Assessing the United States Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowship (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Chapter 4 Perceptions of the Peace and Security Community Defining the external peace and security community is difficult. Nevertheless, it is important to identify it because the community is: (1) a source of future Fellows; (2) a consumer of Fellows’ work (e.g., read publications, attend briefings); and (3) a source of potential research collaborators and participants in USIP activities. For these reasons at least, it is important to ascertain the views of this community toward USIP and its Fellows. As noted in Chapter 1, the committee conducted a survey of a sample of peace and security experts, drawn from academia, nongovernmental/non-profit organizations (NGOs), and government. Sixty-five experts responded to the survey, most of whom were academics. Readers are cautioned against inferring the opinions of the respondents beyond this group to a larger community of experts. Rather, one should see the survey as a first step in examining how the Jennings Randolph Fellowships are viewed by those outside USIP. Nevertheless, some interesting findings are noted. As a starting point, we wanted to see if experts were familiar with the USIP Fellowship Program. There was a concern that if the survey focused solely on the USIP Fellowship, topic interest or salience might be a factor: Individuals sent the survey might not respond if they thought that USIP fellowships were uninteresting to them. To combat this, the survey identified four senior fellowships: the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Fellowship program; the U.S. Department of State Franklin Fellowships program; the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships in National Defense & Global Security; and the U.S. Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowships. (The USIP Fellowship was presented last for technical reasons: respondents not familiar with the program skipped to the end of the survey, since it made no sense to ask them specific questions about the Fellowship.) Box 4-1 provides summaries of the other three senior fellowships. The four programs share some similarities: applicants are senior experts; residency in Washington, DC; an approximately one year residency; a rigorous selection process. But there are also some differences: citizenship requirements; type of sponsor; target audience; and the number of years the program has been in existence). 61 

Box 4-1 Descriptions of Senior Fellowships Programs The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars “supports research in the social sciences and humanities. Men and women from a wide variety of backgrounds, including government, the non-profit sector, the corporate world, and the professions, as well as academia, are eligible for appointment. Through an international competition, it offers nine-month residential fellowships to academics, public officials, journalists, and business professionals. Fellows conduct research and write in their areas of interest, while interacting with policymakers in Washington and Wilson Center staff. The Center also hosts Public Policy Scholars and Senior Scholars who conduct research and write in a variety of disciplines. In addition to the Wilson Center Fellowships Program, several of our regional programs have their own grant competitions (Africa, Asia, Canada, East Europe, Southeast Europe, Russia).” “Since the end of the Cold War, the range and complexity of issues facing the international community has grown exponentially; the Department relies now on over 40 bureaus and offices to manage all aspects of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. In order to strengthen its ability to deal with this plethora of issues and to draw on expertise of individuals working in disciplines related to them, the Department of State has launched the ’Franklin Fellows Program.’ This effort will provide unique opportunities for experienced professionals with a minimum of five years of relevant experience to spend a sabbatical year or detail as Fellows at the Department of State. The goal of the program is for Fellows, serving as consultants, to provide valuable and pertinent advice, views, opinions, alternatives or recommendations on foreign policy issues facing the nation.” “The American Association for the Advancement of Science manages and administers Science & Technology Policy Fellowships in six areas to provide the opportunity for accomplished scientists and engineers to participate in and contribute to the federal policymaking process while learning firsthand about the intersection of science and policy. The fellowships in congressional offices are funded by approximately 30 partner scientific and engineering societies. The fellowships in executive branch agencies are funded by the hosting offices. The fellowships are highly competitive and use a peer- review selection process. Review is followed by individual interviews in Washington, DC, conducted by selection committees comprised of professionals with expertise in the interface of science, technology, and policy. Following selection, Fellows come to Washington, DC, in September of each year and participate in a comprehensive orientation program before beginning their fellowships in the various sectors of government. AAAS also conducts a professional development program throughout the year. The fellowship programs have several basic requirements in common. Applicants must have a Ph.D. or an equivalent doctoral-level degree at the time of application. Individuals with a master's degree in engineering and at least three years of post-degree professional experience also may apply. Some programs require additional experience. Applicants must be U.S. citizens. Federal employees are not eligible for the fellowships.” 62 

