the number of Fellows participating in USIP events. The survey then asked Fellows about their views about the Fellowship Program. The questions were built around the phrase “to what extent do you agree with the following statements.” Focusing on responses of 4 or 5 (where 5 meant “completely agree”), the responding Fellows clearly felt (as shown in Figure 3-9) that the Fellowship was a very valuable experience (average = 4.8) and that the Fellowship was prestigious (average = 4.4). (The committee examines views of other peace and security experts on the issue of prestige in the next chapter.) 51

OCR for page 35
I found my fellowship experience to be very valuable The fellowship is very prestigious My fellowship experience led to a professional expertise that I would not have developed otherwise I established ongoing collegial relationships with USIP staff or fellows as a result of my fellowship My peers are very knowledgeable about the fellowship 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all (1) 2 3 4 Completely (5) Figure 3-9 Percentage of respondents who agreed with various statements about the Fellowship SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: Sample sizes differ slightly. They are, from top to bottom: 115, 113, 114, 114, and 113. The areas where there was the lowest agreement concerned the establishment of ongoing collegial relationships with USIP staff or other Fellows (average = 3.7) and that Fellows’ peers knew of the Fellowship (average = 3.5). We then disaggregated those two factors by the period of the Fellowship (as shown in Table 3-10). 52

OCR for page 35
Table 3-10 Percentage of respondents, by period of Fellowship, who agreed with various statements about the Fellowship. Hard Not at Complete- to Comment Fellows all (1) 2 3 4 ly (5) judge Total My peers are very 1987- knowledgeable 2001 3% 10% 34% 33% 16% 4% 70 about the 2002- Fellowship 2007 5% 15% 29% 22% 20% 10% 41 I established ongoing collegial relationships with USIP staff 1987- or fellows as a 2001 4% 24% 15% 23% 31% 3% 71 result of my 2002- fellowship 2007 5% 2% 29% 27% 32% 2% 41 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. There does not appear to be a significant difference between earlier and more recent Fellows on these two dimensions. The survey then asked several questions regarding how helpful the Fellowship was to the Fellows. The scale ran from 1 to 5, where 5 meant “Very helpful.” As Figure 3-10 illustrates, the largest effect—a goal of USIP—was to free up time for the Fellow to pursue his or her research. 53

OCR for page 35
freeing up time to pursue a research project increasing your knowledge of a topic you had previously explored publishing increasing your knowledge of a new topic building a network of colleagues in the peace and security community 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all helpful (1) 2 3 4 Very helpful (5) Figure 3-10 Percentage of respondents’ saying the Fellowship was helpful in various ways SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: n = 115, except for publishing (n = 112) and increasing knowledge of a new topic (n = 110). The survey then focused more specifically on the question of networking by asking Fellows whether, as a result of the Fellowship, their networks were increased or not. As Figure 3-11 shows, respondents were most likely to report that their networks with the media tended to increase. In their relationships with others (e.g., government employees, nongovernmental (NGO) and intergovernmental organization representatives, and academics), about half of the Fellows reported that their contacts remained about the same while the other half reported that their contacts increased. While the Fellows tended to respond that their networks with academics stayed about the same, this may be because many Fellows are senior academics who already have large academic networks. 54

OCR for page 35
In the media In government In nongovernmental organizations In international organizations In academia 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Decreased Stayed about the same Increased Unsure Figure 3-11 Changes to respondents’ networks by type of actor SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: Sample sizes differ slightly. They are from top to bottom: 112, 111, 113, 112, and 115. These findings bear further study, since they may help USIP reach out to larger networks through the Fellows. Interviews or expert panels with Fellows to understand when a Fellow considers a person part of his or her “network,” distinguishing colleagues from contacts, etc. could be helpful in this regard. Attention should be paid to the employment area from which the Fellow comes. Next, the survey asked how satisfied Fellows were with various aspects of the Fellowship. The questions were scored on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was “Not at all satisfied” and 5 was “Extremely satisfied.” Satisfaction was highest (a score of 5), as Figure 3-12 shows, for support from Fellowship staff, research assistant, and resources provided by USIP. 55

OCR for page 35
Support from fellowship staff Research assistant Resources provided by USIP (space, computer, etc.) Opportunities to participate in USIP events Opportunities to interact with other Fellows Opportunities to interact with USIP staff Support to conduct research outside of Washington, DC Stipend Benefits 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all satisfied (1) 2 3 4 Extremely satisfied (5) Figure 3-12 Respondents’ degree of satisfaction with various characteristics of the Fellowship SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: The sample size ranged between 111 and 115, except for support to conduct research outside of Washington, DC, which was answered by 105 of the 116 respondents. Eighty percent of respondents reported that they were very satisfied or better (a score of 4 or 5) with each aspect of the program except for opportunities to interact with other fellows and USIP staff, support to conduct research outside of Washington, DC, and benefits. Improving the financial resources available to the Fellows may attract more and better applicants in the future. These findings suggest that some of the comments noted by respondents earlier in the chapter regarding the worst features of the program may have been the experiences of only a few respondents and are not shared among many former Fellows. 56

