Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ISA GOVERNING COUNCILANNUAL MEETING AGENDA
SF HILTON UNION SQUARE
TUESDAY, APRIL 2ND, 2013, NOON-5:00PM (IMPERIAL BALLROOM)1
Agenda
1. Welcome and President’s Report (Solingen) 3
2. Executive Director’s Report (Volgy) 4
3. President‐Elect Nominations to Committees (Starr) 10
4. Treasurer’s Report
General Report/Overview of Finances
HQ Budget Recommendation
Excom Recommendations on Budget Enhancements
(Meyer McAleese)
(Meyer McAleese)
(Volgy/Solingen)
(Solingen)
11
15
19
5. Program Chairs’ Report on the annual conference (Schwartz/Börzel) 20
6. Request to Re‐examine Quota Allocations to Sections (Volgy) 25
7. Request to Consider Moving the Annual Programs (Solingen/Volgy) 31
8. Future Meetings: Annual and International (Volgy) 35
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Short Break‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
9. Compendium Update and Discussion (Denemark/Marlin‐
Bennett/Thompson)
36
10. Publications Committee Report and Recommendations
Annual Report on the Journals
Recommendations on ISQ editorial team [executive session]
Recommendation on International Interaction editorial team (executive session)
(Pollins)
37
39
42
11. Recommendations on new Publisher for ISA’s Journals
[The item includes contract negotiations and is in executive session]
(Levy) 44
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Short Break‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
12. Executive Director Search Committee (progress report)
[The item considers personnel matters and is in executive session]
(Tickner) 45
13. Long Range Planning Committee Annual Report (Ward) 46
14. Nominating Committee Report (Bennett) 47
15. Workshop Grants Committee Report (Thies) 48
16. Committee on the Status of Women Report (Sjoberg) 50
17. Committee on the Status of Representation and Diversity (Mitchell) 53
18. Academic Freedom Committee Report (Moore) 56
19. Professional Development Committee Report (James) 59
1 Lunch will be served starting at 11:30am
Page 2 of 74
20. Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee (Pasha) 62
21. UN NGO Representative Report (Lynch) 64
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Short Break‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
22. Regions, Sections, and Caucuses Business
Request to create three new sections
o On Religion and International Relations
o On Global Health Section
o On Historical International Relations Section
Other Region and Section business
66
68
71
23. Old Business 72
24. New Business
Request from Deutsch Award Committee
Request to create the James N. Rosenau Achievement Award
73
74
25. Adjournment:
NOTE: The President’s reception for the Governing Council is scheduled for 6:30 to 8:00 PM, in Penthouse Suite 2‐2101.
Page 3 of 74
1. PRESIDENT’S WELCOME AND REPORT
(Typically this is done orally, and there is no written report. The president’s report on the state of ISA is delivered at the
annual business meeting.)
Page 4 of 74
2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Finances
The final budgetary figures for the 2011‐2012 fiscal year were very positive. Our revenues exceeded projections
by about $425,600, while expenses were roughly $171,180 below budgeted expenses. The financial health of the
association, despite ongoing expenses associated with the transition of headquarters at the end of July 2015, remains in
great shape, and even more so when compared with reports in the Chronicle2 regarding the growing financial,
membership, and other difficulties of academic associations. The graph below shows the trend in both expenses and
revenues over time for the association.
The recommended budget for the upcoming 2013‐2014 fiscal year from ISA HQ is contained below, under the
treasurer’s report. It envisions roughly a 12 percent increase in revenues, and roughly a six percent increase in expenses
for the fiscal year, leaving a balance of a little over $327,000 in revenue beyond expenditures. As in previous years, we
make revenue projections that are a bit conservative and (hopefully) expenses that are budgeted realistically.
Accounting for roughly 85 percent of the increase in spending is the need for an additional staff hire (we lose the last of
our graduate student support starting this fiscal year), increasing overhead costs on personnel, and some built‐in
compensation for a staff that is doing work normally done by substantially more people in associations of our size and
workload (we estimate that we are understaffed—compared to similar associations—by about 40 percent, especially
recently since we did not hire a specialist to replace our retired computer person).
2 “Scholarly Groups Choices Yield Diverging Fortunes,”The Chronicle of Higher Education, Thursday, April 19, 2012
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
ISA Annual Revenues and Expenditures in Current Dollars, Fiscal Years 1994‐2011.
INCOME EXPENDITURES
Page 5 of 74
Progress on our “greening” initiatives3
Three major efforts have been instituted to date to make our annual convention and our activities more “green”. The
first was the shift to electronic distributions of five of our six journals. This change has been hugely successful. To date, a
bit over 90 percent of our membership has shifted to electronic versions of our journals, with 9.8 percent of our
members wanting (and paying an additional fee) an average of about two journals in hard copy format.
Our second initiative has been with respect to the creation of the convention program. It is huge, running to about 416
pages as we enumerate over 1,000 panels and various other activities in the program. We have taken two initiatives;
one is to create the program on recycled paper only; the second is to ask attendees to opt voluntarily for an electronic
rather than a paper version, while making the electronic version accessible in a variety of formats. The San Francisco
conference is the first attempt at these changes. We are pleased to report that roughly 18 percent of those registered
(they will carry a slightly different name badge designating their green status) have opted for an electronic version. Our
hope is that within a couple of years at least a third will do so since participants will be able to access the entire program
on their computers, tablets, and smartphones. We should note as well that at a substantial increase in cost, we are
producing the hard copy of the annual program on recycled paper. Unfortunately, the increase in cost for recycled paper
offsets the benefit of producing fewer copies, but as the numbers of people opting for the electronic version increases,
we should see a reduction of costs here as well.4
The third effort is to work closely with the hotel properties and to try to ensure that all of their activities are as green as
possible. The San Francisco Hilton has been particularly cooperative in this regard since its culture is focused on this type
of concern and it has won numerous awards for “green” management. We expect similar responses from other
properties in future years.
Data on Membership
3 Thanks go to the FTGS section’s committee on environmental concerns for its leadership in constantly prodding the association to do more in this area. 4 The shift to recycled paper, able to handle color as well as black and white printing, has resulted in added cost to the association of approximately a little over $10 per program book published, at an overall cost that exceeds $50,000.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
ISA Membership Data, 1994‐2012.
Total Non North American
Page 6 of 74
At the risk of sounding a bit repetitive, each of the last five years (at least since the start of the 2008 recession), I have
been anticipating/predicting a flattening, if not a decrease, in our annual membership, and have been consistently
wrong. This year is no exception. In fact, we broke across the 6,000 membership threshold this year, a feat that I
considered to be virtually impossible. All this growth has occurred without an active membership recruitment program,
or a conscious policy to grow the membership. I know that there are possibly many more people out there who “do”
international studies, and that this trend could increase indefinitely, but at this point I think I will cease to make
predictions about the growth of our membership, and let the data speak for themselves. Above is the graph
representing the trend over time in the growth of ISA’s membership, a pattern that runs against the grain for most
associations reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education.5 In a story about the troubles of academic associations, the
article reports data on membership growth. Using their data and comparing with our membership, this is how ISA
compares in membership growth with the associations reported in the Chronicle:
Association Changeinmembershipoverthelasttenyears:
AAA ‐9 % AEA ‐13% AHA 0% AMS 13% APA ‐2% APSA 9% ASA 7% MAA ‐10% MLA ‐4%
ISA 98%
Elections
Elections were held in November for President, Vice Presidents, a new Treasurer, and according to the constitutional
change we had implemented, the elections also included the at‐large positions for the Governing Council (this time,
nominated by the Nominating Committee). I am pleased to certify that the turnout met and exceeded our mandated
constitutional threshold (the turnout was 16 percent, compared to a minimum required turnout of 15 percent) for non‐
contested elections, making the following outcomes valid per our constitution:
Office Individual PercentofTotalVoteObtained
President Amitav Acharya 92% Vice President Cameron Thies 83% Vice President Kristian Gleditsch 87% Vice President Carolyn Shaw 88% Treasurer T. Clifton Morgan 95%
The votes for at‐large representatives are as follows (the ones winning seats are asterisked and in bold):
5 The Chronicle of Higher Education, Thursday, April 19, 2012
Page 7 of 74
Individual PercentofTotalVoteObtained
*Toni Erskine 56% Thomas Hegghammer 35%
Mark Kayser 26%
Kurt Mills 40%
*Stephanie Rickard 64% *Olga Vorkunova 46%
San Francisco Annual Conference
Our annual conference appears to be setting another record for number of panels, and number of participants, and of
course all that was preceded by a record number of applicants and a record number of requests for travel support. The
quality of the program appears to be quite high, and is also providing the type of diversity to which our members have
become accustomed. The historical data on numbers of panels produced is shown below. Incidentally, while location is
not everything, the graph does show that the two highest numbers of panels created for conventions are both for San
Francisco (2008, and 2013), not only because of the charm of the city, but as well, the hotel properties in that city offer
the most amount of space available for panels in North America.
