Risks and Opportunities of Crossing the Academy/Policy Divide

The theme statement of the 2007 annual meeting of the International Studies Association challenged scholars to reflect on their responsibility to the policy world and the wider policy community. It asked whether those of us in the academy have a responsibility to seek political and social change by working for national governments and international organizations or whether such work results in unacceptable compromises with our political principles? Conversely, is the kind of theoretical work that is so highly respected and rewarded in the academy of any use to those who must deal with the pressing realities of everyday international politics? Is the kind of research we do in the university useful for policymakers? There is a concern that the kind of research on which policymakers rely is being generated in specialized think tanks rather than in universities. Many of us teach future decision makers and citizens. Are objectivity and political neutrality goals to which we aspire, or should aspire, in our teaching? The 2007 ISA annual meeting hosted a series of roundtables at which a variety of scholars, who have crossed the academy/policy line and worked for national governments or international organizations, discussed and debated these questions. They assessed the risks and opportunities involved as well as some of the ethical dilemmas that they faced. Seven of them have contributed to this forum; there are similarities and divergences in their views and we hope these observations will stimulate further discussion on this important issue. We begin with some observations by three scholars who have held a variety of positions in the US government. Joseph Nye, who served as deputy to the undersecretary for security assistance, science, and technology in the US Department of State in the Carter administration and later as Assistant Secretary of Defense in the 1990s, offers some general comments on the costs and benefits of government service. He describes two very different cultures-the academy and the policy world-and laments what he sees as a widening of the gap between them. He suggests that this is because of prevailing norms in the academy that reward theoretical over policy-relevant research. He warns of the dangers of leaving policy relevant research to special interest think tanks and, drawing on his own experience, describes ways in which ideas generated in the academy can be useful in making policy changes. Henry Nau, who served on President Ronald Re