Sources: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=sf.welcome; U.S. Department of State, Franklin Fellows Program (July 2008), available at http://www.careers.state.gov/docs/FF- Factsheet.pdf; and American Association for the Advancement of Science, available at http://fellowships.aaas.org/01_About/01_index.shtml. The survey first asked about familiarity with these four programs. It is appropriate to consider respondents’ answers within a program, but not necessarily between programs. In particular, the U.S. Department of State Franklin Fellows Program is quite new, and the AAAS program has a more limited target audience for potential fellows. These facts may explain the results immediately below. Table 4-1 considers respondents’ familiarity with the programs. Table 4-1 Familiarity with various senior peace and security fellowships Degree of Familiarity 1 (Not 5 at all (Extremely Fellowship Program familiar) 2 3 4 familiar) U.S. Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowships 20% 16% 20% 23% 20% Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars fellowship program 9% 23% 34% 20% 14% U.S. Department of State Franklin fellowships program 71% 14% 9% 3% 3% AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships in National Defense & Global Security 54% 19% 14% 14% 0% SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: Based on 65 respondents, except for USIP results which were based on 64 respondents. As the table shows, experts are more likely to be familiar with the Woodrow Wilson and USIP programs. Overall, familiarity with the USIP Fellowship is high (see Table 4-2), although one in five respondents was not at all familiar with the program. 63 

Table 4-2 Mean familiarity with various senior peace and security fellowships Fellowship Program Mean U.S. Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowships 3.1 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars fellowship program 3.1 AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships in National Defense & Global Security 1.9 U.S. Department of State Franklin fellowships program 1.5 SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: Based on 65 respondents, except for USIP results which were based on 64 respondents. For those individuals who reported that they were not at all familiar with the USIP program, the survey ended at this point. For those that were familiar with the USIP program, the survey next asked respondents to rate the prestige of each of the four programs noted earlier. One concern was to take familiarity into account. This is because a respondent might report that they were not at all familiar with a program and then say that they thought it was extremely prestigious. To account for this possibility, the prestige scores were weighted by the respondents’ response to familiarity. First, the responses of the respondents are presented in Table 4-3. 64 

Table 4-3 Prestige of various senior peace and security fellowships Degree of Prestige 1 5 Fellowship (Not at all (Extremely Program prestigious) 2 3 4 prestigious) Unsure U.S. Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowships 0% 0% 29% 46% 15% 10% Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars fellowships 0% 0% 4% 52% 40% 4% U.S. Department of State Franklin fellowships 0% 4% 10% 17% 2% 67% AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships in National Defense & Global Security 0% 0% 17% 31% 4% 48% SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: Based on 48 respondents. Respondents ranked the Woodrow Wilson and USIP fellowships quite highly. In both cases, the modal response was 4 out of 5. The unweighted means were 3.8 for the USIP and AAAS fellowships, 4.4 for the Woodrow Wilson fellowships, and 3.5 for the U.S. Department of State fellowships. Respondents for the Woodrow Wilson and USIP fellowships were also more certain in their answers, as noted by the low percentage of respondents who selected “unsure” as an answer. The next step was to weight prestige by familiarity. This was done by multiplying the respondent’s familiarity score for each fellowship by the respective prestige score. This gives a new scale from 1 to 25.1 The results are shown in Table 4-4. 1 Note that the theoretical scale is from 1 to 25 for three fellowships and 2 to 25 for the USIP Fellowships, since anyone who responded with a 1 on familiarity would not have been given the option of answering the prestige question. A 2 would occur for a familiarity score of 2 (lowest possible) times a prestige score of 1 (lowest possible). 65 

Table 4-4 Weighted prestige of various senior peace and security fellowships Weighted Prestige Fellowship Program Mean S.D. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars fellowships 11.3 7.4 U.S. Department of State Franklin fellowships 8.4 5.2 AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships in National Defense & Global Security 9.9 4.6 U.S. Institute of Peace Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowships 11.9 6.9 SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. NOTE: Excludes those who answered “unsure.” As the table shows, prestige was on the high end for the USIP Fellowship. It is important to note the limitations of this analysis. Respondents are likely thinking about the prestige of the program currently. There are also other historical fellowships that are not offered today. Over time, such organizations as the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Social Science Research Council, among others, have offered programs in peace and security. It would be interesting to ask Fellows whether they had applied for other fellowships and how they rated USIP’s program at the time compared with others in the field. A second approach would be to ask peace and security experts periodically how they rate the prestige of the USIP program, using the data collected here as a benchmark. Next the survey asked experts if they knew any Fellows. As Table 4-5 shows, a wide majority did. Table 4-5 Percentage of respondents who knew any USIP Jennings Randolph Senior Fellows Respondent knows any USIP Jennings Randolph Senior Fellows? Percent Yes 64 No 24 Unsure 11 N 45 SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. At this point, the survey sought to tap the opinion of experts regarding their perceptions of the impact of the USIP Fellowship. Table 4-6 focuses on three possible impacts of the Fellowship: networking, increasing knowledge, and developing new tools. 66 