An enormous amount of work goes into an enterprise such as this, where over 1,000 panels are integrated into a
relatively coherent whole. And so, an enormous amount of thanks go to the program chairs, Herman Schwartz and Tanja
Börzel, for their work on all of it, and to Etel Solingen whose hands‐on approach to the construction of theme panels had
made a great deal of difference. The “unsung” heroes also include the section program chairs, who are often little
noticed outside of their sections but are responsible for roughly 80 percent of the program, and work incredibly hard
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Numbers of Panels Produced at ISA Annual Conferences, 1973-2013.
Page 8 of 74
filling holes to keep panels together, stitch individual papers into coherent panels, and make sure that discussants are
available.
This year, you will see another change in our approach to the conference: the traditional poster presentation format has
virtually disappeared. In its place we have created two alternatives. One is a shift of some posters to poster panels,
exhibited at several evening receptions of sections: six sections are sponsoring poster panels at their evening receptions.
Perhaps more important, we have created a junior scholars symposium, being held on Thursday, April 4th. 1,200 paper
proposals requested being considered for the symposium; of those 64 of the best were selected due to space
limitations. Twenty distinguished scholars are serving as discussants for the 64 papers, and the sessions are being
chaired by four former presidents. We encourage you to stop by and see how this process works as an alternative to the
traditional poster formats. Should this first effort prove successful, we hope to expand it substantially for the next
conference, and hope that the Professional Development Committee will oversee this important aspect of junior scholar
development.
Bidding out our Journals
We have been extremely fortunate to receive four very high quality bids and notes of interest from no fewer than nearly
two dozen publishers. While the specific decision on the choice of the publisher is contained as a separate agenda item
below, I want to recognize three points about this process. First, thanks to the great work of the committee and Jack
Levy’s chairing, we have produced a recommendation and are ready to have the Governing Council make a choice a year
ahead of schedule. Second, we could not have these choices and outcomes without having a strong package product of
five journals; so an enormous amount of the credit goes to our editorial teams and to Brian Pollins’ stewardship over the
publications process.
Finally, I want to assure the association that, given the outcome being recommended by the committee, the association
and its journals will substantially benefit during the next five‐year cycle from this process, despite the turbulence that is
unfolding in the publishing industry.
Additionally, I want to remind us that the association placed on temporary hold the creation of any additional journals
until the publisher issue was resolved. Caught in that moratorium was a proposal to create a new international security
journal. That proposal has again reached the Publications committee and the committee is waiting to assess it pending
Governing Council decision on our publishing contract. Meanwhile, the committee negotiating with the bidders had
explicitly raised this issue with each of them and had received commitments to publish a sixth journal if the association
judges it to have both high intellectual merit and a need in the academic marketplace.
Transition Activities
As you will recall, starting with the 2011‐2012 fiscal year, we began planning for the transition of ISA HQ from its present
director and location to another director and a new institutional site. Funding has been set aside for this purpose from
ISA’s endowment funds. We hired Mike Ryckman in July of 2011 as transition coordinator. Broadly, the purpose of his
job is to make HQ operations more efficient, independent from the University of Arizona, and easier to move in 2015 –
regardless of ISA’s ultimate location. A major step in this effort will begin following the 2013 conference. This April, HQ
Page 9 of 74
will shift from the current “isanet.org” site and separate “MyISA” system to an integrated web system that will bring
together most of ISA's operations. This system has many benefits:
Open source Framework: We are moving to a site created in DotNetNuke, an open source content management
system. This improves flexibility and long term stability. This also gives us access to many third‐party tools to
enable further services.
Easier management of ISA’s web content: This new site will make it easier for current and future staff to make
changes to online content while maintaining a unified ISA look and feel. We hope as well that this will provide an
easier tool for sections, regions and caucuses to manage their own pages on the main ISA web site.
Improved Mobile Access. MyISA has a rudimentary mobile conference program search tool, but our new web
framework will allow us to expand mobile offerings more easily and to more devices.
University Independence: When we launch the new web site, we will move to a privately hosted server. This will
make ISA’s email, web hosting, and data storage entirely separate from University of Arizona. This independence
is planned to remain following the transition in 2015. This has been part of an ongoing effort for the past two
years.
Staff Knowledge Archive: We are creating a new “wiki” for existing staff to begin recording their work and
processes in an online help archive to make training and restructuring easier.
Social Options (Coming Soon): By leveraging the power of the open source framework underlying our new site,
we will be able to offer better profile options, messaging, online discussions, and other tools to bring the
membership together.
Moving to this new system has not been easy. MyISA was developed in an ad‐hoc manner; replicating its functions in a
new system in a much shorter period of time has taken considerable effort. Further, moving MyISA’s data into this new
system is a considerable challenge. The new framework will be a work in progress – particularly throughout 2013 – but,
we are confident that it will ultimately represent a major improvement in ISA’s operations and service output, and make
the transition as smooth as possible.
Finally
I want to thank Etel Solingen for her commitment to the Presidency and for the enormous amount of time and effort she
gave to the association as President. From the very beginning, through the construction of theme panels and through
myriad problems and issues, she never wavered from giving more and more of her time. I am grateful for her insights,
her perseverance, and her dedication to the association.
I also wish to thank the hundreds of ISA members who volunteer selflessly to make this association work.
Last but far from least, I want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the staff at HQ. Without the long hours
and work done by Dana Larsen, Andrea Gerlak, Jeanne White, Mike Ryckman, Liz Fausett, Lyn Brabant, Joel Davis, Suela
Mustafa, Brittany John and Angelica Robison, little could be accomplished. We owe thanks as well to the University of
Arizona, and especially the School of Government and Public Policy, and its graduate program (and importantly to Laura
Gottschalk) for the support and encouragement provided to ISA HQ.
Page 10 of 74
3. PRESIDENT ELECT’S NOMINATIONS
FROM: Harvey Starr TO: ISA Governing Council SUBJ: List of Nominations I respectfully ask the Governing Council to approve the following nominees to the following committees:
MEMBERS‐AT‐LARGEtoExecutiveCommittee:Emilia Powell, Notre Dame Univ. Brian Pollins, Ohio State Univ. Henrik Urdal, PRIO Lana Wylie, McMaster Univ.
ACADEMICFREEDOMCOMMITTEE:Mark Gibney, Univ. North Carolina, Asheville [chair] Philip Schrodt, Pennsylvania State Univ.
COMMITTEEONTHESTATUSOFWOMENPatricia Weitsman, Ohio Univ. Annette Freyberg Inan, Univ. of Amsterdam
FINANCECOMMITTEEPatrick James, Univ. of Southern California
ISAREPRESENTATIVETOAAASJames Fearon, Stanford Univ.
LONG‐RANGEPLANNINGCOMMITTEEPaul Diehl, Univ. Illinois Scott Gates, PRIO T.V. Paul, McGill Univ. Laura Neack, Miami Univ. of Ohio Shannon Blanton, Univ. of Memphis
NOMINATINGCOMMITTEEConvenor: David Kinsella, Portland State Univ. Deborah Larson, UCLA Mark Crescenzi, Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill Scott Gartner, Pennsylvania State Univ.
PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEEMichelle Benson, Univ. Buffalo [chair] T. David Mason, Univ. North Texas (member at‐large) Carolyn Stephenson, Univ. Hawaii, Manoa (member at‐large)
PROFESSIONALRIGHTSANDRESPONSIBILITIESCOMMITTEEChris Reus‐Smit, European Univ. Institute, Florence [chair] Sara Mitchell, Univ. Iowa Cameron Thies, Univ. Iowa
PUBLICATIONSCOMMITTEEJennifer Sterling‐Folker, Univ. Connecticut Kristian Gleditsch, Univ. Essex
WORKSHOPGRANTSCOMMITTEEMichael Tierney, College of William and Mary [chair] Clionadh Raleigh, Trinity College, Dublin
BESTBOOKOFTHEYEARAWARDJoyce Kaufman, Whittier College [chair] Vesna Danilovic, Univ. of Buffalo Jeffrey Hart, Indiana Univ.
CARLBECKAWARDCOMMITTEEKatherine Barbieri, Univ. South Carolina [chair] Jeanette Money, Univ. California, Davis
GERNERINNOVATIVETEACHINGAWARDEmek Ucarer, Bucknell Univ. [chair] Matthew Krain, College of Wooster
Page 11 of 74
4. TREASURER’S REPORT
Overview of Finances
To: ISA Governing Council, ISA Executive Committee and ISA Finance Committee
From: Mary K. Meyer McAleese, ISA Treasurer
Re: Treasurer’s Report
Date: 31 January 2013
Overview: This Treasurer’s Report has three parts: I. A detailed review of the final budget figures for last year, Fiscal Year (FY) 2011‐2012; II. a brief overview of the proposed budget for next year, FY 2013‐2014; and III. a summary of the Finance Committee’s business and management of the ISA Reserve Funds (“endowment”) and its performance over the past year (since April 2012).
I. Year‐End Budget Report for FY 2011‐2012
This portion of the report reviews the end‐of‐year operating budget figures that were sent for audit for Fiscal Year 2011‐2012 and that are specified in the accompanying spreadsheet. Occasional comparisons in this report to the previous year’s figures (FY2010‐2011) are drawn from the operating budget figures provided to the Executive Committee, the Finance Committee and the Governing Council for last April’s San Diego meetings. That spreadsheet is not included here, but I would be happy to re‐send it to anyone who wants a(nother) copy.