OCR for page 35
Finally, the survey asked the former Fellows whether they would recommend the Fellowship to others (Table 3-11) and then whether they had actually done so (Table 3- 12). Table 3-11 Whether respondents would recommend the Fellowship to others Would you recommend the fellowship to others? Percent Yes 99 No 0 Don't know 1 Total 115 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. Table 3-12 Whether respondents have recommended the Fellowship to others Have you recommended the fellowship to others? Percent Yes 96 No 2 Can't recall 2 Total 112 SOURCE: Survey of former Fellows; data tabulations by staff. As both tables show, overwhelmingly the answer was yes. To conclude the survey, a final question gave respondents the opportunity to raise any other issues or to comment on any aspect of the Fellowship. By and large, these comments continued the laudatory theme established in earlier responses. “Probably one of the most fulfilling years of my professional life.” “There is relatively little money available for research on conflict and peace issues, as the Jennings Randolph Program is perhaps the best known and most helpful program of support in this underfunded area available anywhere!” “A very successful program that provides excellent support to scholars who would like to take time off to pursue serious research. The program should continue.” “It was a great opportunity.” “The fellowship program is one of the central functions of USIP and is one of its greatest strengths.” Fellows did have some suggestions for USIP; most common was a call for an alumni program: 57

OCR for page 35
“I have often recommended that a more systematic effort be made by USIP to organize the alumni of the Fellows program. Universities do this well and the USG is attempting to build associate or reserve contingents. So far as I know, USIP does nothing to draw on the resources represented by alumni. Your questionnaire shows an interest in networking, and if that is one of your values, you should support a vigorous alumni program.” “The USIP should be more proactive in maintaining links with its Fellows. The expertise of the Fellows is a resource which the USIP should continue to draw on for the work it does.” Additional suggestions included establishing complementary junior Fellowships, increasing resources, and improving mentoring/guidance. “While the Fellowship program targets and focuses on experts, USIP should consider expanding it to include providing more opportunities/Fellowships for people at more junior positions, e.g. someone at a mid point in their career, as opposed to well known scholars and experts.” “The program needs to do a better job of promoting itself outside of the academic community. It needs to better publicize and promote the work of the fellows.” “It is a wonderful program -- I only wish I were better able to take advantage of the opportunity from my end. If I were to recommend anything, it would be: 1) Give the [Jennings Randolph] program administrators a far larger budget to support Fellows for travel for the following purposes: research, field visits, conference presentations, etc. While I was able to scrape together enough funding from JR and other departments to do what I had hoped, it was not easy to pull off―and not possible for several of my JR colleagues, due to the lack of resources in this aspect of the JR program…. 2) Allow JR alumni to maintain their USIP email address for several years after their Fellowship, rather than just two months. 3) Allow a "free floating RA" to provide support for JR alumni once their Fellowships have ended -- because in many of our cases we need an RA after the Fellowship has ended even more than we do during the Fellowship.” “Be more open from the outset as to the expectations that Fellows publish something as a result of the Fellowship. Establish some framework for structured interaction between the Fellows at the beginning, i.e. regular informal briefing sessions, because 9 months is too short a time for the Fellows to set this up themselves―it takes a 58

OCR for page 35
couple of months to realize it's not happening, by then there is a clear pattern of who is around the institute and who is not, and difficult at that stage to start anything.” FINDINGS The survey of former Fellows, even considering the limitations cited earlier, suggests several findings: 1. A challenge for monitoring and evaluation is that a number of Fellows could not be located. 2. Fellows give the program high marks. A majority of fellows rated the program “excellent” (Figure 3-3, Table 3-5). Ninety-nine percent would recommend the fellowship to others, and 96 percent have actually done so (Tables 3-11, 3-12). Fellows overwhelmingly reported the experience to be very valuable (Figure 3-9). More than half of Fellows had their expectations completely met in five of eight criteria (Figure 3-4). The area where there was some concern, as was noted in some of the open-ended comments, lay in provision of resources to the Fellows. However, this point is somewhat contradicted later, when Fellows largely reported they were satisfied with resources provided by USIP (Figure 3-12). Overall there was a high degree of satisfaction with the various components of the program (Figure 3-12), and the program was seen as a boon to Fellows (Figure 3-5). 3. Fellows are very active in conducting research and disseminating information to multiple stakeholders. USIP gains a great deal from of the Fellows’ time in Washington, DC. In terms of professional and career development activities, almost all Fellows were attending workshops, lectures, and seminars, and giving guest lectures. A majority were also advising or mentoring others (Figure 3-1, Table 3-2). Fellows were also involved in multiple forms of outreach as part of their Fellowship (Figure 3-2). A majority of Fellows conducted research in addition to their primary research project (Table 3-3), and about half or more of recent Fellows wrote op-eds, gave guest lectures, gave media interviews, or appeared on television or radio talk shows (Table 3- 4). 4. Fellows have many opportunities to network with others and are generally satisfied with the amount of opportunities. Almost all Fellows found the Fellowship to be useful to increasing their network of colleagues (Figure 3-5). This was especially the case for networking with academics, but less so for government officials and the media (Figure 3-6). (Although building a network of colleagues was seen as the least useful of several functions of the 59

OCR for page 35
Fellowship (Figure 3-10). And while Fellows might not have seen the Fellowship as helpful in the case of media, it is noteworthy that about 70 percent of Fellows noted that their network with media increased (Figure 3- 11). 5. Fellows tend to remain in contact with USIP and participate in USIP activities after the Fellowship ends. More than half of Fellows continued to stay in touch with USIP, participated in USIP events, and stayed in touch with other Fellows (Figure 3-8, Table 3-9). 6. Most Fellows reported ten months to be an appropriate duration for the Fellowship, although some thought that the Fellowship should be longer (Figure 3-7). 7. Finally, Fellows are unsure how well-known the Fellowship is, though they think the Fellowship is prestigious (Figure 3-9, Table 3-10). This point is further explored in the next chapter. 60