Trip Around The World 2011

MAY 2012
TRIP AROUND THE WORLD:

Teaching, Research, and Policy Views of International Relations Faculty in 20 Countries
DANIEL MALINIAK, SUSAN PETERSON, AND MICHAEL J. TIERNEY
Published by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project
The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations at the College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
TRIP Around the World: Teaching, Research, and Policy Views of International Relations Faculty in 20 Countries
Daniel Maliniak, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations The College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia May 2012
We thank the many international relations scholars in twenty countries who generously gave time to complete our survey and provide feedback on the survey instrument that will improve future versions. We especially thank our TRIP partners around the world who helped tailor the survey to their national academic populations, identify those populations, and persuade them to complete this survey: Jeff Chwieroth, Michael Cox, and Stephanie Rickard (United Kingdom); John Doyle (Ireland); Peter Marcus Kristensen and Ole Waever (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden); Jacqui True (New Zealand); Jason Sharman (Australia); Soo Yeon Kim (Singapore); Jremie Cornut, Anne-Marie DAoust, Stphane Roussel, and Stephen Saideman (Canada); Zeev Maoz (Israel); Arlene Tickner, Rafael Duarte Villa, Roberto Russell, Jorge Schiavon, and Juan Gabriel Tokatlian (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico); Peter Vale (South Africa); Dario Battistella and Jremie Cornut (France); and Mustafa Aydin and Korhan Yazgan (Turkey). For assistance in designing the survey, identifying our sample, offering technical support, and providing comments on early drafts of the survey, we thank our colleagues and students: Alex Atkins, Sagra Alvarado, Will Brannon, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Michael Campbell, Charli Carpenter, Bridget Carr, T.J. Cheng, Michael Desch, Jim Deverick, Dan Drezner, Luke Elias, Logan Ferrell, Audrey Glasebrook, Mike Horowitz, Lindsay Hundley, Bruce Jentleson, Mark Jordan, Richard Jordan, Sam Kennedy, Ben Kenzer, James Long, Helen Milner, Ana OHarrow, Brad Parks, Ryan Powers, Haroun Rahman, Brian Rathbun, Ron Rapoport, Eric Sawchak, Alena Stern, Dustin Tingley, Sasha Tobin, Steve Van Evera, Kate Weaver, Michael Weissberger, and Emily Wilson. For financial support, we thank Arts and Sciences and the Reves Center for International Studies at the College of William and Mary and the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4
I. Teaching International Relations ........................................................................................... 7
II. Questions About Your Research Interests ........................................................................ 17
III. The International Relations Discipline ............................................................................ 47
IV.
Foreign Policy Views ............................................................................................................... 70
This cross-national survey builds on previous Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) faculty surveys conducted in 2004, 2006, and 2008. In 2004, we surveyed international relations (IR) scholars in the United States. In 2006, we added respondents from Canada. In 2008, we expanded the survey to eight additional English-speaking countries.1 By including ten new countries and many new questions on disciplinary practices and current foreign policy debatesfor a total of twenty countries and five languagesthe 2011 survey represents another substantial expansion of the TRIP project.2 The faculty survey is one part of the larger TRIP project, which is designed to study the relationships among teaching, research, and foreign policy.3 As political scientists who specialize in international relations, we spend most of our time assembling and analyzing data on foreign policy and international relationswhether trade or aid flows, terrorist attacks, the diffusion of democracy, or the outbreak of warthat fall in the lower right hand corner of Figure 1. Figure 1: The TRIP Triad
The survey results reported here and in our three previous reports provide important data on two neglected parts of the triad, teaching and research, at the same time that they include systematic
1
These included the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, Hong Kong, and Singapore. 2 The new countries in 2011 are: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, and Turkey. As in previous surveys, we ask a standard battery of questions of respondents from new countries, but we do not repeat questions that are not likely to vary over time for countries surveyed prior to 2011. Where possible, the questions are identical across countries. Because of different naming conventions and translation issues, however, some questions (and closed-end answer options) are modified slightly to fit the local context. On each survey, we add questions in the last section that reflect contemporaneous policy debates and issues in international relations. 3 For further information on the TRIP project, see http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/projects/trip/
data on scholars views of policy issues.4 In the larger TRIP project, we supplement our survey data with a database of all international relations articles published in the twelve top peerreviewed IR and political science journals from 1980 to the present.5 These two types of data allow scholars to describe changes in the discipline over time, observe variation in research and teaching practices across different countries and regions of the world, analyze network effects, and identify areas of consensus and disagreement within the IR discipline. These data also help us to understand the influence of academic research on foreign policy, the way research affects teaching, the effect of teaching on the foreign policy views of students (including some future policy makers), the impact of specific policy outcomes and real world events on both teaching and research, and a variety of other issues that have previously been the subject of vigorous speculation. Below, we describe the results of the 2011 TRIP survey of IR faculty, providing descriptive statistics for every question. First, however, we detail the surveys methodology. Methodology Our sampling method follows those of previous years. We sought to identify and survey all faculty members at colleges and universities in twenty national settings who do research in the IR sub-field of political science and/ or who teach international relations courses. Table 1 lists these countries. The overwhelming majority of our respondents have jobs in departments of political science, politics, government, social science, international relations, or international studies, or in professional schools associated with universities. Given our definition of IR scholar individuals with an active affiliation with a university, college, or professional schoolwe excluded researchers currently employed in government, private firms, or think tanks. Additionally, our definition is not broad enough to include scholars at professional schools of international affairs who study economics, sociology, law, or other disciplines. While many faculty at these professional schools do study international issues, for this survey we define IR primarily as a sub-field of political science, rather than as the interdisciplinary field taught at professional schools and many undergraduate institutions.6 As in previous years, we attempted to include any scholar who taught or did research on trans-border issues as they relate to some aspect of politics. Thus, our population may include political scientists who
4 5
Previous reports are available at http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/projects/trip/ We are working with Jason Sharman and Kate Weaver to construct a parallel TRIP book database that tracks disciplinary trends as reflected in published books. See Jason Sharman and Catherine Waever, Between the Covers: International Relations in Books, Paper presented at the 2011 TRIP Data Vetting Workshop at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, March 2011. 6 For a critique of the TRIP project based on its exclusion of economists, scientists, anthropologists, and lawyers teaching at schools of international affairs, see James Goldgeier, Undisciplined: The Ivory Tower survey is asking the wrong questions of the wrong people, Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/undisciplined, accessed 16 April 2012.
specialize in American politics and who study defense policy, immigration, or trade. It includes researchers who study regional integration, as well as many specialists of comparative politics who teach IR courses. We adopt this broad definition because we are interested in those scholars who create knowledge, teach students, and provide expert advice to policy makers about transborder issues whether or not they explicitly identify themselves as IR scholars. We identified the population of faculty to be surveyed in all twenty countries using similar methods, although we tailored our methods to each locale. For the U.S. survey, we used the U.S. News and World Report 2007-08 report on American higher education to compile a list of all four-year colleges and universities. There were 1,406 such institutions. We also included the Monterey Institute and seven military schools that were not rated by USNWR but that do have a relatively large number of political science faculty who do research and/or teach courses on international relations. We then identified IR professors at these schools through a systematic series of web searches, emails, and communications with departments and individual scholars. To identify the population of IR scholars at Canadian universities, we began with Macleans Magazine, which publishes an annual ranking of all four-year universities in Canada. UNESCO data were used to identify all universities and colleges in the remaining eighteen countries in the survey, since that agency collects information on the educational systems of more than 200 countries and territories. The same procedures that were used in the United States were then followed to assemble lists of IR faculty in all other countries. We also consulted with our country partners to ensure that these lists were complete.7 By September 2011, we identified a total of 7,294 individuals in the twenty countries who met the TRIP criteria for inclusion. A total of 293 respondents or their representatives informed us that they did not belong in the sample because either they had been misidentified and did not teach or conduct research in the field of IR, or they had died, changed jobs, or retired.8 These individuals were not included in the calculation of the response rate. The sample size for each country is listed in Table 1 below. After generating the pool of potential respondents, we sent emails to each of these individuals, asking them to complete an online survey. We promised confidentiality to all respondents: no answers are publicly linked to any individual respondent. We provided a live link to a web survey. If a respondent requested a hard copy or did not have an email address, we sent a copy of the survey via regular mail. With the assistance of our country partners, we worked to construct and administer comparable, but not identical, surveys for each of the twenty countries. The surveys were adjusted to reflect differences in terminology, racial categorization, academic institutions, academic rank, and
7 8
In 2011 we did not have a local partner in Hong Kong. We had local partners in every other country. If respondents said that they were not IR scholars, but nevertheless met the TRIP criteria, we urged them to complete the survey and did not remove them from the sample, even if they refused to answer the survey.
public and private institutions. The wording of some questions and answers was changed to reflect these differences. Finally, most of our partners contributed country-specific questions that were included at the end of their country survey. In all, 3,466 scholars responded to the survey, either online or, in a small number of cases, by mail. If the intended respondents or their representatives did not inform us that they did not meet our sampling criteria, they remained in the total population used as the denominator in calculating the response rate. The total response rate of 49.5 percent, therefore, is conservative, since there probably were additional individuals who were misidentified by our selection process, did not inform us, and remained in the sample. There was significant variation in response rates across countries, as Table 1 shows, but no country had a response rate below 36.6 percent. Brazil, Colombia, South Africa, and Ireland had the highest response rates, while France had the lowest, followed by the United States.
Table 1: Response Rate by Country Sample Size 7001 57 280 270 488 66 93 24 276 32 47 67 230 42 82 47 40 104 456 842 3751 Responses (N) 3464 36 165 193 252 50 58 11 101 15 32 33 114 20 49 24 28 67 227 404 1585 Response Rate (%) 49.5% 63.2% 58.9% 71.5% 51.6% 75.8% 62.4% 45.8% 36.6% 46.9% 68.1% 49.3% 49.6% 47.6% 59.8% 51.1% 70% 64.4% 49.8% 48.0% 42.3%
All Argentina Australia Brazil Canada Colombia Denmark Finland France Hong Kong Ireland Israel Mexico New Zealand Norway Singapore South Africa Sweden Turkey United Kingdom United States
SURVEY RESULTS FOR 2011

I. Teaching International Relations
equivalent) for undergraduate students at your current institution? Yes 57 62 55 50 55 58 50 49 39 55 43 55 28 64 40 35 71 67 48 68 53 No 43 38 45 50 45 42 50 51 61 45 57 45 72 36 60 65 29 33 52 32 47
1: In the past five years have you taught Introduction to International Relations (or its
All US UK Canada Australia New Zealand Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel Turkey Hong Kong Singapore South Africa Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
2: In your undergraduate Intro to IR course, what areas of the world do you study in substantial detail (i.e. you devote one or more classes to
discussion of that area)? Please check all that apply. Central Asia All US UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col Mex 8 9 2 5 6 0 7 0 0 0 6 4 0 25 0 0 0 13 2 27 6 East Asia 34 40 22 27 56 55 13 22 42 0 6 26 0 19 80 50 15 26 20 39 33 Eastern Europe 16 17 18 10 8 9 33 27 5 50 19 19 0 22 20 0 0 9 4 21 21 Latin America 21 23 8 16 9 18 7 15 0 25 6 4 0 7 0 0 5 65 48 67 63 M. E. and N. Africa 37 44 30 28 29 27 27 34 26 50 0 30 71 46 0 0 20 17 17 36 19 North America 34 31 34 34 45 45 27 41 42 25 25 30 43 33 40 17 35 48 30 58 60 Russia/ Soviet Union 27 31 22 25 17 27 27 29 21 50 25 15 29 37 60 17 10 26 10 24 23 South Asia 18 24 11 14 29 27 13 10 5 0 0 15 29 7 0 0 0 13 9 24 8 Southeast Asia 14 14 7 13 40 18 7 10 11 0 6 11 14 7 40 50 10 22 5 30 17 SubSaharan Africa 20 26 16 16 10 18 20 22 11 0 13 15 14 5 0 0 65 17 11 21 10 Western Europe 43 44 39 35 32 36 47 44 58 50 50 33 43 56 20 33 45 48 32 55 52
Oceania 3 2 <1 2 32 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 6 6
None 35 35 47 50 25 45 20 37 26 25 38 41 29 32 20 17 30 26 36 6 17
3: Approximately what percentage of your undergraduate Intro to IR course is devoted to policy

analysis and/or policy-relevant research? The policies analyzed need not be current.9 Policy Relevant 28 28 22 25 30 13 26 29 25 14 30 19 22 39 29 14 20 25 32 25 33
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76-100%. To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of respondents; those responses were then averaged in order to compare the overall percent variation between countries.
4: Approximately what percentage of your undergraduate Intro to IR course is devoted to

contemporary empirical issues in IR -- i.e., 2000 or later?10 Percentage 37 35 40 34 45 30 36 32 39 19 38 31 42 40 53 18 48 38 30 36 47
All US UK Canada Australia NZ Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel Turkey Hong Kong Singapore South Africa Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
10
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76100%. To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of respondents; those responses were then averaged in order to compare the overall percent variation between countries.
10
5: Approximately what percentage of assigned readings in your undergraduate Intro to IR