The end‐of‐year operating budget figures sent for audit for Fiscal Year 2011‐2012 show another outstanding budget year for the ISA, with total (gross) income nearing the $2.5 million mark. Actual Total Income for FY 2011‐2012 was $2,497,105.77, which exceeded budget projections by over $434K. Actual Total Expenses for FY 2011‐2012 were $1,772,731.57, which was $171K below budget projections. The Net Budget Surplus for FY2011‐2012 was a whopping $724,374.20 (or $724.4K).
Highlights of the Income Side of the Budget:
Endowment Income: This is an annual income stream from our Reserve Funds (endowment) that is based on the following formula: Four percent of the average total value of ISA Reserve Funds over the three previous years (as of 30 June) passes into the new fiscal year’s annual budget. This figure amounted to $66,133.51 for FY 2011‐2012.
ISA Membership Income totaled $389,183.93, which was $79K over projections and 7.5% greater than the previous year. Of this gross membership figure, approximately $15K goes to the Regions, leaving a net Membership Income of approx. $374K.
Income from all ISA Publications totaled $826,478.50 for the year. Of that total, Wiley‐Blackwell Royalties brought in over $596K, which exceeded budget projections by $111K (or by 18.6%) and surpassed the previous year’s figure by $65K. Our new contract terms with Wiley‐Blackwell related to moving to all‐electronic journals generated an additional (unbudgeted) $45K in editorial support as well as a new budget line, “Journal Add‐on Income,” totaling $16.7K from members paying to receive hard copies of our journals. Editorial support from Taylor & Francis was a bit lower than expected, while Taylor & Francis Royalties were slightly higher. Jstor Royalties continued to generate a greater than expected but steady $20.4K.
Interest on Bank Accounts again came in below budget projections –at virtually zero – due to the market’s exceedingly low interest rates.
Page 12 of 74
Convention Income for the year (“San Diego”) totaled $782,847.42. This figure includes $92K in early bird revenues from vendors for this year’s (FY2012‐2013) conference in San Francisco. Nevertheless, the annual Convention Income total exceeded budget expectations by $133K.
The Income Subtotal of $2,070,972.26 exceeded budget expectations by $434.5K and offers a truer picture of actual income earned from outside sources for the year.
The Actual Income Total of $2,497,105.77 includes ISA’s own monies (the annual Carry Forward and the ISA’s annual 4% Endowment Income) that cycle back into the Operating Budget. This figure exceeded projected income by $425.6K.
Highlights of the Expenses Side of the Budget
All ISA Publications expenses totaled $235,256K, running about $15K over expectations. While most individual publication’s expenses ran at or below budget projections, expenses for International Interactions ran a bit higher. More importantly, a new line for “Journal Add‐on Expenses” has been added to account for the money ISA pays to Wiley‐Blackwell for members’ hard‐copy journals, adding $24K in unbudgeted expenses for the year. (However, two‐thirds of this expense was offset by the $16.7 K members paid in “Journal Add‐on Income,” supra). There was also an unanticipated site assessment trip to Singapore for ISP approved by the Governing Council last April.
Total expenses for ISA Member Services (including various grants, awards, and standing committee expenses) came to $252,167.79, running nearly $95K below budget allocations for this broad category of expenses. Contributing to these savings was under‐spending for most of the line items under this category, including: all grants (26.5% below budget), Child Care (26.5% below budget), Awards (37% below budget), and standing committee expenses (37.6% below budget). Professional Development Projects for the Regions totaled $8.5K, tapping 71% of available funds. There may be a time lag in the dispersion of these funds and other grants in this broad category of expenses.
ISA Meetings & Conventions: Annual Convention Operations for San Diego were $313,784.53, coming in $56.2K below budget expectations. Headquarters attributed much of this savings to the work our wonderful Jeanne White has done with Condy Johnson on our conference Audio‐Visual budget as well as to the growth of external sponsorships for ISA convention activities. There were some unanticipated expenses under Meetings & Conventions, including program chair expenses and planning for international conferences (Argentina and Frankfurt); however, total spending under this entire category was $369K, well below the budgeted total of $413.5K for Meetings & Conventions. Overall, total revenue from the San Diego meeting ($783K) exceeded its expenses ($314K) by $469K.
Personnel expenses totaled $803,002.35, which is $47.3K under budget due mainly to the loss of two long‐time staffers (one and a half staff positions) and despite continued increases in University of Arizona charges for benefits and taxes. In a move to reduce over‐all personnel expenses, five members of staff are now direct employees of ISA rather than University of Arizona. One and one‐half of these positions are funded by Transition Fund monies (infra).
Office Operations expenses totaled $71,638.32, running about $8.3K over budget. Most office operation expenses were within –and some were well below—budget. The most important variance was seen in “Bank Fees,” which continue to run much greater (nearly $15K) than was anticipated when the budget was proposed. Most of our revenues come in through an on‐line payment system; each transaction incurs bank fees. These bank transaction fees have grown tremendously in recent years and will remain a substantial business cost.
Professional Services fees were lower than projected because we paid for two annual audits during the previous fiscal year.
Travel Expenses exceeded budget projections by $5.6K.
As noted above, the year’s Total Expenses came to $1,772,731.57, which was $171.2K below budget.
The overall Budget Surplus for FY 2011‐2012 is $724,374.20. Of this amount, $300K cycles back into the current year’s (FY 2012‐13) operating budget as the Carry‐Forward. Of the remaining $424.4K surplus, $125K goes to the ISA Transition Fund budget, leaving the balance, nearly $300K to go into the ISA Reserve Fund.
Page 13 of 74
ISA Transition Fund: Following the Finance Committee’s previous discussions and its decision at its February 2011 meeting, a special ISA Transition Fund has been designated to pay for the estimated costs of the ISA’s transition to a new headquarters in 2015. The goal is to build a fund of $500K over a five‐year period from ISA Reserves and operating budget surpluses that can be spent as transition expenses are incurred. During FY 2011‐2012, $125K from ISA Reserve Funds was designated for the Transition Fund, and $115.3K from that fund was spent.
II. Proposed Budget for FY 2013‐2014
The proposed budget for next year, FY 2013‐2014, anticipates a growth of 12.3% in Total Income ($2,441,000) and an increase of 8% in Total Expenses ($2,140,630) compared to the current 2012‐2013 Fiscal Year. On the Income side, the proposed budget increases the Carry Forward substantially, to $500K, which accounts for most of the income growth. However, looking at the Income Subtotal figure, anticipated growth in outside (non‐ISA) revenue sources comes to a more modest 4.3%, fueled mainly by increases in Wiley‐Blackwell Royalties, Taylor & Francis Royalties, and Journal Add‐On Income. On the Expense side, most items are held to the same levels as the current fiscal year budget, with modest increases to support international conferences (both travel grants and planning for Argentina and Frankfurt). However, Personnel expenses increase by $104,445 (19%) to fund modest salary increases for existing staff and to add a new staff position. Modest increases also show up under Professional Services. The proposed budget for FY 2013‐2014 foresees a healthy overall budget surplus of $300.4K.
III. ISA Finance Committee Business and Performance of ISA Reserve Funds (aka “Endowment”)
As of 31 December 2012, ISA Reserve Funds totaled $1,900,475.75, having grown by approx. 6.8% since March 2012. These funds are allocated in the following way: $1.2M is invested in a portfolio specializing in socially responsible investments with First Affirmative Financial Network (FAFN) and managed by our financial manager, Mr. David Behnke‐Seper; $417K is currently held in socially responsible CDs known as CDars; and $286K is held in cash. Mr. Behnke‐Seper will prepare an analysis of the performance of our FAFN portfolio for our upcoming meeting in San Francisco, as he has for our previous semi‐annual meetings. Last year, at its April 2012 meeting in San Diego, the Finance Committee met with Mr. Behnke‐Seper, who reviewed our holdings in the FAFN portfolio and analyzed its performance since inception. In light of his presentation, the Finance Committee decided to maintain a 70:30 [stocks:bonds] mix in this portfolio. The committee also felt that the time had come to return to investing more of our reserve funds in the market after having resisted new investment during the worst of the recent recession. The committee thus agreed that as our laddered socially responsible CDs (known as CDars) matured in the following five months (April to August 2012, or the time of our next semi‐annual meeting), $100K of those monies should be transferred to our financial manager for investment in our First Affirmative portfolio. The Finance Committee was scheduled to meet again in New Orleans at the APSA meeting, however as that meeting was canceled due to Hurricane Isaac, the committee conducted its business electronically. We reviewed a Powerpoint report from our financial manager on the market performance of our FAFN holdings through mid August. The committee then decided to continue our existing strategy of investing maturing CDars into the FAFN portfolio at the rate of $20,000 per month for another six months, for a total of approx. $240K over the course of the year (April 2012 to April 2013). The Committee also decided to maintain our existing 70:30 [stocks:bonds] mix for this period. The Finance committee will revisit our risk tolerance and investment strategy for the next six‐month period (April to September 2013) as part of its regular business at its meeting scheduled for the San Francisco conference based on the report we will receive from Mr. Behnke‐Seper in March. Conclusion The ISA had another outstanding budget year in FY 2011‐2012, reaching nearly $2.5M in total income, keeping overall expenses well under budget at $1.77M, and generating a healthy budget surplus of $724.4K. This and recent years’ budget surpluses have helped us to meet our goal of financing the ISA Transition and continue to invest in our Reserve Funds. Tom Volgy, Dana Larsen, and the rest of the team at ISA Headquarters continue to do an outstanding job of managing the ISA budget and ensuring the annual fiscal health of the ISA.