Table 4-6 Respondents’ views on importance of the Fellowships How important do you think the Jennings Randolph 1 (Not at 5 Senior Fellowships all (Extremely are: important) 2 3 4 important) Unsure N In providing opportunities to bring people to Washington to network with experts in peace and security issues? 0% 2% 16% 38% 29% 16% 45 To increasing knowledge on peace and security topics, such as the nature of conflict or conflict resolution? 0% 7% 20% 30% 30% 14% 44 To developing new tools to manage, mitigate, or resolve conflicts? 2% 13% 29% 20% 18% 18% 45 SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. As the preceding table shows, in general, respondents thought the USIP Fellowship was important in all of these areas. The next question focused on the output of the Fellows themselves (see Table 4-7). Table 4-7 Respondents’ views on Fellows’ output Would you say that the Jennings 1 (Not at 5 Randolph Senior all (Extremely Fellows important) 2 3 4 important) Unsure N perform cutting- edge research? 4% 11% 36% 22% 4% 22% 45 support policymakers by providing analyses, policy options, or advice? 0% 13% 29% 31% 9% 18% 45 SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. As Table 4-7 shows, there was more disagreement over the degree to which USIP Fellows performed cutting-edge research. There was a more positive outlook on the role 67 

of the Fellows in supporting policymakers. A final question in this series then asked whether the return on investment matched up with the cost of the program.2 Again, as Table 4-8 shows, there was a generally positive response. Additional research could shed light on what exactly was seen as the “return on investment.” Table 4-8 Respondents’ views on return on investment of the program Respondent reporting the return on investment that the USIP receives from the Jennings Randolph Senior Fellowship program is well worth the cost Percentage 1 (Not at all) 0 2 2 3 22 4 31 5 (To a very great extent) 18 Unsure 27 Total 45 SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. The final question asked respondents if they had ever recommended to anyone that s/he should apply for the Fellowship program. A majority had not, as is shown in Table 4-9. Table 4-9 Whether respondent has ever recommended to anyone that s/he should apply for the Fellowship Respondent has ever recommended anyone apply to the fellowship program Percent Yes 39 No 59 Unsure 2 Total 44 SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. However, we do see a positive correlation (r = 0.47) between familiarity and whether a respondent had recommended the program to someone (as shown in Table 4-10). It seems that one would first need to be at least somewhat familiar with the program in order to recommend it to someone, although this might then feedback on degree of familiarity. Thus, steps to increase familiarity may also have a positive impact on applications. 2 This question may be subject to measurement error since different respondents might have different opinions about what “return on investment” and “cost” mean. 68 

Table 4-10 Relationship between familiarity and recommendation by respondent Degree of familiarity Recommend anyone to be a Fellow? 2 3 4 5 Total Yes 0 3 5 9 17 No 7 7 8 4 26 Total 7 10 13 13 43 SOURCE: Survey of experts; data tabulations by staff. The survey concluded with an open-ended question asking respondents if they had any additional comments that they would like to share with the committee.3 Very few respondents wrote in anything, but there were a handful of interesting comments that are noteworthy. 1. General support for program: “The Jennings Randolph Fellowships are very valuable. They help scholars publish important work that often would never be written without Jennings Randolph support.” 2. We got opposing views, suggesting more research is needed. For instance: “I think it is a great idea, but that there is all too often NOT the kind of theoretical work done that really could be framed as "cutting edge"―much if the time it is rather traditional poli sci or soc perspectives.” “The policy-relevant research component of USIP through the JR program seems to have atrophied in recent years relative to USIP's emphasis on field activities in support of the USG and on DC networking functions.” 3. Question of focus of USIP program—respondents are not sure what USIP’s focus is. “Is this fellowship associated with the narrow definition of security issues or the wider one?” “These are senior fellowships that go either to senior academics or those with first- hand experience in conflict zones around the world. I think Washington benefits from the latter fellows; I think the field of CR [conflict resolution] benefits more from the first category and I wish there were more of those, and fewer journalists, among USIP fellows over time.” 3 A final question was whether the respondent’s employment sector was in academia, government, or nongovernmental/nonprofit organizations. The committee hoped to disaggregate the responses by type of employer, but there were too few responses from government employees to do this. 69 

FINDINGS Based solely on the respondents’ answers, recognizing the substantial limitations of this very small survey, and reflecting the final part of the committee’s charge, the committee draws five findings: 1. A wide majority of respondents (79 percent) had some familiarity with the USIP Fellowship Program (Table 4-1). More than two-thirds of respondents knew one or more Fellows (Table 4-5). 2. External commentators gave the Fellowship relatively high marks for prestige (Tables 4-3, 4-4). Sixty-one percent of respondents rated the program either a 4 or a 5, with a modal answer of 4. 3. Respondents reported that the Fellowship was seen to be important as a networking opportunity and to increase knowledge. There was less agreement on its importance to developing new tools to respond to conflict (Table 4-6). 4. The Fellows’ role was seen by respondents as somewhat more important in supporting policymakers by providing information than in performing cutting edge research (Table 4-7). 5. Finally, while respondents were familiar with the program and many knew a Fellow, a majority had not recommended to anyone that s/he should apply for the Fellowship to anyone (Table 4-9). 70