course is written by:11 U.S. Authors 58 71 40 42 45 35 45 43 37 27 40 51 71 52 49 71 43 50 43 47 50 Country X Authors12 25 -37 23 19 6 5 27 28 42 18 11 9 24 3 4 17 -25 --Latin American Authors13 20 ----------------23 19 15 25
All US UK Canada Australia NZ Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel Turkey HK Singapore SA Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
11
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76100%. To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of respondents; those responses were then averaged in order to compare the overall percent variation between countries. These results should be viewed in light of the fact that respondents had to define for themselves what is meant by a U.S. author or Country X author or Latin American author. We cannot be sure whether respondents cue on an authors institutional affiliation, location where Ph.D. was earned, nat ionality, or country of origin. 12 Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed. In surveys distributed to respondents who answered this question in 2008, we did not ask this question again. The 2008 data is included in these responses. Subsequent questions that contain 2008 data will be marked with a footnote indicating that they contain 2008 data. 13 In surveys distributed to Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Brazil, respondents also were asked: Approximately what percentage of assigned readings in your undergraduate Intro to IR course is written by authors based in Latin America? Respondents in these countries were not asked about readings produced by authors from their specific countries.
11
6: Approximately what percentage of your undergraduate Intro to IR course do you devote to the study and/ or application of each of
the following international relations paradigms? (If you have multiple answers for other only record the most prominent other paradigm).14 All US UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col Mex
14
Constructivism 13 11 11 11 14 14 11 15 13 11 17 18 7 17 20 16 13 15 13 24 19
Realism 24 25 19 18 19 14 16 25 26 11 20 24 20 33 36 23 25 35 26 35 31
Liberalism Marxism 21 11 22 10 16 10 17 12 19 11 15 7 16 10 22 9 23 6 9 6 19 10 19 10 20 6 24 17 17 5 20 9 22 15 24 11 23 14 27 21 22 17
Feminism 7 7 7 8 8 8 6 4 3 4 9 9 4 8 3 6 6 4 5 8 11
English School 8 5 10 7 9 13 7 9 14 5 8 5 5 16 3 7 6 15 18 13 15
Non-paradigmatic 18 19 19 16 20 10 16 23 17 11 18 8 18 19 14 19 16 14 16 9 14
Other 15 17 12 11 18 28 8 9 23 10 8 15 3 20 0 18 12 18 20 19 14
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76-100%. To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of respondents; those responses were then averaged across each paradigm in order to compare the overall percent variation across paradigms. Rows add to more than 100 percent because respondents were asked to estimate a percentage for each paradigm. Canada (100 percent), The UK (104 percent), and Sweden (108 percent) were closer to 100 percent, while scholars in Colombia (156 percent), Turkey (154 percent), and Mexico (143 percent) overestimated by larger amounts. Scholars in Finland (67 percent) and Israel (83 percent), on the other hand, significantly underestimated percentages in their responses.
12
7: In the past five years have you taught an International Relations class to graduate students?
Check all that apply. Yes, to PhD students 25 28 22 41 11 5 26 16 8 22 20 12 17 22 7 36 11 12 22 20 14 Yes, to MA international affairs/public policy students 44 34 64 50 63 42 68 55 59 67 60 35 66 44 36 59 67 53 42 47 34 Yes, to other graduate students 19 12 24 19 19 63 10 35 22 56 22 18 14 14 36 27 70 26 37 33 19 No 42 52 25 40 28 26 29 26 33 22 31 53 34 45 50 23 15 41 35 29 50
All US UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col Mex
12
8: In your IR class for PhD students, which of the following best describes the way you organize your
course material? Issue Areas or Problems 42 45 39 30 38 0 25 69 33 100 78 14 25 17 0 50 33 50 55 60 64 Levels of Analysis 6 5 4 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 25 8 0 14 Schools of Thought/Paradigms 33 33 31 45 31 100 25 0 67 0 11 86 50 33 100 38 33 25 21 30 7 Rational vs. Nonrational Approaches 4 4 3 5 0 0 25 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 0 0 3 0 0 Regions 5 2 11 2 6 0 13 15 0 0 11 0 0 21 0 0 33 0 5 0 14 Other 10 10 13 14 13 0 13 8 0 0 0 0 25 2 0 0 0 0 8 10 0
14
9: In your IR class for MA students, what areas of the world do you study in substantial detail (i.e., you devote one or more classes to discussion of
that area)? Please check all that apply. Central Asia All US UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col Mex 9 8 7 5 8 0 5 9 4 0 4 0 6 33 0 0 0 17 1 22 11 East Asia 29 34 22 19 61 13 15 16 22 50 17 32 6 20 67 38 22 44 20 22 31 Eastern Europe 16 15 18 7 9 13 25 23 15 67 26 26 11 24 0 0 0 17 7 26 26 Latin America 20 22 10 12 13 13 10 16 4 33 0 16 6 6 0 0 17 83 65 57 63 M. E. and N. Africa 29 34 24 15 27 13 30 32 33 33 13 5 83 49 0 15 6 22 19 22 37 North America 28 21 29 22 44 0 25 39 26 33 30 26 39 27 0 23 6 50 34 39 60 Russia/ Soviet Union 19 22 17 11 16 0 15 14 7 67 22 11 11 39 0 8 11 28 14 26 20 South Asia 17 20 15 16 27 0 5 18 11 33 4 11 17 11 0 15 0 22 8 17 11 Southeast Asia 15 15 9 9 54 0 10 9 4 17 4 5 11 8 0 54 17 17 5 26 23 SubSaharan Africa 19 23 18 15 13 13 20 27 11 33 13 21 28 7 0 8 72 17 12 13 6 Western Europe 36 31 42 22 31 0 50 52 52 83 57 32 22 59 33 8 28 44 30 43 57
Oceania 4 2 2 <1 31 25 0 7 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 8 0 0 1 4 3
None 33 39 37 52 18 63 35 20 30 0 35 37 11 17 0 31 28 11 28 17 0
15
10:
Is your IR class for MA students designed more to introduce students to scholarship in the IR discipline, or more to prepare students to be informed about foreign policy and international issues and debates? Both, but primarily prepare students to be informed about foreign policy and IR debates 27 28 19 17 37 13 35 33 31 17 25 20 33 35 33 31 33 28 31 22 20
Introduce students to scholarship in the IR discipline
Both, but primarily introduce students to scholarship in the IR discipline 27 25 30 23 19 50 35 33 27 67 38 40 28 28 0 23 22 28 18 35 26
Both about equally
Prepare students to be informed about foreign policy and IR debates 14 15 10 17 15 13 20 12 12 0 4 15 11 7 33 23 11 17 26 13 14
14 13 22 23 7 13 10 12 12 0 13 5 17 7 33 8 11 0 14 13 11
18 18 19 19 22 13 0 12 19 17 21 20 11 23 0 15 22 28 12 17 29
16
II.
Questions About Your Research Interests

What is the highest educational degree you have completed?15 B.A./B.S. <1 <1 <1 <1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 <1 0 0 0 3 0 0 <1 M.A./M.S. 7 6 2 5 1 6 3 0 22 0 10 19 6 <1 0 8 14 50 <1 59 17 M. Phil 4 <1 2 3 0 0 0 20 2 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 9 -29 --Ph.D/D. Phil 85 91 95 92 97 94 97 70 73 100 80 77 94 93 100 92 77 38 62 37 79 Other 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 10 2 0 2 2 0 5 0 0 0 9 8 4 3
11:
15
Respondents in Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico did not receive the M. Phil option.
17
12:
From what institution did you or will you receive your highest degree earned? 16 Institution Columbia University London School of Economics and Political Science Oxford University Harvard University University of California--Berkeley Ohio State University Universidade de So Paulo Cornell University University of Michigan--Ann Arbor Stanford University Yale University Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Chicago University of Pittsburgh University of California--Los Angeles Johns Hopkins University IEP de Paris Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico University of Wisconsin--Madison University of Virginia Count 80 77 56 54 52 45 43 42 42 40 40 39 37 35 35 34 33 32 32 29 Percentage 2.75 2.65 1.92 1.86 1.79 1.55 1.48 1.44 1.44 1.37 1.37 1.34 1.27 1.20 1.20 1.17 1.13 1.10 1.10 1.00
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 10 12 13 14 14 16 17 18 18 20
16
Responses from all countries were counted and averaged to obtain the displayed results. We display the top twenty institutions sorted by the percent of all respondents who answered the question with that institution. Lists for individual countries were too cumbersome to include the report.
18
13:
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 9 11 11 13 13 13 13 17 17 19 19
From what institution did you receive your undergraduate degree?17 Institution Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Harvard University Ankara niversitesi University of California--Berkeley Stanford University Middle East Technical University Oxford University Boazii niversitesi Hebrew University of Jerusalem University of Michigan--Ann Arbor Georgetown University University of Toronto Universidad de Buenos Aires Oberlin College Cornell University McGill University University of Cambridge Aarhus University Bilkent niversitesi Universidade de So Paulo Count 48 47 44 32 31 31 30 29 21 21 20 20 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 Percentage 1.64 1.61 1.51 1.10 1.06 1.06 1.03 0.99 0.72 0.72 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.58
17
Responses from all countries were counted and averaged to obtain the displayed results. We display the top twenty institutions sorted by the percent of all respondents who answered the question with that institution. Lists for individual countries were too cumbersome to include in the report.
19
14:
What is your age?18 Average Median 44 47 41 45 43 41 38 38 45 44 45 39 39 55 48 43 44 48 41 37 46 Standard deviation 12 12 10 12 12 13 6 11 12 5 9 11 9 11 12 9 11 12 12 10 11 Min 21 26 26 26 27 21 28 25 27 35 28 27 29 37 32 35 27 25 26 27 27 Max 87 87 79 86 80 74 50 65 75 48 65 74 70 73 63 69 61 69 72 65 77
All US UK Canada Australia New Zealand Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Turkey Israel Hong Kong Singapore South Africa Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
46 49 43 47 46 43 38 40 46 43 45 42 41 53 46 46 44 49 43 41 49
18
In surveys distributed to respondents who answered this question in 2008, we did not ask this question again. The 2008 data is included in these responses and updated to reflect respondents current age.
20
15:
Are you:19 Male 69 69 70 73 73 50 67 62 74 89 71 53 74 63 91 73 58 76 68 65 60 Female 31 31 30 27 27 50 33 38 26 11 29 47 26 37 9 27 42 24 32 35 40
19
In surveys distributed to respondents who answered this question in 2008, we did not ask this question again. The 2008 data is included in these responses.
21
16:
What is your country of origin?20 Country X 24 ---53 24 53 82 60 67 55 63 93 90 20 23 50 88 69 69 66 US 38 76 10 13 9 12 7 2 2 0 10 0 7 1 0 31 9 0 0 0 2 Canada 8 2 6 60 1 6 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 UK 9 2 51 5 18 24 17 1 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 Other 23 20 33 22 19 35 20 13 30 33 33 35 0 9 80 46 32 12 30 31 29
20
Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.
22
17:
Which of the following best describes your primary field of study? 21 Intl Affairs 6 6 5 6 6 0 3 1 2 0 0 2 8 9 0 5 0 6 4 23 8 Intl Relations 38 41 36 37 43 47 20 40 20 25 21 33 35 25 27 32 50 33 47 25 27 Intl Studies 6 5 9 8 5 12 7 2 2 0 0 9 19 3 0 5 4 15 4 17 11
Area Studies 10 10 8 8 9 6 7 14 9 13 5 2 0 23 9 14 0 0 4 0 16
Foreign Relations 5 5 4 7 4 0 0 7 7 0 0 2 12 5 18 5 8 3 8 2 2
Global Studies 5 4 7 8 7 0 0 4 9 13 5 5 0 4 9 0 0 0 4 10 2
Political Science 14 17 9 12 5 6 37 19 11 25 48 28 8 13 27 18 13 15 7 8 12
Politics 3 2 6 2 7 0 3 0 11 0 0 5 0 3 0 14 4 0 1 6 5
Other 14 10 17 13 15 29 23 13 27 25 21 14 19 15 9 9 21 27 20 8 16
21
23
18:
What is your primary subfield within politics or political science?22
Country X Politics Comparative Politics/Area Studies International Relations Political Philosophy/ Political Theory Methods Development Studies Political Sociology Political Communication Women's/ Gender Studies Public Policy/ Public Administration Other Subfield/ Other Discipline
All 7 37 24 9 2 2 3 <1 <1 7 8
US 10 46 29 3 2 0 2 0 1 4 3
UK Can Aus 8 8 0 35 23 5 3 0 10 0 0 8 10 42 21 4 0 4 4 0 0 4 13 38 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 38
NZ 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ire 0 83 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fra Den 44 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 6 0 25 6 40 20 0 0 10 20 0 0 10 0
Fin Nor Swe 0 0 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 11 21 26 11 5 5 5 0 0 5 16
Isr 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
Tur HK 20 0 17 7 40 3 0 0 0 3 0 10 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sin 0 33 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA 0 25 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0
Arg Bra Col Mex 0 7 0 7 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 21 29 14 7 7 0 0 0 7 7 29 14 29 0 0 0 14 0 14 0 20 0 33 0 7 13 0 0 20 0
22
Only those respondents who indicated in the previous question that their primary field of study was Political Science or Politics received this question on their survey. The number of respondents to this question represents 10.2% of the total sample (355 out of 3464).
24
19:
How would you estimate your current working schedule to be divided between these components of academic life?23 Research 36 33 38 36 36 34 41 45 43 34 49 46 40 39 35 38 26 37 34 31 40 Teaching24 42 44 41 36 42 45 36 22 33 33 32 35 36 44 38 31 45 40 47 48 37 Consulting 8 6 5 10 5 5 4 23 13 4 8 4 16 -3 8 9 14 11 15 15 Community Service 12 12 10 15 9 8 11 16 9 12 9 4 11 10 9 10 7 13 8 16 14
All US UK Canada Australia New Zealand Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel Turkey25 Hong Kong Singapore South Africa Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
23
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76100%. To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of respondents; those responses were then averaged across each activity in order to compare the overall percent variation between countries across activities. 24 Includes time spent in the classroom, time spent preparing for teaching, and time spent grading students work. 25 Due to a technical error, Turkey was not given Consulting as a possible o ption for this question.
25
20:
Which of the following statements best characterizes your work? (Choose the closest option if none of them is an exact fit.) My work is broadly rationalist, but I do not employ a strict rational choice framework. 46 50 30 41 34 29 40 48 36 25 54 39 56 56 45 60 52 53 44 66 60 My work does not assume the rationality of actors. 47 43 67 54 63 71 47 50 55 75 34 57 36 31 36 40 36 38 41 28 31
I employ a rational choice framework. All US UK Canada Australia New Zealand Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel Turkey Hong Kong Singapore South Africa Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico 7 7 3 5 3 0 13 2 9 0 12 4 8 13 18 0 12 9 16 6 9
26
21:
Which of the following best describes your approach to the study of IR? If you do not think of your work as falling within one of these paradigms, please select the category in which most other scholars would place your work. Constructivism English School 4 2 10 6 5 17 0 2 7 0 3 4 4 4 0 0 4 9 9 6 2 Feminism 2 2 3 4 4 11 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 1 0 0 4 3 1 2 0 Liberalism 15 20 7 10 9 6 13 7 16 0 23 9 8 15 18 10 21 0 13 21 11 Marxism 4 2 7 5 5 6 7 2 0 0 3 2 0 7 9 0 0 6 8 6 8 Realism 16 16 7 19 13 11 20 23 11 0 13 9 36 26 18 5 13 16 14 13 19 Other 15 12 24 16 22 28 3 17 20 50 10 11 4 11 9 20 17 16 16 8 25 I do not use paradigmatic analysis 22 26 20 16 21 11 40 24 23 25 38 26 20 11 36 40 8 28 19 15 17
All US26 UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col Mex
22 20 22 25 22 11 17 24 23 25 8 33 28 24 9 25 33 22 20 29 19
26
The values reported here differ very slightly (less than one percent due to rounding from those we reported in Foreign Policy in January/ February 2011, because the data for this question originally were generated with a slightly smaller sample. We believe the results are qualitatively equivalent. Before rounding, constructivism remains the largest school in the United States at 20.39 percent, compared to 19.9 percent for liberalism.
27
22:
What is your main area of research within IR?