Page 14 of 74
In closing, I would like to thank the members of the Finance Committee ‐‐Jerry Cohen, Judy Goldstein, and John Ravenhill‐‐ for their service. I will miss Jerry Cohen as he rotates off the Finance Committee this April, and I thank him sincerely for his outstanding contributions to our work over the past two years. I especially thank ISA Executive Director Tom Volgy and Director of Operations Dana Larsen for their continued support, openness, patience, and confidence in me. They are true professionals, and are always a pleasure to work with. Any errors or omissions in this report are my own.
Page 15 of 74
HQ Budget Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2013-2014
GENERALOPERATINGACCOUNT 2011‐12 Budget
2012‐13 Budget
2013‐14 Budget
INCOME Carry Forward (Surplus) from Gen Ops surplus $360,000.00 $300,000.00 $500,000.00
Carry Forward ‐TransitionTransfer
Endowment Income (4%) $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $65,000.00
CARRY FORWARD INCOME SUBTOTAL $435,000.00 $375,000.00 $565,000.00
Net Membership (without Region or Section dues) $310,000.00 $330,000.00 $330,000.00
ISA Sales $25,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00
Publications
Wiley‐ Blackwell Royalties $485,000.00 $530,000.00 $575,000.00
Wiley‐Blackwell ‐Editorial support $115,000.00 $160,000.00 $160,000.00
Compendium Royalties … … …
Taylor & Francis ‐ II Editorials support $30,000.00 $26,000.00 $26,000.00
Taylor & Francis ‐ II Royalties $2,500.00 $2,500.00
Jstor Royalties $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Journal Add‐On Income … … $25,000.00
Interest on Bank Accounts $2,000.00 $500.00 $500.00
Award Income $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Convention Income
San Diego $650,000.00 … …
San Francisco … $700,000.00 …
Toronto … … $700,000.00
UofA Support for ISA … … $5,000.00
OPERATIONS INCOME SUBTOTAL $1,636,500.00 $1,792,500.00 $1,876,000.00
TOTAL INCOME $2,071,500.00 $2,167,500.00 $2,441,000.00
EXPENSES ISA Publications
International Studies Quarterly $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
International Studies Review $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00
International StudiesPerspectives $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00
Foreign Policy Analysis $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00
International Studies Political Sociology $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00
International Interactions $20,000.00 $26,000.00 $26,000.00
Compendium (operation expenses) $12,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Editorial Summit $10,000.00 … …
Journal Add‐On Expenses … $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Publisher transition committee … $5,000.00 …
Page 16 of 74
ISA Member Services 2011‐12 Budget
2012‐13 Budget
2013‐14 Budget
ISA Annual Convention Travel Grants $150,000.00 $175,000.00 $175,000.00
International Conference Travel Grants (Brazil) ‐ (Porto) $15,000.00 … …
International Conference Travel Grants (BISA ‐ Edinburgh $10,000.00 … …
International Conference Travel Grants (Budapest) … $10,000.00 …
International Conference Travel Grants (Buenos Aires) … … $10,000.00
International Conference Travel Grants (WISC ‐ Frankfurt) … … $10,000.00
Child Care at ISA Annual $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
ISA Workshop Grants $130,000.00 $130,000.00 $130,000.00
ISA Awards
Sprout Award $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
Carl Beck Award $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
Quincy Wright Award $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
Karl Deutch Award $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
Alexander George Award $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
Cox Award $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
ISA Annual Book Award $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
ISA Decade Book Award … … …
Misty Gerner‐ Professional Development $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Misty Gerner‐ Teaching Award $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Ann Tickner Award … $1,000.00 $1,000.00
ISA Committees
Professional Development Projects $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
Diversity Committee $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Committee on the Status of Women (workshop) $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2.000.00
Long‐Range Planning Committee … … …
Working Groups $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
ISA Meetings & Conventions
Annual Convention
Convention Expense ‐ San Diego $370,000.00 … …
Program Chair ‐ San Diego $40,000.00 … …
Convention Expense ‐ San Francisco … $395,000.00 …
Program Chair ‐ San Francisco … $40,000.00 …
Convention Expense ‐ Toronto … … $395,000.00
Program Chair ‐ Toronto … … $40,000.00
International Co‐Sponsored Conferences
Brazil Planning $3,500.00 … …
BISA Planning … $5,000.00 …
Argentina Planning … $2,500.00 $5,000.00
Frankfurt WISC Planning … … $2,500.00
Page 17 of 74
ISA Operations & Personnel 2011‐12 Budget
2012‐13 Budget
2013‐14 Budget
Personnel
Volgy
Executive Director ‐ Merit $85,000.00 $90,000.00 $95,000.00
Research $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Larsen
Director of Operations ‐ Salary $100,000.00 $105,500.00 $115,000.00
Taxes $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $8,797.50
Benefits (Health Insurance) $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Benefits (Retirement) $26,500.00 $24,500.00 $24,000.00
ISA Salaried Staff (Andrea Gerlak, Angelica Robison, Brittany John, Jeanne White, Joel Davis, Liz Fausett, Lyn Brabant, Suela Mustafa, + new staff position)
$588,315.00 $553,807.50 $658,582.50
Staff Development/Training $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $12,500.00
Office Operations
Office Equipment $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $10,000.00
Office Supplies $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Printing & Photocopying $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00
Telephones $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Mailing Expenses $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Permits & Fees $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00
Staff Meetings $850.00 $950.00 $950.00
Storage Rental $600.00 $600.00 $600.00
Bank Fees $25,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00
Dues Memberships (UN/NGO) $300.00 $300.00 $300.00
ISA Meetings (Mid‐Year Executive & Program Committee) $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $1,500.00
Professional Services
Legal Consulting $500.00 $500.00 $750.00
Tax Preparation & Consulting $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00
Audit Fees $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,500.00
Monitoring & Support systems … $10,200.00 $10,800.00
Office Organizing $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00
UofA School of Govt & Public Policy $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00
Insurance
General Liability $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Office Equipment $750.00 $750.00 $750.00
Libel Slander $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00
Travel Support
ISA Exec. Director $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00
Staff $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
ISA Past‐President: Etel Solingen … $15,000.00 …
President: Harvey Starr … … $15,000.00
President‐Elect: Amitav Acharya … … …
Treasurer: Mary Meyer McAleese/ T. Clifton Morgan $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Publications Committee Chair $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Page 18 of 74
TOTAL EXPENSES $1,943,915.00 $1,982,207.50 $2,113,630.00
GENERALOPERATINGACCOUNTSUMMARY
Total Income $2,071,500.00 $2,167,500.00 $2,441,000.00
Total Expenses $1,943,915.00 $1,982,207.50 $2,113,630.00
DEFICIT/SURPLUS $127,585.00 $185,292.50 $327,370.00
ISATRANSITION 2011‐12 Budget
2012‐13 Budget
2013‐14 Budget
Reserve Fund Transfer for Transition Operations $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $139,811.25
TRANSITIONINCOME Reserve Fund Manager … $5,000.00 $5,000.00
TRANSITION INCOME $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
TRANSITIONEXPENSES Transition Staffing
Mike Ryckman & Liz Fausett … $111,000.00 $118,811.25
Equipment for transition … $5,000.00 $6,000.00
Travel for Transition Committee … … $10,000.00
TRANSITION EXPENSES $0.00 $116,000.00 $134,811.25
TOTAL TO TRANSFER FROM RESERVE TO GEN OPS … … $139,811.25
Page 19 of 74
EXCOM Recommendations on Budget Enhancements
(Since the Excom does not meet to deliberate on this item until the morning of the Governing Council meeting, these
recommendations will be reported orally by the President)
Page 20 of 74
5. PROGRAM CHAIRS’ REPORT ON THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE
ISA 2013 Program Chair Report to ISA Board at APSA: From: Tanja Börzel and Herman Schwartz Data on submission and acceptance:
Total Accepts Acceptance rate
Panels 704 506 72 %
Papers 4245 3003 71%
RTs 203 169 84%
Comment: the accept rate for R/ts is probably too high, considering that R/ts involve less work. However the trend (see below) is going in the right direction. Comparison with ISA 2011 & 2012
ISA 2011 Montréal ISA 2012 San Diego ISA 2013 San Francisco
People on submissions 6,353 6,917 7,798
People on program 5,607 6,245
People not on program 1,183 (17.4%) 1,553 (19.9%)
Papers on program 2230 2793 3003
Panels on program 484 (overall 942 panels)
453 (overall 901 panels)
506 (overall 989 panels)
RTs on program 132 151 169
Papers rejection rate 30.6% 26.0% 29.3%
Panels rejection rate 17.4% 26.2% 28.1%
RTs rejection rate 12.6% 15.3% 16.8%
Comment: more submissions mean more % rejects despite higher N acceptances for 2013. Developments from August 2012 to January 2013
08 / 2012 01 / 2013
People on submissions 7,798 7,878
People on program 6,245 5,809
People not on program 1,553 (19.9%) 2,069 (26.3%)
Papers on program 3003 2791
Panels on program 506 (overall 989 panels)
509 (overall 991 panels)
RTs on program 169 171
Withdrawals ‐‐‐ 1547
Papers rejection rate 29.3% 34.6%
Panels rejection rate 28.1% 27.8%
RTs rejection rate 16.8% 16.3%
Comment: higher rejection rates due to withdrawals
Submissions to the Theme:
Page 21 of 74
1st round 2nd round total
Panels 179 70 249
Papers 763 304 1067
RTs 65 15 80
Other important Conference Statistics
‐ 5,809 People on Program, 26.3% rejection rate (of participants, not proposals) ‐ 1,547 records have been withdrawn over the last four months ‐ 465 people on program not yet registered ‐ 1162 panels/roundtables ‐ 13 workshop report panels/roundtables ‐ 8 innovative panels ‐ 4 Junior Scholar Symposia / 16 JSS panels ‐ 6 reception poster panels ‐ 1219 total "panel events" (including 16 workshops and 4 working group events) ‐ 200 Theme panels (16.4% of program)
What has been done so far
‐ review and evaluation of submissions and panel building by PCs and SPCs ‐ schedule for the program ‐ proof reading and finalization of preliminary program ‐ registration process
Next steps
‐ program will be constantly revised in cases of withdrawal ‐ convention takes place
Program Highlights:
‐ c. 50 custom‐built presidential panels based on the theme RT: Power Diffusion in the 21st Century: Sources and Consequences (with Finnemore, Goldstein, Drezner, Gruber,
Barnett, and Krasner) RT: Economic Crisis and National Policy Response: The Role of Diffusion (with Kahler, Haggard, Gourevitch, Lake,
Naoi) RT: The Global Diffusion of Human Rights: Mechanisms and Outcomes (with Alter, Teitel, Sikkink, Risse, Hafner‐
Burton, Voeten)
‐ more attention to Asia and the Global South panel: The politics of international diffusion in Africa panel: Diffusion of IR Theory: The End of The Western and The Rise of Chinese IR Theory
panel: Globalization’s Cradle: International Relations Theory and the Indian Ocean Region
‐ more attention to environmental issues panel: Diffusion of Environmental Norms and Practices in East Asia panel: Agents of Environmental Policy Diffusion panel: Urbanization and global climate change: Exploring new synergies for adaptation, mitigation and policy
diffusion
‐ Junior Scholar Symposium (JSS) – a huge success! – recommend modest expansion over 1,300 submissions vast majority submitted as traditional papers to be also considered for JSS panels only able to accept 64 papers accepted
Page 22 of 74
Quality of Program:
Diversity PCs requested the SPCs to respect diversity with regard to institutional affiliation, seniority, gender, and theoretical and methodological perspectives. Data show no significant disparities. ISA attracts a great diversity in terms of approaches to the study of international relations. This makes it a bit difficult for the program chairs to accurately assess the quality of proposals. Recommendations of Program Chairs 2013: MyISA suggestions Limit the number of tags that volunteers can use (10 or less); often volunteers used 20 tags or more which make them more likely to appear at the top of the list of volunteers Program Manager suggestions / Slotting Provide an overview of rooms, their capacities and which codes are assigned to them in the program / system to the PCs / PC staff; for instance Yosemite B – main hotel ‐ large (75 to 150) – code: 08 Budget allocation for non‐US program chairs ISA HQ should be aware of different requirements for transferring money to a non‐US institution, start preparing early and be responsive to the special requirements. It took the drafting of an elaborate MoU and more than six months for ISA to transfer the money to FU Berlin, as a result of which FU Berlin had to pre‐finance program assistant and travel costs. Redistribution of panel allocations The last column of the data appendix shows one measure of the ratio of section submissions to section panel allocations. Using <.65 and > 1.35 as triggers for reallocation (if there is a consistent year to year discrepancy) would imply 6 sections change. <.80 and >1.20 10 changes
Page 23 of 74
PANELS PAPERS RTs PAPER EQUIVALENTS
% share of total submissions
Panel % Allocation
Ratio (under 1 = submission share below allocation share)
ISA sections ISA 2013 Quota 1st 2nd total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd total 1st 2nd Total
Active Learning in International 12 2 3 5 37 17 54 2 2 4 57 42 99 0,69% 0,66% 0,68% 1,16% 0,60 0,56 0,58
Comparative Interdisciplinary 28 11 15 26 78 132 210 4 2 6 153 217 370 1,86% 3,39% 2,53% 2,71% 0,69 1,25 0,93
Diplomatic Studies 13 8 4 12 45 53 98 3 5 8 100 98 198 1,22% 1,53% 1,36% 1,26% 0,97 1,22 1,08
English School 11 5 3 8 33 14 47 2 1 3 68 34 102 0,83% 0,53% 0,70% 1,06% 0,78 0,50 0,66
Environmental Studies 42 20 10 30 153 71 224 7 1 8 288 126 414 3,51% 1,97% 2,83% 4,07% 0,86 0,48 0,70
Ethnicity Nationalism Migration 40 13 13 26 178 107 285 3 2 5 258 182 440 3,14% 2,84% 3,01% 3,87% 0,81 0,73 0,78
Feminist Theory and Gender 25 16 10 26 91 58 149 10 5 15 221 133 354 2,69% 2,08% 2,42% 2,42% 1,11 0,86 1,00
Foreign Policy Analysis 83 25 41 66 299 289 588 14 7 21 494 529 1023 6,02% 8,26% 7,00% 8,03% 0,75 1,03 0,87
Global Development 48 44 34 78 138 154 292 12 7 19 418 359 777 5,10% 5,60% 5,32% 4,65% 1,10 1,21 1,14
Global South Caucus 3 4 9 13 22 38 60 1 1 2 47 88 135 0,57% 1,37% 0,92% 0,29% 1,97 4,73 3,18
Human Rights 35 14 15 29 159 136 295 4 1 5 249 216 465 3,04% 3,37% 3,18% 3,39% 0,90 1,00 0,94
Intelligence Studies 16 13 1 14 78 25 103 2 1 3 153 35 188 1,86% 0,55% 1,29% 1,55% 1,20 0,35 0,83
International Communication 22 4 13 17 61 65 126 2 2 4 91 140 231 1,11% 2,19% 1,58% 2,13% 0,52 1,03 0,74
International Education 7 0 0 0 13 21 34 2 2 4 23 31 54 0,28% 0,48% 0,37% 0,68% 0,41 0,71 0,55
International Ethics 21 13 11 24 47 36 83 2 4 6 122 111 233 1,49% 1,73% 1,59% 2,03% 0,73 0,85 0,78
International Law 21 8 11 19 65 80 145 1 5 6 110 160 270 1,34% 2,50% 1,85% 2,03% 0,66 1,23 0,91
International Organization 49 24 42 66 194 209 403 3 9 12 329 464 793 4,01% 7,24% 5,43% 4,74% 0,85 1,53 1,14
International Political Economy 82 43 44 87 292 217 509 10 10 20 557 487 1044 6,79% 7,60% 7,15% 7,94% 0,86 0,96 0,90
International Political Sociology 49 60 54 114 148 179 327 10 7 17 498 484 982 6,07% 7,56% 6,72% 4,74% 1,28 1,59 1,42
International Security Studies 140 73 66 139 524 408 932 18 13 31 979 803 1782 11,93% 12,54% 12,20% 13,55% 0,88 0,93 0,90
LGBTQA 2 2 1 3 3 6 9 0 0 0 13 11 24 0,16% 0,17% 0,16% 0,19% 0,82 0,89 0,85
Peace Studies 44 28 23 51 215 199 414 7 2 9 390 324 714 4,75% 5,06% 4,89% 4,26% 1,12 1,19 1,15
Political Demography 7 1 5 6 24 40 64 1 0 1 34 65 99 0,41% 1,01% 0,68% 0,68% 0,61 1,50 1,00
Post Communist States 13 10 4 14 51 53 104 1 1 2 106 78 184 1,29% 1,22% 1,26% 1,26% 1,03 0,97 1,00
Scientific Study of International Processes 33 13 3 16 126 89 215 1 0 1 196 104 300 2,39% 1,62% 2,05% 3,19% 0,75 0,51 0,64
Theory 10 21 25 46 112 131 243 6 16 22 247 336 583 3,01% 5,25% 3,99% 0,97% 3,11 5,42 4,12
Women's Caucus 3 0 0 0 5 9 14 3 2 5 20 19 39 0,24% 0,30% 0,27% 0,29% 0,84 1,02 0,92
TOTAL 859
Theme panels 174 179 70 249 763 304 1067 65 15 80 1983 729 2712 24,17% 11,38% 18,56% 16,84% 1,43 0,68 1,10
Cooperating org panels 59
Innovative panels 8
Professional Development panels 2
Title VI ‐ Education panels 4
Diversity Committee panels 3
Workshop Panels (from last year) 13
Status of Women Committee 2
TOTAL 265
GRAND TOTAL 1124
Page 24 of 74
Follow‐up on recommendations of Program Chairs 2012 Proofing Incredibly time consuming – about 80 hours of work. Can cut down on this time by having an affiliation drop‐down menu, specifying how to format titles in a proposal tutorial. Also, seems to be a task that is better suited to ISA headquarters staff (especially to create more consistency in terms of formatting from year to year). It might help to have a note at the top of the submission page: do not use ALL CAPS! Or having to click through an
instructions page. Of course, this relies on users reading the instructions. MyISA suggestions more server space (the system runs very slowly) system still runs very slowly allow for searching for discussant/chair volunteers by specific key words still not possible cut off the ability to volunteer someone for a discussant/chair position after they have been volunteered a set number of times. still not possible. Real time updating of position count?