All US 5 5 2 <1 3 2 2 <1 <1 3 6 13 UK 2 3 <1 <1 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 11 Can 4 4 2 <1 2 2 3 2 <1 <1 6 13 Aus 2 2 1 <1 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 9 NZ 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 12 Ire 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 17 Fra 7 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 7 5 Den 2 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 7 2 Fin 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 Nor 0 7 0 0 5 5 7 0 0 0 0 12 Swe 9 2 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 5 5 Isr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 Tur 5 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 5 3 2 6 HK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 9 27 Sin 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 14 SA 8 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 4 16 Arg 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 Bra 6 2 2 1 2 0 3 0 2 2 3 15 Col 6 6 2 0 2 2 2 0 8 4 0 4 Mex 1 4 2 1 3 1 3 0 4 3 3 9
Comparative Foreign Policy Development Studies Global Civil Society History of the Intl Relations Discipline Human Rights Human Security Intl Environment Intl Ethics Intl History Intl Law Intl Organization(s) Intl Political Economy Intl Relations of a Particular Region/Country Intl Relations Theory Intl Security Intl Health Philosophy of Science US Foreign Policy Country X Foreign Policy Other I am not an IR scholar European Studies/ European Integration
4 4 1 <1 2 1 2 1 2 2 5 12
7 7 19 <1 <1 5 3 9 6 6
4 6 21 <1 <1 8 -8 6 4
6 9 20 <1 0 4 1 12 4 12
7 6 21 <1 0 2 6 10 5 4
11 8 19 <1 0 3 6 13 6 1
0 18 35 0 0 0 0 12 6 0
7 0 13 0 3 3 3 3 20 17
11 7 14 1 1 5 4 13 4 11
5 11 5 0 2 0 5 14 2 23
13 0 13 0 0 0 0 13 13 25
2 0 5 0 0 0 2 12 17 24
7 5 13 2 0 2 4 11 11 14
8 16 24 0 4 4 16 16 4 0
12 8 11 1 0 1 13 9 5 11
18 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 0
14 10 29 0 0 0 0 0 10 5
4 12 16 0 0 0 12 8 4 0
25 16 19 0 0 3 3 9 6 0
10 5 22 <1 0 3 12 8 2 2
25 10 2 0 0 0 6 13 2 4
21 5 8 0 0 1 7 13 6 5
28
23:
What are your secondary areas of research within IR? Check all that apply.
All US 14 13 8 3 11 7 6 3 7 10 20 17 UK 11 12 8 7 9 12 4 7 12 6 18 13 Can 15 13 12 6 8 13 3 4 8 8 19 13 Aus 19 24 11 7 11 24 11 13 14 12 21 22 NZ 6 24 12 6 12 18 6 12 12 24 24 6 Ire 5 0 10 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Fra 29 6 8 8 4 6 3 4 9 5 26 13 Den 18 7 2 7 7 5 9 7 9 16 9 20 Fin 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 Nor 12 15 9 6 15 0 12 9 0 9 35 21 Swe 9 19 11 2 9 6 6 6 6 0 21 9 Isr 9 0 0 0 5 9 0 14 0 5 0 9 Tur 17 5 5 6 7 5 3 2 12 4 10 7 HK 30 30 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 10 20 Sin 25 0 6 0 6 13 0 6 0 0 25 0 SA 21 29 0 4 13 21 21 4 8 17 29 33 Arg 28 17 10 7 3 3 0 3 17 7 10 21 Bra 15 -8 7 12 10 4 2 13 7 30 15 Col 35 13 22 11 9 11 2 7 22 2 20 13 Mex 19 9 12 9 13 13 12 8 13 6 17 16
Comparative Foreign Policy Development Studies27 Global Civil Society History of the Intl Relations Discipline Human Rights Human Security Intl Environment Intl Ethics Intl History Intl Law Intl Organization(s) Intl Political Economy Intl Relations of a Particular Region/Country Intl Relations Theory Intl Security Intl Health Philosophy of Science US Foreign Policy Country X Foreign Policy European Studies/European Integration Other
27
15 12 8 5 10 9 5 5 9 8 19 15
17 20 18 1 3 17 9
12 16 18 1 3 22 --
17 25 18 <1 4 12 8
16 24 20 1 2 14 17
31 24 17 7 4 18 21
18 29 24 0 0 12 6
10 25 10 0 0 10 10
24 19 29 3 5 22 15
23 20 16 0 5 7 5
40 20 20 0 20 0 20
6 21 18 3 3 15 15
6 26 17 0 4 2 15
23 27 23 0 0 5 14
22 19 15 0 3 6 32
30 10 20 0 0 10 20
19 44 6 0 6 0 6
21 21 25 0 0 8 42
45 48 21 0 3 10 48
38 33 18 <1 5 21 39
33 20 20 2 0 24 28
30 22 14 1 8 20 30
9 11
7 11
9 15
8 12
8 14
6 6
40 15
23 15
16 20
20 0
9 3
15 6
9 9
18 7
10 10
0 13
8 8
14 10
5 11
9 11
5 15
Due to a technical error, Brazil was not given this response option.
29
24:
In your research, what is the main region of the world that you study, if any?
All <1 7 3 9 8 5 <1 3 2 2 6 12 8 US <1 9 3 8 8 1 <1 2 2 2 7 10 8 UK <1 5 5 3 9 9 0 4 2 3 5 22 4 Can <1 7 2 5 8 17 0 4 1 2 5 10 -Aus <1 21 1 1 3 5 6 1 4 13 2 4 8 NZ 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 6 0 6 0 Ire 0 3 3 3 7 0 0 13 0 0 3 37 3 Fra 0 1 7 2 14 10 0 2 1 2 8 13 4 Den 0 2 7 0 9 2 0 2 2 2 14 25 5 Fin 0 14 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 Nor 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 3 5 0 13 35 8 Swe 2 4 5 0 13 2 0 2 4 4 5 27 4 Isr 0 0 0 4 29 4 0 0 8 0 4 8 21 Tur 4 2 7 1 19 2 <1 8 0 0 1 15 22 HK 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 Sin 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 33 5 5 0 SA 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 64 0 20 Arg 0 0 3 65 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 16 Bra 1 4 0 31 2 10 0 0 1 0 5 4 16 Col 0 7 2 37 9 7 0 4 0 2 2 7 9 Mex 0 5 0 29 4 19 0 0 0 <1 <1 9 11
Central Asia East Asia Eastern Europe Latin America M. E. and N. Africa North America Oceania Russia/Soviet Union South Asia Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Western Europe Country X28 Transntl Actors/Intl Orgs/Intl Non-Gov. Orgs Global/Use crossregional data None
10
11
11
10
20
16
29
13
16
14
11
11
14 9
19 10
10 9
12 10
12 10
33 28
13 3
8 5
9 5
0 14
13 5
9 5
4 8
5 6
9 0
5 10
8 0
0 0
12 4
9 4
9 2
28
Due to a technical error, not all respondents in Canada were given this response choice.
30
25:
In your research, what other areas of the world do you study? Check all that apply.
All 6 13 11 13 15 17 3 11 10 9 9 23 30 US 6 16 11 13 18 10 2 13 11 9 10 23 29 UK 7 12 13 6 13 19 1 9 10 8 12 22 20 Can 4 8 8 11 6 22 3 6 12 7 9 21 34 Aus 4 24 9 9 15 28 14 11 22 25 7 17 35 NZ 18 29 12 12 18 35 47 12 12 18 24 24 24 Ire 7 4 22 0 7 26 0 7 11 4 4 22 37 Fra 8 8 9 5 10 33 1 8 10 5 11 30 24 Den 5 12 7 9 19 30 5 7 7 5 14 33 16 Fin 0 14 14 14 14 14 0 29 29 14 29 71 57 Nor 5 8 18 13 5 21 0 13 5 8 15 21 23 Swe 4 2 13 2 6 9 2 2 9 2 13 20 17 Isr 0 12 4 0 31 27 0 0 0 12 8 8 46 Tur 15 4 15 2 22 13 0 18 2 4 2 31 38 HK 0 9 9 9 0 18 0 18 9 36 9 18 55 Sin 11 42 0 5 26 16 5 5 21 32 5 16 37 SA 4 8 4 8 12 4 0 4 16 4 24 20 24 Arg 0 13 9 25 9 25 0 9 3 6 3 31 44 Bra 2 9 3 32 13 32 1 7 4 4 4 21 27 Col 15 13 11 32 11 23 4 17 17 13 4 21 36 Mex 5 9 7 33 8 37 1 7 3 4 3 16 45
Central Asia East Asia Eastern Europe Latin America M. E. and N. Africa North America29 Oceania Russia/Soviet Union South Asia Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Western Europe Country X30 Transntl Actors/Intl Orgs/Intl Non-Gov. Orgs Global/Use crossregional data None
29
25
26
25
27
35
24
30
32
26
14
15
22
19
15
18
21
20
31
25
32
27
19 11
20 12
16 15
17 14
22 6
18 12
11 7
19 10
21 7
29 0
21 5
19 19
15 4
13 10
18 9
16 5
28 8
22 0
17 10
21 6
27 4
On the Canada survey, respondents were given the response choice of USA instead of North America. Due to a technical erro r on the France survey, respondents were given the response choice of USA instead of North America. 30 Due to a technical error, not all respondents in Canada were given this response choice.
31
26:
In general, how would you characterize your work in epistemological terms? Positivist 47 59 27 42 35 33 70 32 34 14 53 30 62 40 64 60 39 50 28 37 33 Non-positivist 28 21 38 28 34 33 7 36 48 14 21 39 15 30 27 30 17 37 44 30 33 Post-positivist 26 20 35 30 31 33 23 32 18 71 26 31 23 30 9 10 43 13 29 33 34
32
27:
In your research, do you emphasize the role of ideational factors (such as culture, perceptions, ideology, beliefs, etc.) when explaining international outcomes? Yes 84 80 92 86 89 94 63 93 88 86 82 93 92 95 73 95 88 94 77 88 88 No 16 20 8 14 11 6 37 7 12 14 18 7 8 5 27 5 12 6 23 13 12
33
28:
In your research, what methods do you primarily employ? Quantitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis 58 56 69 71 66 56 53 57 75 86 53 77 62 43 45 76 64 67 44 63 44 Formal Modeling 1 2 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 4 3 2 2 <1 Counterfactual Analysis <1 <1 <1 <1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 Pure Theory 3 2 4 2 6 11 0 7 2 0 3 4 0 3 9 5 4 0 4 0 3 Legal or Ethical Analysis 4 3 7 2 5 11 7 1 5 0 3 2 4 4 0 0 0 3 3 4 3 Policy Analysis 17 11 13 17 17 11 3 26 16 0 10 11 12 40 9 10 16 27 36 23 32
Experimental <1 1 <1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0
15 23 6 6 4 11 37 2 2 14 28 7 23 9 36 10 12 0 8 6 16
34
29:
In your research, what other methods do you employ, not including your primary methods? Please check all that apply. Quantitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis 27 30 20 17 22 28 42 20 15 14 34 11 29 32 45 15 28 20 33 33 34 Formal Modeling 7 9 3 5 2 6 23 5 5 14 7 4 4 5 18 0 4 0 6 9 8 Counterfactual Analysis 13 16 10 18 9 11 15 10 18 14 10 11 0 12 0 10 0 3 9 2 7 Pure Theory 16 14 19 18 20 22 15 20 23 14 17 31 8 15 9 15 12 27 17 15 12 Legal or Ethical Analysis 15 15 15 17 19 28 0 12 18 43 20 11 8 14 9 10 12 3 10 13 13 Policy Analysis 43 41 45 43 49 50 23 54 55 29 39 42 38 36 55 50 40 60 43 39 44
Experimental 5 6 2 3 2 0 4 6 8 0 2 2 4 5 0 0 0 13 6 7 10
None 8 7 11 7 9 6 12 7 3 14 2 7 8 6 0 15 8 3 13 11 9
22 23 14 23 25 17 12 17 33 14 29 29 21 15 9 15 16 23 21 37 34
35
30:
Which of the following qualitative methods do you use? Please check all that apply.31
All 63 79 30 32 12 37 23 14 20 4 8 8 4 US 63 87 30 22 11 44 25 14 13 3 5 10 4 UK 56 69 37 45 15 27 30 7 33 4 9 9 4 Can 66 78 31 42 14 36 28 11 28 4 7 6 6 Aus 59 76 34 45 19 24 24 16 34 3 8 14 3 NZ 73 80 47 33 13 27 13 7 33 0 27 27 0 Ire 70 74 33 33 4 33 19 19 15 0 0 0 4 Fra 58 70 16 49 30 53 21 18 12 4 5 5 5 Den 69 82 15 36 10 44 33 21 18 0 26 8 8 Fin 71 57 71 86 43 0 0 0 29 0 29 43 29 Nor 60 89 23 29 6 31 17 6 14 3 0 6 0 Swe 67 69 33 46 13 50 15 8 17 2 6 4 4 Isr 64 77 27 32 0 18 14 9 5 0 9 5 5 Tur 63 62 31 36 9 36 14 37 26 6 20 1 <1 HK 56 89 56 22 11 11 22 22 22 0 0 0 0 Sin 67 83 39 33 22 61 33 28 6 0 6 6 0 SA 62 71 19 19 10 43 14 24 24 0 0 5 5 Arg 69 88 15 19 4 19 8 12 27 4 8 0 4 Bra 56 61 15 39 7 27 18 13 20 7 8 2 4 Col 57 77 30 43 11 20 5 18 32 9 27 5 0 Mex 76 77 17 43 11 27 9 13 29 13 11 7 5
Single Case Study Comparative Case Study Narrative Analysis Discourse Analysis Ethnography Process Tracing Thick Description Analytic Induction Critical Theory Dialectical Research Hermeneutics Ethical Inquiry Other
31
Only those respondents who indicated that they used qualitative methods in the previous questions (In your research, what methods do you primarily employ? OR In your research, what other methods do you employ, not including your primary methods? Please check all that apply.) received this question. The number of respondents to this question represents 73.3% of the total sample (2504 out of 3464).
36
31:
Does your research tend to be basic or applied? By basic research we mean research for the sake of knowledge, without any particular immediate policy application in mind. Conversely, applied research is done with specific policy applications in mind.32 Primarily basic 21 21 28 18 20 17 20 29 18 71 21 23 17 7 10 36 14 7 25 21 25 Both basic and applied, but more basic than applied 38 39 41 43 41 33 37 29 44 29 46 48 46 25 70 7 32 40 30 34 27 Both equally 15 16 13 15 14 6 20 13 13 0 5 13 21 18 10 14 18 20 13 17 22 Both basic and applied, but more applied than basic 15 11 12 15 9 33 20 23 16 0 23 13 8 38 0 36 18 23 18 26 16 Primarily applied 11 12 7 9 16 11 3 6 9 0 5 4 8 13 10 7 18 10 15 2 10
32
37
32:
Which of the following best describes what motivates your research? Appeal to popular audience 3 2 3 5 <1 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 6 0 3 <1 9 14 Issue area 39 40 42 46 41 29 50 53 34 57 38 49 33 22 70 22 43 41 38 41 29 Methodology 3 2 2 1 2 0 7 1 2 14 5 2 4 5 0 0 4 3 8 2 3 Paradigm 5 4 4 2 6 6 3 5 9 0 0 5 13 22 0 6 0 10 2 2 4 Policy relevance/ current events 33 35 26 31 38 35 27 22 43 14 41 27 38 32 30 39 35 28 39 33 35 Region 7 6 8 3 5 6 3 9 5 14 5 7 4 14 0 11 9 7 10 9 10 Other 9 10 16 12 7 24 7 3 7 0 10 9 8 4 0 17 9 7 2 4 4
38
33:
Which of the following best describes your positions generally on social issues?33 Very Left/ liberal 17 26 13 15 8 12 13 18 10 0 3 9 13 2 0 5 0 0 <1 0 0 Left/ liberal 36 40 40 40 45 24 40 40 36 0 42 28 22 22 20 37 14 17 22 16 22 Slightly Left/ liberal 20 13 25 -23 24 33 -21 67 19 23 26 34 50 26 38 48 47 42 48 Middle of the Road 19 12 15 41 14 35 13 31 21 33 22 26 35 26 10 26 43 28 23 18 25 Slightly Right/ conservative 5 4 5 -7 0 0 -10 0 11 9 4 14 20 5 5 7 6 22 5 Right/ conservative 3 3 2 4 3 6 0 11 2 0 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Very Right/ conservative <1 1 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33
The U.S. survey offered the responses liberal and conservative. All other surveys offered the responses left and right. Due to a technical error, the France and Canada surveys did not receive Slightly Left/liberal and Slightly Right/conservative response options .
39
34:
Which of the following best describes your positions generally on economic issues?34 Very Left/ liberal 12 18 11 10 8 12 7 18 7 0 8 8 9 2 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 Left/ liberal 28 31 37 24 33 24 27 24 26 14 19 15 17 19 10 16 19 20 21 22 24 Slightly Left/ liberal 23 17 24 23 26 18 33 17 19 43 28 30 22 35 30 42 29 37 39 31 41 Middle of the Road 20 17 15 23 14 29 13 19 19 29 19 30 35 29 40 11 38 37 30 22 25 Slightly Right/ conservative 11 10 10 14 11 6 10 19 26 14 19 13 9 13 10 21 14 7 6 22 10 Right/ conservative 4 5 2 6 6 12 7 3 2 0 3 4 9 2 10 5 0 0 1 2 1 Very Right/ conservative 1 1 <1 0 <1 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
All US UK Can Australia New Zealand Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel Turkey Hong Kong Singapore South Africa Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
34
The U.S. survey offered the responses liberal and conservative. All other surveys offered the responses left and right.
40
35:
What is your current status within your home department?35

All 4 25 28 25 6 4 1 4 <1 US 7 27 29 23 4 5 2 2 <1 UK -23 33 36 <1 <1 ---Can -28 32 21 9 1 3 4 -Aus 3 12 28 13 28 3 1 6 1 NZ 0 6 24 29 29 6 0 6 0 Ire -3 27 67 -----Fra -25 ---18 -17 -Den 4 13 33 13 2 0 7 4 0 Fin 14 29 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 Nor 0 36 38 3 3 0 0 5 0 Swe 7 9 18 16 16 2 0 16 0 Isr 13 13 22 22 17 4 0 9 0 Tur 9 10 23 43 10 1 0 0 0 HK 10 40 0 40 0 10 0 0 0 Sin 0 10 35 40 0 10 0 5 0 SA 4 22 9 17 39 0 0 0 9 Arg -48 24 21 0 7 0 0 -Bra -15 30 33 1 2 1 16 -Col -30 32 30 2 2 0 4 -Mex -75 14 2 0 3 1 5 --
Chaired Professor Full Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor or Lecturer Adjunct or Visiting Instructor/Professor Emeritus Other Associate Lecturer Research Assistant/Fellow, Teaching Fellow, or Post-Doctoral Fellow Matre de Confrences36 Tutorial Fellow, Adjunct Instructor, or Professor Emeritus37
3 <1
<1 --
4 --
2 --
5 --
0 --
3 --
21 18
22 --
29 --
15 --
16 --
0 --
4 --
0 --
0 --
0 --
0 --
2 --
0 --
0 --
<1
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
35
Because each survey was tailored to each individual country, some of the professorial titles vary across surveys. Some options were collapsed into the categories reported here. Not all response options were offered in every country. Those responses that were not offered in particular surveys are indicated by --" in the report. 36 Matre de conferences was only given as a response choice on the France survey. On the advice of our local partners in France, this response choice includes assistant professors and associate professors in France (depending on their CV) and also includes adjuncts in the case of respondents affiliated with the institution IEP de Paris. We acknowledge that this separate response choice may lower the results for the aforementioned categories. 37 Tutorial fellow, adjunct instructor or professor emeritus was only given as a response choice on the UK sur vey. We acknowledge that this separate response choice may lower the results for other options with overlapping positions.
41
36:
Other than your native language, how many foreign languages do you understand well enough to conduct scholarly research? None 22 30 31 23 49 33 24 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 1 One 37 39 34 38 35 28 38 39 24 14 28 39 54 56 50 45 35 33 4 49 32 Two 26 22 23 27 10 28 34 37 29 43 51 39 25 30 40 25 30 30 46 43 45 Three or more 14 9 12 12 6 11 3 24 47 43 21 21 17 13 10 15 9 37 50 9 22
42
37:
How often do you rely on material not written in your native language to conduct scholarly research? Never 14 20 21 11 24 22 20 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 15 13 0 <1 0 0 Rarely 20 28 21 22 35 28 17 1 4 0 3 2 4 0 10 15 35 0 5 0 0 Occasionally 19 24 20 27 18 39 27 5 7 0 8 7 13 3 0 30 13 0 11 15 6 Regularly 46 27 38 40 23 11 37 93 89 100 90 89 83 97 90 40 39 100 84 85 94
43
38:
Which of the following have you cited in your scholarship and/or used as a teaching/grading tool? Please check all that apply.38 US UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor 31 40 20 39 2 5 3 9 9 36 10 21 4 24 6 63 50 62 36 20 19 30 3 5 5 6 6 19 15 19 7 29 10 59 60 66 45 39 24 30 2 2 3 6 14 31 15 24 8 22 13 57 52 53 38 20 23 28 2 7 2 5 7 25 20 21 10 34 14 70 56 65 50 13 31 44 0 6 0 13 13 38 31 38 25 44 13 81 50 69 28 17 17 45 3 7 10 7 0 14 17 28 3 48 21 69 55 69 80 74 42 22 7 3 16 3 35 35 42 12 4 1 20 38 26 26 25 15 23 33 0 0 0 0 20 28 10 15 3 8 8 33 50 48 43 29 43 43 0 0 29 0 43 71 0 14 0 0 29 86 57 43 36 44 11 6 3 0 8 6 19 42 6 11 14 25 0 31 58 56 Swe 32 32 12 14 4 2 6 8 6 18 10 14 2 10 8 48 68 66 Isr 25 23 21 19 5 6 6 8 22 24 20 17 10 13 14 34 68 58 Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col 36 27 27 14 0 5 0 9 5 5 18 18 0 9 18 41 41 59 38 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 13 38 0 25 0 75 38 50 56 31 25 19 6 0 6 0 13 31 13 13 0 19 6 56 44 56 30 17 4 22 4 17 0 9 9 13 4 17 4 26 0 43 65 83 31 52 14 21 0 0 0 3 24 28 21 28 7 3 17 48 62 55 42 50 16 21 6 7 5 12 18 18 22 25 10 11 24 55 64 62 33 35 23 42 0 0 0 7 7 12 14 19 14 12 21 47 58 60 Mex 29 37 18 22 1 9 5 11 12 15 32 25 7 8 14 46 58 48
All Email Correspondence Scholarship 35 Teaching 36 Blog Post Scholarship 20 Teaching 32 Twitter Entry Scholarship 3 Teaching 5 Facebook Content Scholarship 4 Teaching 8 Wiki, such as Wikipedia Scholarship 12 Teaching 29 Wikileaks Document Scholarship 15 Teaching 21 Podcast Scholarship 6 Teaching 22 Youtube Video Scholarship 10 Teaching 57 Other Web Content Scholarship 54 Teaching 60
38
The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who answered that a particular option is cited in their scholarship or used as a teaching/grading tool out of the total number of respondents who selected at least one option for scholarship and/or teaching/grading.
44
39:
Where do you get your information on current events? Please rank your top three sources, using 1 to indicate the source of the greatest amount of information, 2 for the next greatest source, etc.39 Blogs Cable Television 31 30 13 29 13 6 7 36 33 43 31 23 25 55 60 21 35 50 52 53 47 Newspapers 92 91 93 94 96 78 100 98 91 100 97 95 92 96 100 100 83 93 91 82 88 Network Online News Television Aggregators 24 58 17 57 44 50 24 61 42 53 28 78 45 52 19 27 12 60 43 57 21 64 52 41 54 67 27 51 0 70 21 84 35 65 10 73 23 82 16 80 13 78 Podcasts 5 4 5 7 11 0 3 2 9 0 5 5 4 4 20 5 0 3 3 2 3 Radio News 42 49 53 37 47 50 45 47 44 29 46 45 38 20 10 26 39 10 13 18 38 Social Networking Sites 7 5 7 5 3 11 7 12 9 14 5 13 8 9 10 32 4 13 8 11 13 Twitter 4 4 3 4 5 6 10 3 2 0 3 5 4 7 10 0 13 0 4 2 2
24 28 22 24 22 33 28 37 23 14 15 13 8 20 0 5 17 27 16 20 11
39
Results represent the percentage of respondents who listed each option as a part of their top three rankings.
45
40:
Which of the following apply to your use of, or policy about technology? Please check all that apply. Permit use of cell phones in class 7 6 8 7 5 0 7 1 9 14 17 9 0 16 0 0 10 3 10 14 8 Allow to cite Wikipedia entries in research papers 15 15 10 13 8 35 3 13 26 29 25 23 38 27 30 7 15 21 12 7 19 Have edited a Have Wikipedia contributed entry in area to a blog of expertise 7 7 6 9 7 18 0 7 9 0 17 9 8 7 0 0 0 7 7 7 2 27 28 32 31 29 24 28 24 37 29 36 23 8 14 10 20 20 24 20 26 16
Permit use of laptops in class All US UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col Mex 94 94 96 97 97 94 100 94 93 100 92 98 100 81 90 100 95 97 95 95 95
Regularly contribute to a blog 8 7 6 8 7 29 7 10 12 14 3 4 0 13 0 0 5 7 14 14 14
46
III.
The International Relations Discipline