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Response from HQ:
1) The program chairs suggest that ISA should be aware of “of different requirements for transferring money to a non‐US institution, start preparing early and be responsive to the special requirements”. Indeed we are. In fact we have worked with academic institutions in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, the UK, France, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia, Russia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, and Australia, without any problems. And over all the years of experience working with these institutions outside of the U.S., a simple letter of understanding between ISA and the other university was sufficient. This was not the case with Freie University’s bureaucracy. It required a formal contract with approval at a number of levels, and it demanded a non‐existent ISA VAT number, despite repeated explanations that the U.S. has no VAT system. A process that took a few hours to implement with SNU for example, took several weeks with Freie University. In the future, we will be well prepared to deal with this specific institution. 2) The program chairs suggest three changes regarding MyISA. These would be very much worthwhile, but MyISA will no longer exist after the San Francisco conference and is being replaced by a faster and more functional software system which can easily address all the issues being raised. In fact, that is one of the main reasons why MyISA is being replaced.
Page 25 of 74
6. REQUEST TO RE-EXAMINE QUOTA ALLOCATIONS TO SECTIONS
This item is placed on the agenda at the request of the Theory Section, whose chair made the following request in
December:
“I would like to ask for the following to be made an agenda item for the upcoming ISA Governing Council meeting in San
Francisco on 2 April 2013…I would appreciate if ISA executives could explain to the Council the criteria underpinning
decisions about how panels are allocated to sections/caucuses for Annual ISA meetings….I would appreciate if ISA
executives could provide the Council with a record of panel allocations at ISA Annual Meetings over the past five years
and to provide a rationale for these numbers…
This request is prompted by the experience of serving as section chair (and program co‐chair) for the newly established
Theory Section (TS). Despite an increase in membership in the first year of the sections’ existence, the TS panel
allocation for 2013 stayed far below that of other sections with a roughly equal membership. ISA staff explained this by
noting that panel slots for new sections/caucuses would be raised only slowly until they have proven themselves. It is
not clear to me what this means, or how this is evaluated, and it raises the broader issue of transparency in the
allocation mechanism.
I learned from conversations with ISA staff that membership is only one factor among many. This is also expressed in the
email conference program chairs sent around in April, which states: “The allocation process is conducted at ISA
Headquarters, and the allocation formula includes a variety of factors, such as the availability of room space at the
conference venue. Another one of these factors is a bonus for past section program chair performance: panel allocations
will reflect whether 2012 section program chairs completed all of their responsibilities throughout the period leading up
to (and including) the conference.” If the decision is based on these three factors only, and space being a variable
outside the control of ISA, I would like to know the weighting between ‘membership’ and ‘performance’ and the method
for calculating the latter. And if the decision is influenced by factors in addition to space, membership and performance,
what are these and what is the justification for them?
On a more general level, the request is motivated by the fact that section program chairs are de facto responsible for
creating the large majority of the program and, thus, exercise important gate‐keeping and agenda‐setting functions.
How many panels a section has to its disposal considerably affects a sections’ ability to pursue its mission and advance
particular debates and perspectives. And given the importance of ISA Annual Meetings in the development of the
profession (as a platform for intellectual exchange, networking, CV building, etc) this plays a not‐so‐small role in shaping
the content and boundaries of the field of IR. As such, having clarity about the mechanism by which panels are allocated
is important not only for all sections and caucuses, it is in the interest of all ISA members.
Please note this request is not meant to be a critique of the existing ISA executive team. In my experience the team has
done great work in managing and developing the Association and provides exceptional support to sections. Yet
clarification of this issue seems timely given both the proliferation of sections and the upcoming change in executive
leadership. And while a clarification request in the first instance, it is also an invitation to discuss what might be the most
appropriate allocation criteria and mechanisms…
Felix”
Page 26 of 74
BackgroundThe specific quota of panel allocations to each section used to be the job of the program chairs. About a decade ago—
with the enormous growth in applications to the annual program—the program chairs decided that they would rather
not make this decision and have to deal with the resulting fights with sections over what constituted a fair quota.
Therefore they asked that ISA HQ take over this task. Thus, since then, the executive director and the person in charge of
working with the sections (Andrea Gerlak) have been allocating quotas to each section.
The process typically goes like this:
The space available is determined first. How much space there is depends both on the hotel facility and on the
dynamics of negotiating with the convention hotel(s). Thus, the total amount of space allocation will vary from
year to year, with San Francisco typically offering the most amount of space.
Once the total space is ascertained (since hotels undergo constant renovation, this cannot be determined until
anywhere from 10 to 13 months prior to the annual convention), the available room space is divided between
section panels and theme panels (Theme panels also include panels for cooperating organizations). Sections
receive 80% of the allocation, and the theme receives at least 15% to a maximum of 20% of the allocation.
Once we know what the 80% translates to in terms of actual numbers, Andrea and I begin the task of trying to
allocate specific quotas to sections. We seek to provide each section these numbers no later than within thirty
days after the conclusion of the last annual convention.
The criteria we use include the following in making the allocation decisions:
1) We first consider the prior year’s allocation and ask how much it hampered the section in trying to satisfy
the demand it was facing, including the prior year’s rejection rate for submissions (we try not to let section
rejection rates exceed 45%);
2) We look at the growth in the section’s membership; the size of the section is reflected partly in the previous
year’s allocation, so now we are looking to see if the membership is expanding substantially or shrinking;
3) We review information from the program chair’s office, from the section program chairs, and from
conference participants regarding the previous year’s quota and whether or not it was relatively
appropriate. We pay particular attention to feedback from the section program chairs about their
experiences with the previous year’s quota;
4) We look at the panel chair surveys to ascertain if there are any anomalies or major trends in attendance at
the panels that we may need to take into account;
5) We review the program chairs’ final, official report;
6) A few years ago, the program chairs insisted on a system of “rewards” for sections to reward those sections
that worked hard on their share of the quotas compared to those that were relative uncooperative. In
practice, this has meant adding some panels to those sections that the program chairs wished to reward for
exceptional and timely performance.
7) After we issue the “final” quotas, we are still not done: we hold back a few panel slots to see if there are any
unusual changes in applications to sections, and if there are some unusually high and unexpected
applications to certain sections, we then add these few slots to those sections’ quotas. We also try to use
these few reserve spots to respond positively to any of the sections that feel that they absolutely need
additional space above and beyond what was allocated to them in the original quota.
8) At this point we are done with quota allocations at headquarters. However, there may be some changes to
the final distribution of panels, as some panels fall apart, sections may not be able to refill them quickly
enough, and the program chairs reallocate some of those panels late in the process (typically in December
or January).
Page 27 of 74
The historical data on section quotas for the last few years, as ISA HQ had created them, is available at:
http://www.isanet.org/annual_convention/2013/SectionQuotas.xls Note that despite the varied criteria we have used,
the changes over time appear to be quite incremental in character, influenced primarily by the growth of additional
sections and caucuses (with a few exceptions: e.g., the change in the last year to the quota allocation for the theory
section due to a large volume of applicants).
The applications to sections for this year’s program (choosing a section as a first option), are illustrated here:
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
International Security Studies
International Political Economy
International Political Sociology
Foreign Policy Analysis
Global Developmen
t
Peace Studies
International Organization
Environmen
tal Studies
Human
Rights
Ethnicity, Nationalism, &
Migration…
Theo
ry
Feminist Theo
ry and Gen
der Studies
Scientific Study of International Processes
Intelligence Studies
Comparative Interdisciplinary Studies
International Ethics
Post Communist States
International Law
Diplomatic Studies
International Communication
English School
Active Learning in International Affairs
Global South Caucus
Political Dem
ography and Geo
graphy
International Education
Women
's Caucus
LGBTQ
A Caucus
First submissions to Sections, as percentage of total submission for 2013 ISA Annual Conference
Page 28 of 74
The size and growth in section memberships is noted below:
[NOTE: In the graph above, a zero value for 2008 denotes that the section or caucus was not in existence prior to 2008.
The allocation of the specific number of slots, and the percentage of the quotas per section are dependent in part on
two factors that change from year to year: changes in space availability from one city to another (the actual number of
panels being allocated); and increases in the number of new sections (impacting on the percentage of the allocation to
each section). This year, we have applications to authorize three new sections; once they are authorized, their
allocations will also come out of the 80 percent set aside for the section part of the program.]