What percentage of IR literature do you estimate is devoted to each of these paradigms today? 40 Constructivism Realism 20 33 17 32 23 31 20 31 25 33 20 28 18 29 31 29 21 33 20 18 19 30 22 25 31 39 22 43 13 44 21 38 23 39 27 37 24 36 26 36 30 38 Liberalism Marxism Feminism 28 9 7 29 7 7 26 9 9 28 9 8 28 8 8 23 9 9 24 7 9 22 6 7 27 6 6 13 5 7 28 8 5 26 7 9 23 8 8 28 13 7 17 6 5 32 5 3 35 18 10 29 14 8 31 14 7 34 18 7 35 16 12 English School 9 6 11 8 12 7 9 12 9 9 8 9 9 12 8 10 15 19 17 16 19 Non-paradigmatic 17 19 16 13 14 21 11 18 21 18 19 10 22 14 16 9 18 16 16 16 23 Other 13 13 9 18 6 10 3 5 13 3 8 3 29 16 0 8 5 3 25 25 19
41:
40
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76-100%. To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of respondents; those responses were then averaged across each paradigm in order to compare the overall percent variation across paradigms. Rows add to more than 100 percent because respondents were asked to estimate a percentage for each paradigm. Finland (93 percent), Hong Kong (109 percent), and Ireland (110 percent) were closer to 100 percent, while scholars in Mexico (192 percent), Colombia (178 percent), and Brazil (170 percent) overestimated by larger amounts. The ranking of paradigms is likely the most relevant feature of this table, rather than the absolute amounts estimated.
47
42:
List four scholars who have produced the best work in the field of IR in the past 20 years. Please provide both first and last names.41 Scholar Alexander Wendt Robert Keohane John Mearsheimer James Fearon Joseph Nye Robert Jervis Martha Finnemore Peter Katzenstein Kenneth Waltz John Ikenberry David Lake Stephen Walt Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Barry Buzan Stephen Krasner Samuel Huntington Beth Simmons Jack Snyder John Ruggie Michael Barnett All 24 21 14 14 13 10 9 9 8 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 US 21 21 17 18 15 11 10 9 8 8 8 7 7 3 6 6 6 6 4 5 UK 30 20 5 1 7 8 9 8 8 6 3 4 1 14 4 0 2 2 1 1 Can 28 22 8 6 13 8 5 6 13 5 5 5 3 11 0 6 2 0 11 9
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 15 18 19 19
41
This question was asked of half the respondents in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. The other half of respondents in these countries received question 43. Respondents were randomly assigned to one group or the other. The results displayed here represent the percentage of respondents who answered that a particular scholar belonged in the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one scholars name.
48
43:
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
List four scholars who have had the greatest influence on the field of IR in the past 20 years. Please provide both first and last names.42
Scholar Alexander Wendt Robert Keohane Kenneth Waltz Joseph Nye John Mearsheimer James Fearon Samuel Huntington Robert Cox Barry Buzan Peter Katzenstein Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Robert Jervis Stephen Walt Stephen Krasner Martha Finnemore John Ikenberry Bruce Russett John Ruggie Susan Strange James Rosenau All 47 39 26 20 19 11 10 8 8 7 7 7 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 US 45 41 26 19 24 20 10 2 2 10 12 11 8 5 7 6 7 3 2 2 UK 53 36 22 20 20 5 9 16 15 6 1 1 2 5 1 9 2 9 7 3 Can 57 36 19 21 8 8 4 29 8 8 4 1 3 8 10 1 4 11 10 6 Aus 48 22 30 14 26 2 11 12 11 11 0 2 6 9 2 3 0 7 10 1 NZ 64 27 36 9 18 0 18 27 9 0 0 9 9 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 Ire 36 23 27 14 14 5 0 18 14 9 5 0 14 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 Fra 58 28 12 21 21 0 7 0 19 2 0 5 9 0 5 2 0 2 9 19 Den 43 57 57 13 13 0 13 4 13 9 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 9 4 0 Fin 100 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nor 33 40 40 40 13 13 13 0 7 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 Swe 50 63 42 13 13 0 13 4 21 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 8 0 4 4 Isr 35 18 18 24 0 6 24 0 6 6 0 19 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 12 Tur 51 31 36 29 16 2 24 10 18 <1 <1 2 6 5 2 3 3 0 2 7 HK 50 20 33 33 20 0 0 0 33 20 20 0 33 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sin 88 75 50 0 25 13 0 13 0 13 0 0 0 13 13 38 0 0 0 0 SA 50 19 13 32 0 0 19 13 25 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Arg 43 62 38 5 10 0 5 14 24 5 0 0 19 5 0 0 0 0 14 5 Bra 33 51 26 31 11 0 6 16 20 0 <1 <1 2 8 2 0 0 <1 3 4 Col 57 47 17 27 13 0 20 0 23 0 0 0 7 7 3 0 0 3 0 3 Mex 31 44 23 23 6 0 6 9 4 4 2 0 2 2 0 4 0 8 8 4
42
This question was asked of all respondents in every country surveyed, except the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. In these three countries, we randomly assigned half the respondents to receive question 42 and half to receive question 43. To calculate the All column in this table, we double-weighted responses in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada to accurately reflect the relative percentage of respondents in these countries who selected each response.
49
44:
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 19 20 20
Aside from you, please list four scholars who have produced the most interesting scholarship in the past five years. Please provide both first and last names.43
All 12 11 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 US 7 8 8 7 5 5 5 6 6 2 5 5 6 2 4 4 3 3 <1 3 3 UK 4 2 2 4 4 3 1 4 4 8 2 <1 <1 4 2 <1 4 4 6 0 2 Can 13 4 4 2 7 3 7 2 <1 3 4 6 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 Aus 4 3 4 2 4 2 5 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 4 0 1 0 2 1 2 NZ 0 8 17 8 0 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 Ire 0 5 11 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Fra 6 9 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Den 0 0 5 14 14 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 Fin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nor 6 6 0 11 17 11 0 0 0 6 17 11 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swe 10 0 5 5 10 5 5 10 10 10 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Isr 15 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 Tur 16 12 2 12 4 11 2 2 1 22 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 1 0 0 3 HK 0 40 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Sin 25 0 0 0 0 0 38 25 13 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SA 6 19 6 0 0 0 6 0 13 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arg 18 0 5 9 0 14 0 23 0 23 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 Bra 4 7 4 5 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 10 <1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Col 19 11 0 4 7 4 0 4 0 19 4 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 Mex 14 6 2 0 4 0 2 2 4 4 0 2 4 8 0 2 0 0 6 0 0
Scholar Alexander Wendt Joseph Nye Martha Finnemore John Mearsheimer Peter Katzenstein Stephen Walt Michael Barnett John Ikenberry Kathryn Sikkink Barry Buzan James Fearon David Lake Beth Simmons Robert Keohane Daniel Drezner Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Daniel Deudney Patrick Jackson Andrew Hurrell John Mueller Robert Jervis
43
The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who answered that a particular scholar belonged in the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one scholars name.
50
45:
Do you believe that a job candidate who completed his or her PhD in an American university is generally advantaged on the Country X job market compared to one who completed his or her PhD in a Country X university? 44 Yes 50 84 31 54 46 47 65 24 24 17 35 21 60 85 88 100 53 63 45 68 69 No 35 7 49 32 39 27 19 52 45 83 39 48 25 9 13 0 26 25 41 15 23 Dont Know 16 10 20 14 15 27 15 24 31 0 26 31 15 6 0 0 21 13 14 18 8
All US45 UK Canada Australia New Zealand Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel Turkey Hong Kong Singapore South Africa Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
44 45
Country X represents the country name in which the respondent is located. The U.S. survey asked respondents if they believed that a job candidate who completed a PhD at a U.S. university is generally advantaged in the U.S. job market compared to another candidate who completed a PhD elsewhere.
51
Table 2: Worldwide Aggregate Journal Results46 Rank the four journals that publish articles with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think about international relations. (1 indicates the journal with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with the next greatest influence, etc.) These can include IR journals, general political science journals and/or non-political science journals.
Rank Journal All
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
International Organization International Studies Quarterly International Security Foreign Affairs American Political Science Review World Politics European Journal of Intl Relations Journal of Conflict Resolution Foreign Policy Review of International Studies Millennium: Journal of International Studies American Journal of Political Science International Affairs Security Studies Review of International Political Economy Journal of Peace Research International Studies Review International Relations Comparative Politics Global Governance
65 42 39 33 23 23 20 15 13 11 10 9 9 8 6 5 5 4 4 4
46
This table reports the aggregate results for questions 46 and 47. The results for response option Other from question 47 were not reported in this table because they have no comparable option on the open-ended question 46. The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who listed a particular journal among the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one journal. Results are presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
52
46:
Rank the four journals that publish articles with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think about international relations. (1 indicates the journal with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with the next greatest influence, etc.) These can include IR journals, general political science journals and/or nonpolitical science journals.47
Journal International Organization Foreign Affairs International Security International Studies Quarterly World Politics Foreign Policy European Journal of International Relations American Political Science Review Review of International Studies Revista Brasileira de Poltica Internacional International Affairs Millenium: Journal of International Studies Journal of Conflict Resolution Contexto Internacional Le Monde Diplomatique International Relations Journal of Peace Research Foro Internacional American Journal of Political Science Relaciones Internacionales All 58 38 27 24 16 16 13 12 10 9 8 8 6 6 5 4 3 3 3 3 Ire 62 10 10 38 19 0 33 24 19 0 19 5 19 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Fra 67 31 39 14 19 19 17 8 14 0 6 3 6 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 Den 80 15 25 15 30 10 30 15 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Fin 67 0 33 67 0 0 67 0 67 0 0 67 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 Nor 73 13 20 47 47 13 20 27 0 0 13 0 33 0 0 7 20 0 7 0 Swe 76 16 20 44 28 0 32 24 20 0 4 4 4 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 Arg 74 58 63 16 5 32 5 0 16 0 11 16 0 0 5 5 11 5 5 0 Bra 54 43 26 18 5 15 3 7 6 25 9 12 5 17 8 2 0 0 2 0 Col 36 54 18 18 18 29 11 7 14 0 7 11 7 0 7 4 7 4 4 0 Mex 41 57 22 26 20 19 9 15 2 0 4 6 0 0 6 2 2 13 4 17
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 18 18
47
The wording of this question is identical to that in the following question. This table reports the results for Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden, where responses were open-ended. The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who listed a particular journal among the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one journal. Results are presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
53
47:
Rank the four journals that publish articles with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think about international relations. (1 indicates the journal with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with the next greatest influence, etc.) These can include IR journals, general political science journals and/or nonpolitical science journals.48
Journal All US UK Can Aus NZ Isr Tur HK Sin SA
Rank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 20
International Organization International Studies Quarterly International Security Foreign Affairs American Political Science Review World Politics European Journal of Intl Relations Journal of Conflict Resolution Foreign Policy Review of International Studies American Journal of Political Science Millennium International Affairs Security Studies Other Review of International Political Economy Journal of Peace Research International Studies Review Comparative Politics Global Governance International Relations Survival
66 46 42 32 26 25 21 16 12 12 11 10 10 9 7 7 6 5 4 4 4 4
71 52 45 32 32 28 12 22 13 4 13 4 4 10 5 5 6 6 5 3 2 2
66 36 37 17 14 15 52 6 3 37 6 19 18 5 12 13 5 2 2 6 6 5
69 47 38 26 21 26 27 8 8 21 6 19 6 8 10 14 3 3 4 8 5 3
58 39 47 33 7 17 35 4 15 19 4 19 20 7 7 10 2 7 3 5 8 11
45 82 0 27 9 9 45 0 0 45 0 9 18 0 9 18 9 27 0 0 9 0
55 55 45 25 40 5 25 30 0 10 15 0 5 30 15 5 20 5 5 0 0 0
40 21 29 55 17 20 24 12 21 10 10 25 31 5 8 2 6 5 5 2 10 9
67 33 83 50 17 17 0 0 0 0 17 0 33 0 0 0 0 17 33 0 0 0
91 36 73 9 9 36 27 9 0 9 18 9 0 18 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 9
38 13 13 63 19 19 0 13 38 13 6 25 19 13 0 13 0 25 0 0 6 13
48
The wording of this question is identical to that in the previous question. This table reports the 2011 results for all countries surveyed in 2008 (excluding Ireland). On the advice of our local partners in Turkey, respondents in Turkey also received this question. The 2008 responses were used to generate the responses that were offered to respondents in 2011. Unlike question 45, which was provided to nine new countries and Ireland, the ten countries that received this question were offered closed response options, although they were able to list additional or alternate journals. The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who listed a particular journal among the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one journal. Results are presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
54
Table 3: Worldwide Aggregate Press Results49 Rank the four presses that publish books with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think about international relations. (1 indicates the press with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with the next greatest influence, etc.)
Rank Journal All
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Cambridge University Press Oxford University Press Princeton University Press Cornell University Press Routledge Palgrave Macmillan Columbia University Press Lynne Rienner Harvard University Press MIT Press University of Michigan Press SAGE Publications Stanford University Press University of Chicago Press Yale University Press Polity University of California Press Editora Universidade de Brasilia Presses de Science Po Editora Saraiva
82 56 46 38 32 20 16 15 12 10 8 7 7 7 6 5 4 1 <1 <1
49
This table reports the aggregate results for questions 48 and 49. The results for response option Other from question 49 were not reported in this table because they have no comparable option on the open-ended question 48. The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who listed a particular press among the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one press. Results are presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
55
48:
Rank the four presses that publish books with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think about international relations. (1 indicates the press with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with the next greatest influence, etc.)50 Press Cambridge University Press Oxford University Press Routledge Princeton University Press Palgrave Macmillan Cornell University Press Editora Universidade de Brasilia Columbia University Press Harvard University Press MIT Press SAGE Publications Polity Presses de Science Po Editora Saraiva Lynne Rienner Ashgate Editora UNESP University of Chicago Press Pearson Longman Stanford University Press Juru Editora Percentage 68 52 40 27 23 11 9 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 12 13 14 14 16 17 17 19 19 19
50
The wording of this question is identical to that in the following question. This table reports the results for Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden, where responses were open-ended. The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who listed a particular press among the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one press. Results are presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
56
49:
Rank the four presses that publish books with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think about international relations. (1 indicates the press with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with the next greatest influence, etc.)51 Press Cambridge University Press Oxford University Press Princeton University Press Cornell University Press Routledge Palgrave MacMillan Columbia University Press Lynne Rienner Harvard University Press MIT Press University of Michigan Press Stanford University Press SAGE Publications University of Chicago Press Yale University Press Polity Other University of California Press All US UK Can Aus NZ Isr Tur HK Sin SA 88 85 83 79 76 83 83 67 84 84 87 61 55 67 47 65 33 50 67 57 54 65 43 28 17 32 38 50 75 13 48 56 34 37 31 25 21 11 67 67 0 42 52 29 45 47 50 37 62 17 17 67 32 21 42 22 32 58 26 41 33 8 67 19 11 31 21 20 33 11 18 50 17 13 18 17 16 23 21 8 11 5 0 0 27 16 16 16 12 18 17 21 18 0 8 27 12 10 15 5 7 10 8 11 4 0 8 0 10 13 4 2 2 0 16 2 0 0 0 8 12 8 4 5 9 0 21 8 33 17 0 8 6 4 8 10 8 16 17 0 0 27 7 8 6 3 4 8 21 8 17 0 0 7 7 11 1 4 0 11 4 0 0 7 7 2 15 5 14 17 0 2 0 0 7 5 4 5 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 4 5 3 3 4 0 5 2 0 0 0 4
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
51
The wording of this question is identical to that in the previous question. This table reports the 2011 results for all countries surveyed in 2008. On the advice of our local partners in Turkey, respondents in Turkey also received this question. The 2008 responses were used to generate the responses that were offered to respondents in 2011. Unlike question 48, which was provided to the nine new countries and Ireland, the ten countries that received this question were offered closed response options, although they were able to list additional or alternate presses. The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who listed a particular press among the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one press. Results are presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
57
50:
Rank the three kinds of research outputs that it is most important for you to publish in order to advance your academic career.52 All US UK Can Aus 94 96 90 86 90 39 30 48 27 22 19 21 18 19 19 2 1 1 4 2 7 11 6 11 10 < 1 < 1 0 3 2 5 10 13 11 11 1 1 1 <1 2 88 3 37 <1 <1 <1 1 1 4 <1 89 3 41 <1 <1 <1 1 <1 4 1 93 1 30 0 <1 0 <1 2 <1 <1 87 1 31 2 0 0 <1 1 2 0 86 <1 23 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 NZ 100 54 15 0 8 0 0 0 100 8 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ire 96 19 4 0 4 0 4 0 96 0 65 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 Fra 87 5 32 0 39 0 11 0 74 3 29 3 0 0 0 3 13 0 Den 93 22 19 4 7 4 19 0 93 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Fin 80 40 20 0 0 0 20 20 100 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nor Swe Isr Tur 74 95 89 66 9 16 21 38 22 22 47 13 6 0 0 5 4 19 11 17 13 0 0 0 10 0 3 0 4 4 3 0 88 100 95 84 1 0 0 0 33 70 46 32 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 <0 0 0 0 4 9 3 5 <1 0 0 0 HK 86 14 29 0 0 0 14 0 100 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sin 100 36 14 0 7 0 0 0 93 0 36 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 SA 63 26 5 11 16 11 16 11 89 0 37 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 Arg 92 21 17 4 17 0 25 4 79 0 13 0 4 0 4 0 8 0 Bra 56 24 13 3 11 6 26 7 83 10 48 <1 0 0 2 <1 8 0 Col 53 27 20 13 7 17 13 3 80 13 33 7 0 0 0 3 3 0 Mex 71 27 31 5 18 5 18 10 69 3 29 0 0 0 0 2 8 0
Book: SA, UP Book: SA, CP Book: CA, UP Book: CA, CP Book: E, UP Book: E, CP Book Chapter: UP Book Chapter: CP Journal Article: SA, PR Journal Article: SA, NPR Journal Article: CA, PR Journal Article: CA, NPR Own Blog Post Other Blog Post Newspaper Article Policy Report Conference Paper Other
52
Index of Abbreviations: SA = self-authored; CA = co-authored; UP = university press; CP = commercial press; E = edited; PR = peer-reviewed; NPR = not peer-reviewed
58
51:
In the past two years, have you consulted or worked in a paid capacity for any of the following? Please check all that apply. All US 7 2 7 13 5 10 15 20 7 55 UK 12 3 17 9 2 10 13 10 6 54 Can 6 3 11 9 1 8 13 23 7 55 Aus 8 2 9 8 5 6 16 24 9 53 NZ 15 0 23 23 0 0 8 31 0 62 Ire 9 4 26 22 0 9 4 17 4 48 Fra 7 0 23 7 5 11 23 25 0 41 Den 11 11 18 14 4 7 25 21 18 54 Fin 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 20 20 20 Nor Swe Isr Tur 0 4 13 13 0 13 8 42 17 42 3 5 0 14 0 5 8 19 5 59 5 0 0 16 5 0 16 16 16 63 2 2 7 15 0 8 24 11 5 60 HK 13 0 0 13 0 25 0 0 0 63 Sin 18 0 18 0 0 9 55 27 27 45 SA Arg 11 6 22 17 6 22 28 17 22 28 8 0 29 21 4 21 29 38 13 25 Bra 6 8 15 15 2 11 13 31 6 43 Col 16 3 16 19 3 19 19 25 9 31 Mex 16 6 14 14 0 14 14 33 13 40
Foreign Govt Interest Groups Intl Orgs. NGOs Defense Contractor Private Sector Think Tanks Country X Govt53 Other None
7 3 11 12 4 10 15 20 7 53
53
59
52:
In the past two years, have you consulted or worked in an unpaid capacity for any of the following? All US 8 9 8 23 1 5 11 13 6 56 UK Can Aus NZ 9 8 10 18 1 5 18 14 7 49 8 12 11 25 0 8 21 24 8 41 9 14 8 30 0 <1 19 18 10 43 0 15 15 54 0 0 15 15 8 38 Ire 9 9 5 23 0 5 14 23 5 45 Fra Den Fin Nor Swe 5 3 20 20 3 5 28 28 3 38 7 15 22 33 4 7 19 33 19 33 0 20 0 60 0 0 20 20 20 40 10 25 30 35 0 5 5 25 5 30 0 15 3 21 0 0 15 15 3 59 Isr 6 6 17 33 0 11 44 28 0 33 Tur HK Sin 3 5 11 24 0 5 34 15 3 46 50 13 13 38 0 25 38 13 0 38 0 9 18 18 0 0 36 27 18 36 SA 6 11 6 22 0 0 22 28 6 33 Arg Bra Col Mex 6 12 24 12 0 0 24 12 18 29 8 7 9 19 2 4 18 18 11 50 4 0 8 15 4 0 12 12 8 54 10 13 10 20 0 5 10 20 5 45
Foreign Govt Interest Groups Intl Orgs. NGOs Defense Contractor Private Sector Think Tanks Country X Govt54 Other None
8 9 9 23 <1 5 16 16 7 50
54
60
53:
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
What are the five best PhD programs in the world for a student who wants to pursue an academic career in international relations?55
Institution Harvard University Princeton University Stanford University Columbia University London School of Economics and Political Science Yale University Oxford University University of Chicago University of California--Berkeley University of Cambridge University of California--San Diego Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Michigan--Ann Arbor Cornell University Georgetown University Johns Hopkins University Aberystwyth University George Washington University Ohio State University New York University All 65 50 39 37 US 67 59 52 42 UK 64 38 20 29 Can 68 48 35 34 Aus 62 43 22 26 NZ 78 0 44 22 Ire 58 32 21 47 Fra 58 38 8 54 Den 69 54 23 38 Fin 0 0 0 0 Nor 63 50 50 25 Swe 50 42 17 8 Isr 67 50 58 58 Tur 63 46 34 34 HK 100 40 40 80 Sin 67 89 33 56 SA 15 15 31 23 Arg 67 60 40 60 Bra 57 32 15 26 Col 50 29 17 29 Mex 54 22 22 28
24 23 23 20 15 14 12 11 10 10 10 8 7 5 4 4
9 26 12 26 19 6 20 17 17 11 9 7 2 7 6 4
54 19 41 15 4 21 3 3 1 7 7 5 25 1 3 3
32 24 31 12 18 21 9 5 6 16 8 8 12 3 3 3
35 15 46 19 7 26 4 7 1 26 6 9 24 6 4 0
33 22 33 11 11 11 11 11 0 22 0 11 33 11 0 0
42 16 37 16 5 21 16 0 0 11 0 5 26 0 0 5
54 17 25 0 13 25 0 0 0 0 13 13 8 0 4 0
38 8 8 8 15 23 0 23 0 8 8 8 15 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 38 25 13 13 25 13 13 25 13 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 25 8 8 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 8 0
8 17 0 8 25 17 0 0 17 8 25 17 0 0 17 0
36 34 42 18 13 27 1 6 3 6 11 8 7 1 3 6
40 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 20
33 22 33 22 11 11 0 22 11 11 0 0 0 0 11 0
46 38 54 15 8 69 0 0 8 0 23 15 23 0 0 0
40 13 20 27 0 20 0 7 0 0 33 27 7 0 0 7
59 15 36 6 11 24 1 4 0 5 18 10 3 6 1 7
42 29 46 17 13 25 4 4 0 0 13 25 8 8 0 4
26 9 33 4 11 13 2 0 0 11 17 22 0 2 0 2
55
61
54:
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
What are the five best masters programs in the world for a student who wants to pursue a policy career in international relations?56
Institution Harvard University Georgetown University Johns Hopkins University Columbia University Princeton University London School of Economics and Political Science Tufts University George Washington University Oxford University American University University of Cambridge Stanford University Yale University University of Chicago IEP de Paris University of California-Berkeley Massachusetts Institute of Technology Syracuse University University of California-San Diego King's College London All 53 50 44 35 34 US 54 66 58 39 42 UK 60 26 22 22 23 Can 58 35 35 43 22 Aus 52 30 34 18 34 NZ 33 33 50 17 33 Ire 38 44 25 38 13 Fra 48 29 24 38 19 Den 58 33 8 8 33 Fin 0 0 0 0 0 Nor 80 20 40 40 60 Swe 9 18 18 27 18 Isr 40 80 70 50 10 Tur 54 27 21 32 33 HK 75 0 50 75 75 Sin 43 57 86 43 43 SA 25 25 33 33 17 Arg 50 64 36 64 43 Bra 52 25 20 24 19 Col 43 35 26 26 9 Mex 29 27 32 24 15
27 27 23 16 12 10 9 9 6 4 4 3 3 3 3
11 39 36 5 19 2 6 5 8 1 2 4 5 4 <1
69 12 3 42 2 16 9 16 <1 4 0 <1 <1 0 16
41 19 22 13 9 8 14 10 3 3 3 2 3 1 0
34 9 13 32 4 27 11 11 4 7 7 2 0 0 11
33 17 33 17 17 0 17 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 0 38 0 31 0 19 13 6 0 0 0 6 6
43 10 0 19 0 24 5 14 0 33 0 5 0 0 10
67 8 0 8 8 8 17 8 0 8 17 8 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 20 20 20 0 40 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 0
36 9 0 0 0 9 9 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0
10 40 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 10 10
46 11 4 39 3 29 24 22 9 0 11 4 0 0 4
25 25 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 25 25 0 25 0
29 43 29 29 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 14 0 0
50 8 0 58 0 67 17 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 8
21 14 7 14 0 21 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 11 4 31 1 19 10 10 4 12 6 6 0 2 0
39 22 4 48 0 22 17 17 0 17 9 4 0 0 0
32 15 5 22 7 12 10 7 2 20 7 0 0 7 0
56
62
55:
What are the five best colleges or universities in Country X for undergraduate students to study international relations?57 Institution Harvard University Princeton University Stanford University Columbia University Georgetown University Yale University London School of Economics and Political Science University of Chicago Aberystwyth University University of Toronto Oxford University Dartmouth College University of British Columbia Middle East Technical University George Washington University Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio de Janeiro Bilkent niversitesi Universidade de So Paulo Australian National University American University McGill University University of California--Berkeley Boazii niversitesi Percentage 25 22 16 15 14 12 10 9 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 20 20
57
Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed. Because this question asked respondents to name the best colleges or universities in their own countries, the aggregate data reported here does not reflect an accurate ranking of world institutions for undergraduate study. Rather, it largely reflects the effects of individual country sample sizes.
63
56:
To what extent do you think that a blog devoted to international relations should count in the professional evaluation of colleagues in each of the following categories? (Please check all that apply.) Service Should Not Count 34 34 42 34 33 36 31 24 38 75 39 43 16 33 63 30 35 30 33 19 41 Research Should Not Count 71 75 76 73 75 86 88 64 77 80 74 67 68 36 100 70 78 59 63 57 66
Should Count 66 66 58 66 67 64 69 76 62 25 61 57 84 67 38 70 65 70 67 81 59
Should Count 29 25 24 27 25 14 12 36 23 20 26 33 32 64 0 30 22 41 37 43 34
64
57:
How useful are the following kinds of IR research to policy makers?58 Area Studies 2.54 2.52 2.52 2.5 2.56 2.75 2.42 2.53 2.32 2.25 2.47 2.48 2.32 2.64 2.83 2.55 2.59 2.55 2.59 2.63 2.71 Contemporary Case Studies 2.48 2.44 2.46 2.51 2.55 2.75 2.61 2.55 2.32 2 2.47 2.33 2.16 2.52 2.83 2.36 2.56 2.48 2.67 2.57 2.72 Formal Models 1.09 1.03 1.14 0.79 1.13 1 1.26 1.02 0.83 1 0.63 0.94 0.94 1.46 0.83 1.2 1.35 0.81 1.44 1.34 1.69 Historical Case studies 2.04 2.07 2.05 1.91 2.09 2.45 1.83 1.7 1.87 1.75 1.63 1.88 1.47 2.07 1.83 2.18 1.94 1.81 2.16 2.03 2.19 Policy Analysis 2.50 2.47 2.43 2.46 2.63 2.58 2.54 2.52 2.36 2 2.53 2.45 2.21 2.55 3 2.45 2.76 2.48 2.67 2.59 2.83 Quantitative Analysis 1.81 1.8 1.79 1.69 1.69 1.75 2.04 1.81 1.5 1.5 1.94 1.76 1.32 1.86 1.33 1.5 1.69 1.73 2.19 1.89 2.28 Theoretical Analysis 1.54 1.51 1.45 1.3 1.62 1.92 1.82 1.07 1.26 1 1.69 1.53 1.11 1.68 1.67 1.5 1.65 1.64 1.96 1.59 1.97
58
Very useful = 3, Somewhat useful = 2, Not very useful = 1, Not useful at all = 0, Dont know = not included
65
58:
What statement comes closest to representing your views on the relationship between the kind of research IR scholars produce and the kind of research that the policy community finds most useful? The gap is growing. 37 42 36 38 34 36 46 28 42 40 26 26 35 18 38 50 44 25 24 19 30 The gap, whatever its size, is about as wide as it was 20-30 years ago. 39 43 46 47 38 36 42 43 42 60 42 50 35 23 25 33 33 38 11 39 25 The gap between IR scholars and policy practitioners is shrinking. 23 14 18 15 25 21 13 30 17 0 32 24 30 59 25 17 22 38 53 42 44 There is no gap. 2 <1 <1 <1 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 13 0 0 0 13 0 2
66
59:
Which statement comes closest to representing your views on the ideal relationship between the academy and the policy community? There should be a higher wall of separation between the academic and policy communities. 10 8 21 14 15 17 17 17 14 20 18 11 5 7 13 8 6 5 7 3 9 There should be a larger number of links between the academic and policy communities. 90 92 79 86 85 83 83 83 86 80 82 89 95 93 88 92 94 95 93 97 91
67
60:
Which of the following best describes what you believe should primarily motivate research in the discipline? Appeal to popular audience 3 2 3 3 <1 0 4 7 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 13 <1 10 11 Issue area of problem 51 54 57 55 62 50 31 69 39 60 70 53 50 29 75 42 65 33 35 29 26 Methodology 2 1 1 2 <1 0 12 0 4 0 0 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 7 3 5 Paradigm 4 3 2 2 2 14 0 7 0 0 0 3 10 22 0 0 6 4 3 6 5 Policy relevance/ current events 29 29 17 25 27 21 38 11 39 0 17 23 40 29 13 33 29 38 47 35 40 Region 2 1 2 <1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 <1 10 5 Other 10 9 18 12 8 14 15 2 14 40 13 23 0 3 0 25 0 8 7 6 8
68
61:
Which of the following changes to current academic norms would have a beneficial impact on foreign policy and/or on the academic discipline of IR?59
All US UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col Departments assign greater value in personnel decisions to publications in policy journals Policy Impact 53 57 54 49 48 67 53 50 39 67 33 45 49 58 57 82 36 20 49 32 Impact on the Discipline 54 57 43 51 53 33 24 50 52 67 58 50 38 32 57 82 57 65 57 75 60 Universities increase support for Diplomat in Residence or Professor of Practice positions Policy Impact 29 33 24 31 32 31 34 30 25 14 19 16 25 45 50 38 17 41 -56 Impact on the Discipline 33 39 25 37 35 19 24 32 18 14 14 28 33 41 63 25 39 17 -37 Universities support policy-relevant education and training opportunities for faculty Policy Impact 36 42 25 31 38 38 45 14 35 14 8 26 27 45 63 50 39 48 38 40 Impact on the Discipline 39 44 29 31 28 25 31 35 33 29 17 24 45 32 75 31 39 34 49 44 Government agencies and inter-governmental organizations support more systematic training of policy-makers in IR academic research Policy Impact 47 52 39 39 51 50 31 46 48 29 19 30 47 59 75 38 39 52 48 51 Impact on the Discipline 31 34 25 24 29 25 28 35 20 14 8 18 28 32 50 50 43 24 46 37 Departments encourage academics/faculty members to accept consulting or part-time policy-making assignments Policy Impact 52 56 44 45 56 44 52 48 43 43 28 36 57 73 75 69 48 45 55 63 Impact on the Discipline 32 35 27 28 39 19 28 22 25 29 11 20 27 32 25 56 30 34 40 19 Departments stop the tenure clock for faculty who accept full-time policy making assignments Policy Impact 36 47 22 29 25 25 28 28 23 0 3 10 31 50 63 44 22 21 32 33 Impact on the Discipline 35 46 19 25 28 19 28 35 30 14 14 28 24 41 38 38 26 10 27 35 Departments provide stronger incentives for academic/faculty members to write op-eds, contribute to blogs, and engage popular media outlets Policy Impact 45 51 35 42 48 38 45 32 43 43 25 34 45 59 75 50 35 41 43 56 Impact on the Discipline 26 29 22 26 23 13 28 20 25 14 17 12 16 18 25 44 26 41 30 19
Mex 31 69 33 26 23 33 42 25 40 29 22 22 21 29
59
The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who answered that a particular option would have a beneficial impact on foreign policy and/or on the academic discipline of IR out of the total number of respondents who selected at least one option for a beneficial impact on foreign policy and/or on the academic discipline of IR. 60 Due to a technical error, Brazil was not given this response choice.
69
IV.
Foreign Policy Views