AlternativestotheExistingSystem: Given circumstances (enormous and growing pressures from a constant flow of record setting applications each
year, coupled with a robust growth in both the number of sections and membership in those sections, including multiple
memberships by ISA members in sections), the quota allocation process appears to have worked reasonably well. Part of
that assessment is based on the fact that virtually all sections would like to have larger quotas and may not be satisfied
with their allocations; presumably this may mean that we are being relatively fair given that we have far too much
demand and not enough supply of space. It is also the case that this system privileges larger sections and older sections
that have built up large memberships and large demand (note that the request for review comes from one of our
newest sections: its quota was increased by more than 100 percent from last year to this year since it has experienced a
high volume of applications last year). It is also the case that the process in its entirety begins to resemble more art than
science in making final allocations, although we try very hard to build the quotas on empirically reliable numbers and
systematic feedback. Finally, we recognize that on sheer outcome criteria (changes in quotas from one year to the next),
change in quotas has been largely incremental, even though that has not been an explicit criterion, or intention.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Active Learning in International Affairs
Comparative Interdisciplinary Studies
Diplomatic Studies
English School
Environmen
tal Studies
Ethnicity, Nationalism, &
Migration…
Feminist Theo
ry and Gen
der Studies
Foreign Policy Analysis
Global Developmen
t
Global South Caucus
Human
Rights
Intelligence Studies
International Communication
International Education
International Ethics
International Law
International Organization
IPE
IPS
International Security Studies
Lesbian, G
ay, B
isexual,…
Peace Studies
Political Dem
ography & Geo
graphy
Scientific Study of International…
Theo
ry
Women
's Caucus
Membership in Sections and Caucuses, for 2012, and 2008.
2012 2008
Page 29 of 74
We are aware that there may be substantially better ways of approaching the issue of creating quotas than the one
being used presently. With that in mind, we suggest the following alternatives:
1) Maintain and monitor the status quo: under this option, we continue as present, but see if there are any
serious distortions in the process and make adjustments accordingly. With a new executive director and a new
staff starting July 30th, 2015, it is inevitable that the new executive director will want to review this process as
well as all the other processes presently in operation.
2) Go back to the previous process: this option would return the allocation process to the program chairs, chosen
by the incoming president. The advantage of this option is that the incoming program chairs are brand new and
would have a new perspective on the process; the disadvantage is the same…they may not be able to gauge
what is working well or badly, including with the quota allocation decisions. Of course, if the Governing Council
were to opt for this approach it would make life much happier for ISA HQ, the executive director, and most of
the staff, substantially reducing their work load.
3) Adopt a “first past the post” option: Under this procedure, there would be no quota allocations until the
applications for the annual program had closed. Then, quotas would be assigned strictly according to demand.
The trade‐offs here appear fairly obvious. The best benefit is that the membership is speaking about where they
want the quotas weighted by their applications, albeit some 30 to 45% of the applications come from non‐
members. Problems with this option include the inability to plan early by the section program chairs; guessing
on the part of the membership about which section would enhance their prospects of getting on the program;
and huge fluctuations in quotas from one year to another that may not reflect what the ISA membership actually
wishes to see on the program.
4) Adopt “The Positivist option”6: under this process, we establish numeric weights to a number of criteria and
simply apply them annually, making changes to the weights after periodic reassessments. Four variables could
be considered in the allocation decision:
‐‐ % First Submissions: the percent of all items in the current year that applicants mark the section as their top priority. ‐‐ % Second Submissions: the percent of all items with second preferences that mark the section. ‐‐ % Members: the percent of all section memberships in the section. This variable summarizes the total number of section memberships purchased and then gives the percentage of that total that are for the given section. ‐‐% Prior Allocation: the percent of the program that was allocated to sections the previous year.
The four variables could be aggregated in a number of ways. For example, we can devise some weighting system.
The Governing Council's role in this process would be to direct the inclusion of any additional variables, as well as the weighting of those variables in the calculation. Here is one weighting scheme:
.3 ‐ First Submissions .1 ‐ Second Submissions .4 ‐ Prior Allocation .2 ‐ Membership
This is a relatively conservative weighting scheme: prior submissions and membership control 60% of the allocation, and the relative weights can be easily changed as a policy change, on the part of the Governing Council. The primary benefit of this option is two‐fold. First, it takes judgments (about past performance of sections, for instance) out of the calculus. Second, it quantifies and makes completely transparent the process of allocations…in fact, it makes the process virtually automatic. Those may be the same drawbacks of the approach as well, and will also require a constant review
6 This mechanism is suggested by Mike Ryckman; all errors in translation and in evaluation are mine.
Page 30 of 74
and assessment on the part of the GC regarding the relative weights to be assigned to the four variables. Additionally, this option also leaves quota allocation assignments unknown until after submissions have closed with the attendant issues noted in option 3, albeit to a lessened degree.
Recommendation:I would love to recommend option 2, and would be all smiles for the rest of the convention should the
Governing Council choose to adopt that option (freeing up myself and my staff from much work and heartache), albeit I
feel that would be grossly unfair to incoming program chairs. Therefore, I suggest that we choose option 1, and ask the
incoming executive director to review its effectiveness as soon as possible. While I think that both options 3 and 4 have
substantial value, I am reluctant to recommend such a major change as a fait accompli for the incoming executive
director.
Page 31 of 74
7. REQUEST TO CONSIDER MOVING THE ANNUAL PROGRAM TO
CONVENTION CENTERS
The issue of switching the annual conference to convention centers, rather than keeping them at hotels, has been
raised. This requires a change to present policy, and requires the Governing Council to change the status quo. The
background and policy consequences are discussed below.
BackgroundHistorically, with one exception of which we are aware (the emergency shifting of the conference from Caracas to
Acapulco over two decades ago), ISA has never held its annual conferences in convention centers. This has been for
three reasons.
First, for the first 35 years of its existence, ISA it produced panels and attendance that easily fit into one (or two
adjacent) hotels. Over the last ten years both attendance and the number of panels have grown substantially, reducing
the salience of this reason.
Second, there has been a general feeling on the part of both organizers and attendees that convention centers
were less preferable to hotels as the former was more sterile and more formal, and typically providing very large and
very small breakout rooms, but not much in between. Furthermore, attendees tell us that when not in panels, they
mingle in the lobbies of the hotel, and when combining panel participants with those staying in the hotel, there is a
critical mass of people who mingle and do business.
Third, convention centers are substantially more expensive than the breakout rooms being provided by the
hotels. Not only are the charges for breakout rooms very expensive (compared to hotels where the breakout rooms are
free), but in addition, the costs for food and beverage for receptions are not nearly as negotiable as with hotels (and
therefore also more expensive), and convention centers charge for items that hotels do not (e.g., electricity, unused
space, etc.).
Therefore, our policies on siting of conventions (our site selection policy is on our web page at:
http://www.isanet.org/about‐isa/ISA%20Site%20Selection%20Policy.pdf ), albeit modified over the years, have
indicated that we remain at hotels for the annual program.
TheproblemswiththestatusquoThe policy of staying in hotels was an outgrowth of what had initially shaped ISA’s creation: the desire to avoid the
sterility of large conventions at convention centers, and the smaller size of our conference. At least the latter is no
longer true: although attendance (since our membership is less than half of APSA) at our annual convention now hovers
around 5,000 compared to substantially larger numbers at APSA for instance, we produce approximately 50 to 60
percent more panels than at APSA’s conference.
There have been two issues/problems raised with respect to continuing the status quo.
The first is that there has been some unhappiness with turning some hotel suites into breakout rooms. The hotel
removes the furniture in these suites so it doesn’t look like we are doing business in someone’s bedroom, but
Page 32 of 74
understandably, the look and feel of these suites is not the same as the standard breakout room. This problem can only
be addressed by either reducing the number of panels we produce, or moving to a convention center venue.7
The second issue has been one of perceived costs being charged by our hotels. Typically, we negotiate hotel prices at the
desired venue about five to seven years in advance of the annual conference. This requires a great deal of guessing
regarding economic conditions that are more than half decade into the future. The hotel has the same problem. What is
true, however, is that the price does not take into account the fact that the hotel will provide the breakout rooms for
free. Since we normally take an entire hotel’s guest rooms, those breakout rooms become useless for the hotel in the
daytime. Furthermore, since the convention is occurring at the hotel, the free breakout rooms function as a magnet for
the hotel for food and beverage (especially beverages at the bars) and it is very much in the interest of the hotels to
provide us the breakout rooms for free. As a result, were we to NOT have the convention at the “convention” hotel, the
price of the rooms would be typically higher than the rates we can presently negotiate.
Note as well that unlike many other annual association conferences, we do not require members to stay either in the
convention hotel or other hotels we have identified as preferable. Clearly, we want them to stay there (we get some
free rooms which we use for our staff in order to avoid the costs to ISA of housing the staff working the conference), but
nothing requires them to do so, nor have we provided sufficient numbers of rooms to accommodate all participants
since we know that not all will stay at the designated hotels. We estimate that up to 35 percent of our convention
attendees find their own accommodations outside of the block of hotel rooms we reserve for them.