62:
Which area of the world do you consider to be of greatest strategic importance to Country X today? 61
All 2 34 <1 7 23 10 <1 2 5 2 1 14 US 2 46 <1 2 30 2 <1 <1 7 <1 <1 9 UK 1 21 <1 <1 17 10 0 1 6 2 1 40 Can 0 20 0 5 4 63 0 <1 2 0 1 4 Aus 0 76 0 0 <1 4 3 0 <1 15 0 <1 NZ 0 38 0 0 0 15 38 0 0 8 0 0 Ire 0 4 4 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 75 Fra 0 4 0 2 44 4 0 0 0 0 8 38 Den 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 4 7 0 0 67 Fin 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 50 Nor 0 30 0 0 5 10 0 10 0 0 0 45 Swe 0 29 0 0 3 0 0 26 3 0 0 40 Isr 0 5 0 0 79 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tur 7 3 0 0 60 3 0 8 0 0 0 20 HK 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 Sin 0 57 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 29 0 0 SA 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 39 11 Arg 0 17 0 74 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bra 0 20 0 60 2 12 0 0 2 2 2 0 Col 0 23 0 58 3 13 0 0 0 3 0 0 Mex 0 13 0 20 2 58 0 2 0 0 0 6
Central Asia East Asia Eastern Europe Latin America M. E. and N. Africa North America Oceania Russia/ Soviet Union South Asia Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Western Europe
61
70
63:
Which area of the world do you believe will be of the greatest strategic importance to Country X in 20 years?62
All 2 58 <1 6 9 7 <1 2 3 2 3 9 US 2 72 <1 4 8 2 <1 1 3 <1 3 4 UK 1 40 <1 0 11 5 0 3 5 3 3 30 Can 0 46 0 5 0 41 <1 <1 2 <1 2 1 Aus 0 79 0 <1 <1 2 3 0 6 7 <1 0 NZ 0 69 0 0 0 8 23 0 0 0 0 0 Ire 0 25 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 67 Fra 0 41 4 2 20 0 0 2 0 7 2 22 Den 0 33 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 7 44 Fin 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 50 Nor 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 37 Swe 0 41 0 0 3 0 0 24 0 3 0 29 Isr 0 5 0 0 79 5 0 0 0 0 0 11 Tur 12 21 2 <1 43 2 0 7 2 0 <1 11 HK 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sin 0 77 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 15 0 0 SA 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 24 6 Arg 0 57 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Bra <1 45 0 32 4 6 0 <1 2 2 7 0 Col 0 42 0 35 0 6 0 0 3 13 0 0 Mex 2 43 0 14 0 37 0 0 0 2 0 3
Central Asia East Asia Eastern Europe Latin America M. E. and N. Africa North America Oceania Russia/ Soviet Union South Asia Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Western Europe
62
71
64:
In general, do you think that multilateral trade arrangements (like the EU, NAFTA, and WTO) have been good or bad for Country X?63 Very Good -20 32 15 10 14 44 -40 33 32 26 38 19 36 64 0 9 6 6 9 Good -61 53 55 53 64 44 -40 67 58 58 50 50 57 29 40 23 59 35 52 Neither Good nor Bad -13 10 17 27 18 12 -20 0 11 11 13 21 7 0 30 55 21 42 23 Bad -6 4 8 10 5 0 -0 0 0 5 0 10 0 7 30 14 14 13 13 Very Bad -1 1 5 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 4
All US65 UK66 Canada65 Australia66 New Zealand66 Ireland France67 Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel66 Turkey Hong Kong66 Singapore66 South Africa66 Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
64
63 64
Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed. We do not calculate an All category for this question because the data come from three different surveys in 2006, 2008, and 2011. 65 Based on the 2006 survey data. Respondents in Canada did not receive a French version of the survey in 2006. 66 Based on the 2008 survey data. 67 Due to a technical error, France was not asked this question.
72
65:
In general, do you think that multilateral trade arrangements (like the EU, NAFTA, and WTO) have been good or bad for developing countries? Very Good -2 2 2 1 0 4 6 0 0 5 3 12 8 14 14 0 0 3 13 4 Good -34 26 34 25 32 24 30 38 50 42 36 41 47 50 43 20 32 47 34 54 Neither Good nor Bad -21 17 21 21 27 20 34 27 0 21 18 29 23 36 21 20 27 18 31 16 Bad -31 41 31 47 32 44 28 23 50 32 38 18 22 0 21 60 41 30 19 20 Very Bad -12 14 12 5 9 8 2 12 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 7
All US69 UK70 Canada69 Australia70 New Zealand70 Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel70 Turkey Hong Kong70 Singapore70 South Africa70 Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
68
68
We do not calculate an All category for this question because the data come from three different surveys in 2006, 2008, and 2011. 69 Based on the 2006 survey data. Respondents in Canada did not receive a French version of the survey in 2006. 70 Based on the 2008 survey data.
73
66:
Do you prefer that your country give economic aid directly to a country or give aid to an international organization (such as the World Bank), which then disburses aid to countries? Give aid directly 39 33 44 24 44 53 50 23 41 33 40 38 47 62 50 33 32 70 63 47 54 Give aid to an international organization 40 44 36 48 31 27 31 45 41 17 55 30 37 29 50 27 47 17 26 47 34 Don't know 21 22 20 28 25 20 19 32 17 50 5 33 16 10 0 40 21 13 11 6 11
74
67:
What is your best guess as to whether you prefer that your country give economic aid directly to a country or to an international organization (such as the World Bank), which then disburses aid to countries?71 Give aid directly Give aid to an international organization 49 49 46 51 46 67 20 86 50 50 0 42 0 23 60 67 0 45 0 57
All US UK Canada Australia New Zealand Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel Turkey Singapore South Africa Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
51 51 54 49 54 33 80 14 50 50 0 58 100 77 40 33 100 55 100 43
71
This question was asked only of those respondents who answered Dont Know to the previous question (Do you prefer that your country give economic aid directly to a country or give aid to an international organization [such as the World Bank], which then disburses aid to countries?).
75
68:
What are the top two reasons that you prefer that your country give economic aid directly to another country? (Enter a 1 for your top choice and a 2 for your second choice.)72
This means that your country controls the economic aid and that other countries cannot influence how it is used. This gives your country the most flexibility. This sends a message to countries receiving aid from your country that your country has strong convictions. This sends a message to other countries countries not receiving aid that your country does not have good relations with - that you country is more serious/determined to achieve its goals. It is harder for multilateral aid agencies to be monitored by your country. Other
47 56
46 60
44 48
45 58
41 59
78 33
63 56
56 56
23 54
0 33
71 29
62 43
42 83
46 56
50 75
80 40
50 50
41 65
49 51
53 53
61 52
26
25
26
29
27
11
13
11
23
33
19
17
36
17
24
29
33
21
12 37 15
12 34 17
7 52 14
5 25 22
0 34 27
0 67 0
6 56 6
11 56 11
15 31 31
0 33 67
0 43 43
14 38 5
8 17 17
28 25 5
0 75 0
0 80 0
33 33 17
18 47 0
21 34 5
0 53 7
6 42 12
72
This question was only asked to those respondents who answered give aid directly to questions 66 or 67.
76
69:
What are the top two reasons that you prefer that your country give aid to an international organization? (Enter a 1 for your top choice and a 2 for your second choice.)73
All US 27 UK 26 Can 22 Aus 15 NZ 33 Ire 11 Fra 40 Den 7 Fin 100 Nor 0 Swe 23 Isr 14 Tur 33 HK 0 Sin 57 SA 50 Arg 50 Bra 44 Col 29 Mex 45
This involves sharing the costs of economic aid with partner countries. This locks your country into its international commitments more solidly and reassures other countries about your country's good intentions. This sends a message to country receiving aid that your country's motives are shared widely This sends a message to other countries who do not receive aid that your country and its partners are more serious about achieving their goals. Multilateral aid agencies are monitored by more organizations around the world. Multilateral aid agencies prevent your country's government from using aid for things other than economic development. Other
27
49
46
55
47
63
67
44
56
71
45
23
29
68
25
43
60
75
42
64
45
26
32
15
15
13
22
24
29
23
29
20
25
29
20
25
31
43
23
7 29
7 26
5 35
4 28
10 45
0 50
11 44
12 24
7 7
0 100
0 55
0 46
0 57
10 28
25 50
14 14
0 30
25 0
11 28
14 50
9 41
50 7
51 6
58 4
63 16
55 0
50 0
44 11
36 0
57 21
0 0
55 27
54 23
57 0
40 0
50 25
43 0
30 10
25 0
36 3
0 0
27 9
73
This question was asked only to those respondents who chose give aid to international organization in questions 66 or 67.
77
70:
In your opinion, will Europe be able to maintain the current membership of the Eurozone? Yes 43 43 33 42 29 33 46 49 46 33 32 39 68 45 63 33 61 41 43 47 68 No 37 38 47 35 45 33 27 20 21 33 47 24 11 41 25 25 22 18 36 47 17 Don't know 20 19 20 23 26 33 27 31 32 33 21 37 21 15 13 42 17 41 21 7 15
78
71:
In your opinion, which of the following is best able to take effective actions against the effects of the financial and economic crisis? The EU 17 14 21 13 5 17 42 46 38 60 32 36 22 13 13 17 29 5 7 23 32 Country X Gov't74 3 -2 10 10 0 0 2 3 0 26 8 6 5 13 0 0 9 3 0 3 The G20 31 29 31 36 36 33 8 22 21 0 21 22 28 41 50 50 41 32 42 40 18 The IMF 9 11 7 7 4 0 15 7 10 0 11 8 22 3 13 0 6 0 12 3 7 The US 13 19 9 9 5 8 4 2 7 0 0 3 11 10 0 0 0 18 12 13 15 Other 5 4 5 6 7 17 4 9 14 0 5 6 6 2 0 0 6 5 6 0 8 None 14 16 16 12 18 17 12 7 0 20 5 3 0 17 13 25 12 23 8 20 13 Don't know 9 9 8 8 15 8 15 7 7 20 0 14 6 8 0 8 6 9 10 0 3
74
Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed. Respondents in the United States did not receive this option because the United States was already an option.
79
72:
In your opinion, which of the following is best placed to regulate and reform global financial markets? The EU 8 6 11 8 4 0 23 11 28 17 21 11 5 7 0 8 12 5 3 14 19 Country X Gov't75 <1 -<1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 The G20 41 39 40 43 48 58 27 48 34 17 42 37 53 44 63 42 47 55 50 43 24 The IMF 14 15 15 15 5 0 19 17 14 0 11 20 16 6 13 17 12 0 20 7 20 The US 10 13 7 5 10 0 8 2 3 17 11 0 11 13 13 8 6 5 7 14 14 Other 4 3 4 7 4 17 8 9 10 17 11 0 0 2 0 0 6 5 3 7 5 None 14 15 15 14 17 8 4 7 3 17 0 6 5 17 13 17 6 23 10 14 15 Don't know 8 9 8 7 13 17 12 7 7 17 5 20 5 7 0 8 12 5 7 0 3
75
Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed. Respondents in the US did not receive this option because the US was already an option.
80
73:
What are the three most important foreign policy issues facing Country X today?
All 28 US 33 UK 31 Can 13 Aus 5 NZ 0 Ire 12 Fra 60 Den 27 Fin 0 Nor 22 Swe 19 Isr 74 Tur 68 HK 0 Sin 8 SA 18 Arg 0 Bra <1 Col 0 Mex 7
Arab Spring Collapse of the Doha round of trade negotiations Collapse of the Euro Conflict in the Middle East Cyber-security Decline of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency Epidemic disease Ethnic conflict Failed states Global climate change Global debt crisis Global financial regulation Global population growth Global poverty Global reliance on oil Immigration International organized crime International terrorism Persistence of the U.S. trade deficit Reform of the UN Regional integration Resource scarcity Rogue states Russian resurgence Rising power of China War in Afghanistan War in Iraq WMD Proliferation Other
5 25 15 5
3 20 19 8
2 53 14 4
4 23 7 5
2 9 4 6
17 8 0 0
0 81 8 0
4 78 7 4
4 46 12 0
0 67 0 0
6 39 11 0
0 53 8 0
0 5 58 11
0 23 42 2
0 38 0 0
0 23 0 0
12 18 0 0
19 10 5 0
32 12 <1 2
7 10 0 0
0 10 2 3
10 <1 3 8 26 30 21 2 13 9 4 6 10 6 3 7 5 <1 1 27 10 2 8 4
11 <1 2 12 25 28 16 2 12 12 2 2 12 6 1 <1 5 2 1 32 14 2 11 3
4 2 <1 3 27 36 26 4 16 8 3 4 6 2 1 4 5 <1 0 13 15 2 4 4
13 1 1 4 48 41 31 2 15 8 2 1 7 14 3 7 4 0 2 25 6 0 6 5
10 2 2 8 51 39 17 4 21 6 11 2 4 7 0 6 8 0 0 57 7 <1 6 4
8 0 0 8 42 42 25 8 17 8 17 0 8 0 0 17 0 0 0 58 0 0 8 8
8 0 4 0 23 65 42 4 4 12 0 0 4 4 4 8 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 9 9 33 29 0 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 20 4 0 2 2
4 4 4 12 54 19 27 4 8 8 0 0 4 4 0 12 12 0 0 19 4 0 12 4
0 0 0 0 83 50 33 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 11 28 17 17 6 17 6 6 0 17 6 0 22 0 6 6 11 17 0 0 11
6 0 0 6 53 33 11 0 25 11 0 19 8 6 3 6 0 0 8 17 3 0 0 3
11 0 0 16 0 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 42 21
3 0 31 2 6 22 8 <1 3 7 3 3 29 <1 <1 12 5 0 5 5 0 6 5 2
38 13 0 0 13 50 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0
31 0 0 0 31 46 31 0 0 0 31 0 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 62 0 0 0 0
12 6 6 12 29 12 12 0 24 0 24 12 12 0 6 29 0 0 0 29 0 0 6 12
19 0 0 5 5 14 38 0 19 5 0 19 0 0 5 81 14 0 0 24 0 0 0 4
18 0 0 2 20 22 43 2 12 6 0 18 <1 <1 24 42 3 0 <1 28 0 0 3 3
10 0 0 3 10 13 13 0 23 10 10 70 10 13 0 47 3 0 0 20 0 0 3 10
17 0 0 2 8 15 32 0 14 7 37 68 5 12 2 15 7 0 0 8 0 0 2 8
81
74:
What are the three most important foreign policy issues Country X will face over the next 10 years?
All 9 US 10 UK 11 Can 7 Aus <1 NZ 0 Ire 4 Fra 12 Den 4 Fin 0 Nor 0 Swe 3 Isr 26 Tur 24 HK 0 Sin 0 SA 0 Arg 5 Bra <1 Col 0 Mex 2
Arab Spring Collapse of the Doha round of trade negotiations Collapse of the Euro Conflict in the Middle East Cyber-security Decline of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency Epidemic disease Ethnic conflict Failed states Global climate change Global debt crisis Global financial regulation Global population growth Global poverty Global reliance on oil Immigration International organized crime International terrorism Persistence of the U.S. trade deficit Reform of the UN Regional integration Resource scarcity Rogue states Russian resurgence Rising power of China War in Afghanistan War in Iraq WMD Proliferation Other
4 9 18 10
3 6 22 12
4 20 15 8
4 4 8 8
3 4 2 11
8 0 8 17
0 46 13 0
0 10 17 7
4 19 19 4
0 17 0 0
6 28 17 0
0 18 9 6
0 5 79 21
<1 11 46 7
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 8
0 0 6 0
23 9 9 5
16 8 3 5
11 7 0 0
2 4 5 7
14 2 5 10 40 18 19 4 16 15 5 5 8 6 2 7 10 1 3 37 2 <1 10 4
18 3 4 14 38 17 14 4 16 15 3 2 9 8 2 <1 11 2 3 43 3 <1 13 3
9 2 2 5 50 23 25 5 21 16 3 3 7 2 2 5 12 <1 1 29 1 0 7 4
11 3 3 8 62 25 28 6 18 16 4 2 8 8 3 7 8 1 4 32 1 0 5 8
7 4 2 7 58 27 19 10 19 17 10 2 5 5 <1 5 11 0 <1 55 4 0 6 4
17 0 8 0 25 42 17 0 25 0 17 0 0 8 0 8 25 0 0 67 0 0 0 8
4 0 4 4 38 42 42 0 13 21 4 0 8 8 0 8 4 0 0 17 0 0 0 8
5 0 2 7 46 17 39 10 15 20 7 5 5 2 5 10 5 0 2 27 2 0 12 2
12 4 0 12 58 12 31 8 23 15 0 4 0 0 4 12 12 0 0 15 0 0 23 8
0 0 0 0 50 17 83 17 17 17 0 0 0 0 17 33 0 0 17 0 0 0 17 0
11 6 0 11 39 17 17 0 22 0 11 6 17 6 11 17 0 0 6 33 0 0 0 11
3 9 6 9 44 24 15 6 35 9 3 15 3 3 6 12 6 0 9 29 0 0 9 6
0 0 5 21 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 16 5 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 58 5
4 <1 39 7 17 13 11 3 3 12 10 4 21 <1 0 17 6 <1 9 14 0 4 8 <1
57 0 0 0 0 29 43 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0
25 8 0 0 50 17 25 17 0 8 8 0 17 8 0 25 17 0 0 67 0 0 0 0
6 0 6 6 53 6 18 6 47 12 18 12 6 0 18 29 6 0 6 18 0 0 6 6
14 0 0 5 18 5 45 0 14 9 0 36 0 5 0 50 9 0 0 32 0 0 9 0
23 2 0 2 36 11 38 3 10 10 3 14 2 6 10 31 12 0 <1 38 <1 0 3 4
7 0 0 7 39 11 21 0 29 25 11 36 7 4 4 36 7 0 0 32 0 0 0 4
25 2 0 9 30 9 19 4 23 18 26 46 2 9 0 12 9 0 0 19 0 0 0 9
82
75:
In March 2011, did you support the use of force against Libyan government forces? Yes No 57 60 54 64 69 64 61 57 65 0 67 85 84 40 63 58 53 18 45 35 44 43 40 46 36 31 36 39 43 35 100 33 15 16 60 38 42 47 82 55 65 56
83
76:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest likelihood, how likely is war between the United States and China over the next decade?76 Ranking 1.33 1.34 1.14 1.16 1.56 1.64 1.23 1.35 1.36 0.80 1.28 0.94 1.21 1.38 1.38 0.69 1.73 1.21 1.58 1.48 1.63
76
Due to a coding error, respondents received options on a scale of 0 to 10, rather than 1-10 as suggested by the question. We report the actual results that we received them. Some respondents did select 0 as their answer. All numerical responses were averaged to obtain the displayed results.
84
77:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest likelihood, how likely is war between the United States and China over the next 30 years?77 Ranking 2.28 2.27 1.89 2.07 2.83 3.00 1.74 2.38 2.26 2.00 2.28 2.09 2.18 2.36 2.00 1.50 2.64 2.53 2.56 2.61 2.62
77
85
78:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest influence, how much influence does the United States have in the world today?78 Ranking 6.63 6.80 6.27 6.50 6.58 6.25 5.82 6.79 5.81 6.20 6.44 6.32 6.79 6.18 6.75 6.42 6.13 6.27 7.17 6.43 6.51
78
86
79:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest influence, how much influence does China have in the world today? 79 Ranking 4.34 4.51 4.10 4.11 3.86 4.08 4.27 4.77 3.63 3.60 3.50 4.03 4.68 3.54 3.63 3.25 4.93 3.59 5.09 4.63 4.66
79
Due to a coding error, respondents received options on a scale of 0 to 10, rather than 1-10 as suggested by the question. We report the actual results that we received them. Some resp ondents did select 0 as their answer. All numerical responses were averaged to obtain the displayed results.
87
80:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest influence, how much influence will the United States have in the world in 2020?80 Ranking 5.68 5.97 5.33 5.58 5.56 4.36 4.73 5.74 4.52 5.00 5.28 4.89 6.05 4.94 5.88 5.67 4.73 4.95 6.25 5.13 5.24
80
88
81:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest influence, how much influence will the China have in the world in 2020?81 Ranking 5.28 5.33 5.03 5.21 5.00 5.25 5.18 5.48 4.27 4.40 4.50 5.00 5.89 4.71 4.88 4.00 5.73 5.00 6.12 6.10 5.86
81
89
82:
Would you approve or disapprove of the use of U.S. military forces in the following situations? Aus 23 77 17 83 41 59 30 70 24 76 NZ 0 100 18 82 20 80 11 89 11 89 Ire 29 71 10 90 14 86 29 71 33 67 Fra 15 85 20 80 48 53 33 68 15 85 Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Col Mex 31 69 23 77 38 62 42 58 31 69 20 80 20 80 20 80 20 80 20 80 28 72 22 78 33 67 24 76 22 78 50 50 27 73 27 73 26 74 23 77 47 53 63 37 78 22 33 67 35 65 26 74 18 82 27 74 17 83 19 81 50 50 38 63 25 75 50 50 38 63 42 58 33 67 25 75 33 67 33 67 12 88 35 65 24 76 12 88 12 88 5 95 9 91 14 86 5 95 5 95 10 90 24 76 10 90 10 90 7 93 10 90 19 81 15 85 8 92 10 90
All US UK Can War between North and South Sudan Approve 20 15 27 23 Disapprove 81 85 73 77 If Iran produced a nuclear weapon Approve 21 20 22 20 Disapprove 80 80 78 80 If extremists were poised to take over Pakistan Approve 34 37 29 32 Disapprove 66 63 71 68 Support democratic transition in Syria Approve 23 21 26 27 Disapprove 77 79 74 73 To support democratic transition in Yemen Approve 18 16 23 23 Disapprove 82 84 77 77
90
83:
Changes in the Middle East associated with the "Arab Spring" will be: Good for Country X 41 42 41 42 25 25 35 28 63 50 41 59 16 59 38 50 24 41 44 17 22 Bad for Country X 9 13 4 5 3 8 0 5 4 0 0 0 37 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 Will not have much effect 22 11 26 29 50 33 61 19 11 33 29 15 5 17 63 33 59 36 42 66 64 Don't Know 20 25 23 16 19 17 0 42 11 0 18 24 32 7 0 17 18 18 7 10 9 Other 8 10 7 7 3 17 4 7 11 17 12 3 11 9 0 0 0 5 5 3 3
All US UK Canada Australia New Zealand Ireland France Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Israel Turkey Hong Kong Singapore South Asia Argentina Brazil Colombia Mexico
91
84:
Will changes in the Middle East associated with the "Arab Spring" lead to lasting improvements for people in the region? Yes No 9 9 5 6 6 25 0 2 4 0 6 0 32 15 0 9 12 5 13 21 16 Will not have much effect 15 12 17 17 16 0 35 20 19 0 28 9 16 19 25 27 29 18 21 7 22 Don't Know 22 23 22 24 28 25 17 34 12 50 28 26 21 5 13 18 18 27 24 21 28 Other 7 6 8 7 8 25 0 11 12 17 0 12 5 8 0 9 18 0 7 4 2
47 50 49 46 42 25 48 32 54 33 39 53 26 53 63 36 24 50 35 46 33
92
85:
It has been more than 20 years since the end of the Cold War. In your opinion, is the world now: More dangerous for Country X 25 31 21 14 11 17 14 9 15 17 12 6 37 26 25 17 13 14 14 25 50 Less dangerous for Country X 44 45 42 51 37 25 24 27 44 83 71 63 32 41 38 42 56 36 52 25 16 About as dangerous as 20 years ago 27 21 31 28 41 42 48 51 33 0 18 23 32 29 38 42 25 45 25 50 34 No Answer 5 3 6 7 11 17 14 13 7 0 0 9 0 4 0 0 6 5 9 0 0
93
86:
What is the most important military innovation in recent years? Drones and other unmanned technologies 47 53 41 46 32 42 33 59 52 20 61 35 42 48 29 42 41 33 25 36 30 Cyber warfare 27 24 22 26 34 33 38 18 16 60 28 27 42 31 29 50 18 29 46 39 30 Improvised explosive devices 4 4 8 4 6 0 0 0 4 20 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 3 7 4 Precision weapons 8 8 9 10 5 8 5 7 0 0 6 19 16 3 29 0 0 5 9 11 18 Stealth technology 3 3 4 3 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 5 5 0 11 Suicide terrorism 7 5 6 8 10 8 14 9 12 0 0 15 0 9 14 8 35 5 6 4 7 Other 4 3 9 4 6 8 10 2 16 0 6 4 0 1 0 0 6 19 6 4 2
94
87:
If the Country X government had an additional one billion dollars to spend in the next fiscal year on an international problem or initiative in one of the following areas, to which of the following areas should it devote these resources? Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change 43 45 48 55 48 57 48 37 63 50 28 56 16 29 38 67 35 18 21 21 27 Economic development assistance 34 30 28 20 24 21 29 42 22 17 17 21 79 55 50 8 59 73 64 71 56 Global health initiatives 23 25 25 25 28 21 24 21 15 33 56 24 5 16 13 25 6 9 14 7 17
95

Trip Around The World 2011

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Trip Around The World 2011

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

MAY 2012

TRIP AROUND THE WORLD:

I. Teaching International Relations ........................................................................................... 7

II. Questions About Your Research Interests ........................................................................ 17

III. The International Relations Discipline ............................................................................ 47

Foreign Policy Views ............................................................................................................... 70

SURVEY RESULTS FOR 2011

3: Approximately what percentage of your undergraduate Intro to IR course is devoted to policy

4: Approximately what percentage of your undergraduate Intro to IR course is devoted to

5: Approximately what percentage of assigned readings in your undergraduate Intro to IR

Introduce students to scholarship in the IR discipline

Both, but primarily introduce students to scholarship in the IR discipline 27 25 30 23 19 50 35 33 27 67 38 40 28 28 0 23 22 28 18 35 26

Both about equally

Prepare students to be informed about foreign policy and IR debates 14 15 10 17 15 13 20 12 12 0 4 15 11 7 33 23 11 17 26 13 14

Questions About Your Research Interests

Are you:19 Male 69 69 70 73 73 50 67 62 74 89 71 53 74 63 91 73 58 76 68 65 60 Female 31 31 30 27 27 50 33 38 26 11 29 47 26 37 9 27 42 24 32 35 40

Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.

What is your primary subfield within politics or political science?22

All 7 37 24 9 2 2 3 <1 <1 7 8

Fin Nor Swe 0 0 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 11 21 26 11 5 5 5 0 0 5 16

Arg Bra Col Mex 0 7 0 7 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 21 29 14 7 7 0 0 0 7 7 29 14 29 0 0 0 14 0 14 0 20 0 33 0 7 13 0 0 20 0

What is your main area of research within IR?

Experimental <1 1 <1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0

What is your current status within your home department?35

Regularly contribute to a blog 8 7 6 8 7 29 7 10 12 14 3 4 0 13 0 0 5 7 14 14 14

The International Relations Discipline

Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.

Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.

69 12 3 42 2 16 9 16 <1 4 0 <1 <1 0 16

Foreign Policy Views

Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.

Country X denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.

51 51 54 49 54 33 80 14 50 50 0 58 100 77 40 33 100 55 100 43

3 0 31 2 6 22 8 <1 3 7 3 3 29 <1 <1 12 5 0 5 5 0 6 5 2

18 0 0 2 20 22 43 2 12 6 0 18 <1 <1 24 42 3 0 <1 28 0 0 3 3

4 <1 39 7 17 13 11 3 3 12 10 4 21 <1 0 17 6 <1 9 14 0 4 8 <1

Você também pode gostar