Using San Diego and the 2012 annual conference as the worst case example (it is the highest rate we have had
at an ISA conference hotel), we set aside approximately 1,100 sleeping rooms for participants at the convention hotel,
although we expected over 5,000 to be in attendance. Those rooms, despite the high price, filled almost immediately, as
they do every year. We have been told that had we not had the conference at the Bayfront Hilton, its price for sleeping
rooms would have INCREASED by at least fifty percent.
And please note why we were at the Bayfront: ISA members loved San Diego previously, but were upset by the
fact that we “weren’t on the water”, and wanted the next conference to be by the ocean or the bay. The rates at the
Bayfront Hilton reflected this desire. Note as well that our contract requires the lowest rate charged by the hotel, and it
cannot charge us higher rates than the lowest possible rate it provides during the season for other conferences.
Depending on unit of measurement, the Bayfront Hilton is either a five‐star or a six‐star hotel. Since most of the
complaints about its cost were coming from Europe, we compared its rate to five star hotels’ convention rates for two
conferences that occurred in Europe during 2012: the BISA conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, and the IPSA conference
in Madrid. Our comparison shows that in Scotland, the cost of five star hotels at the convention rate was roughly 35
percent higher than in San Diego, and in Madrid, about 25 percent. Note that in both of those other venues a
convention center was used for the conference.
TheTrade‐offsPresently, ISA’s registration fees for its annual conference are substantially below that of discipline‐based and field‐
based annual conventions. Table 1 indicates comparable rates:
7 Note however that not all convention centers can accommodate us. For example, in Honolulu, the city was willing to provide the convention center to us for free, but the center had half the breakout rooms we needed, and roughly half of what the hotel was able to provide.
Page 33 of 74
Table1.ComparisonofPre‐registrationratesforfacultyandstudents(members),atISA,APSA,ASA,APA,BISA,andIPSA.
ISA (2012) APSA (2012) ASA (2011) APA (2012) BISA (2012) IPSA (2012)
Faculty $120 + 63% +58% +150% +60% +108%
Students $ 60 +25% +67% +66% +100% +25%
As the table shows, rates at comparable, annual conferences range from 58 to 150 percent higher for faculty, and 25 to
100 percent higher for graduate students. Typically, all but BISA produce their conferences at convention centers; unlike
our convention however, APSA, APA, and ASA have a substantially larger membership base, and while they may not
produce more panels, they have substantially higher attendance at the convention for a variety of reasons (e.g., “meat
market”, etc.), which means that they generate substantially greater income than we do from registration fees to cover
expenses from non‐participating attendees.
We would have to substantially increase our registration rates to cover a move to convention centers, and likely would
have to increase them above the rates being charged by ASA, APA, or APSA. Exactly what are these additional costs are
difficult to estimate for a variety of reasons, not the least being that most convention centers are owned by local
governments, and local governments have their own difficult financial times, which has led to charging for electricity,
unused space, and a variety of other phenomena in order to increase revenues from convention centers.
Nevertheless, we sought to create a ball‐park estimate by comparing costs in San Francisco (ISA annual convention,
2018) between a hotel‐based convention and one that is centered on the San Francisco’s Moscone Convention Center.
Table 2 illustrates the comparison:
Table2.ComparingHypotheticalCostsattheSanFranciscoConventionCenterwithActualCostsattheSanFranciscoHiltonandTowers,2018. CONVENTION SITE
SF Convention Center* SF Hilton, Union Square Difference
Breakout Room Rental** 57 rooms @ $137,000 74 rooms at no charge =@$200,000 + loss of 17 breakout rooms (loss of 272 panels)
AV Charges $155,000 $145,000 but negotiable = @$15,000
F and B*** $160,000 $120,000 (negotiated) = @$40,000
Exhibition Carpeting $25,000 Free = @$25,000
Electrical Power Charges $15,000 Free = @15,000
Cost of Sleeping Rooms
Would require use of multiple hotels with block of 200‐300 each, reducing changes of getting favorable group
rates, including number of free rooms for staff working the conference
As negotiated, including most staff with free
rooms
= extensive although much of this cost
borne by participants
* Convention centers are typically available for only “city wide” conferences, meaning that ISA must contract for a minimum of 1800 room nights on peak night with area hotels. ** Each breakout room generates four panels a day for four days = loss of sixteen panels per room= loss of 272 panels = loss of about $68,000 in additional registration revenues. The Moscone center rents out entire buildings, and the building contains only 57 rooms. *** Food and beverage charges for receptions are typically paid for by sections, regions, caucuses, etc.
Page 34 of 74
Thus, we estimate that the total additional cost for a convention center based conference in San Francisco, compared to
the present policy of using hotels, would be approximately $285,000 in additional hard costs to the ISA budget, plus
additional costs to participants resulting from higher sleeping room rates. These additional costs could be offset by an
annual increase of approximately $60 per registrant (in non‐inflationary dollars) in the registration fees for the
conference.
Recommendation Given the range of trade‐offs associated with moving the conference to convention centers, staff recommends
that it is far more cost‐effective under present circumstances to keep our existing policy. However, should circumstances
change regarding either the operations of convention centers or the operations of major hotels, this policy should then
be reconsidered.
Page 35 of 74
8. FUTURE MEETINGS: ANNUAL AND INTERNATIONAL
AnnualConferences:TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL SITES FOR CONFERENCES
2014 March 25‐30, Toronto Sheraton and Hilton Toronto.
2015 Feb 18‐21, New Orleans Hilton and Loews New Orleans.
2016 March 16‐19, Atlanta Hilton.
2017 Feb 22‐25, Baltimore Hilton and Baltimore Marriott.
2018 – April 4‐7 San Francisco Hilton
2019 March 26‐21, Toronto Sheraton and Hilton.
2020 March 25‐28 Honolulu, Hilton Hawaii Village
InternationalConferences 2013 June 27‐29 Joint conference with Peace Science Society (Budapest)
2013 June 19‐21 CISS Section conference (Bruges)
2014 July 23‐25 Joint conference with FLACSO (Buenos Aires)
2014 June 18‐19 Demography Section conference (Warsaw)
2014 August 6‐9 WISC conference (Frankfurt)
2015 Summer Shanghai (tentative)
Page 36 of 74
9. COMPENDIUM UPDATE AND DISCUSSION
From: Renee Marlin‐Bennett and Bob Denemark, ISA Compendium Project General Editors To: ISA Executive Committee and Governing Council Date: January 25, 2013 The ISA Compendium Project continues to advance. Over the course of the year we added approximately 100,000 words of new material in the form of both new and (for the first time) revised essays. Section editors have been asked to consider which of their essays might require revision, as well as what new topics might be suitable for including in the project. Our contact calls for between 10 and 15 new or revised essays per half year. We would like to be nearer 15 than 10 as we move forward.
We also saw the publication of our first volume of the Compendium Section Series, Guide to the Scientific Study of International Processes, (Mitchell, Diehl and Morrow, 2012) made up of existing, revised, and new essays from the SSIP section. Proposals for further Section volumes have been made by the English School Section, and are being considered by several other sections as well.
Wiley/Blackwell continues to market aggressively, and our sales stand at 509 units (365 print/144 electronic
units, and increase over last year of 23 and 36 units respectively). The sales generate royalties for ISA, as we have now paid back our advance and will be generating revenue to cover future costs. Please note that the ISA has never had to provide any cash to the Compendium Project. All costs have been covered by grants or advances. Further, Wiley/Blackwell is also monitoring website usage, which appears to be growing at a healthy level. As we move into the future, Renée Marlin‐Bennett will need a modest amount of money to hire a student for a few hours a week to handle the the secretarial aspects of serving as general editor and possibly for Compendium related travel.
Our greatest technical challenge is the current submission site, which has deteriorated. It was built with haste in
2007 and 2008, and after a corporate merger, several changes in lead technical staff, as well as technical reorganizations at Wiley, it is not functioning as it should. Wiley has been informed of these problems in no uncertain terms and we are working to resolve the problems faced. In the meantime if individuals experience difficulties with the system we urge them to contact the editors directly so that we can quickly resolve any problems.
Our greatest intellectual challenge is to continue to generate high‐quality review essays. Over the last year we worked with Section Editors to purge the system of authors who are not able to complete manuscripts, and work to fill these topics. There may be as many as 200 open essays (essays without authors) by the time of the meeting, and we are looking forward to finding authors. It is vital that the ISA membership realizes that The Compendium Project is an official ISA publication that continues to grow. There are still people who believe that this is a private publishing venture and are hesitant to join in for that reason. Please let people know that the project is one of our own.
We are pleased to report that new ISA Sections in IR Theory, Demography, and the History of IR have all been
contacted about participating in the project. The IR Theory Section has appointed editors who are working through the list of open essays and considering new topics. Both of the other new sections have been in contact with us and we are looking forward to integrating them into the project as well.
As always, we’d like to thank our Section Editors, Bill Thompson, who chairs our editorial advisory board, Tom
Volgy, as executive director, and Brian Pollins (who chairs the Pubs Committee) for all of their continued hard work,
help, and support. This is the end of the seventh year in which Bob Denemark has been associated with the project, and
he has decided that it is time to step down. The Compendium remains in the care of Renée Marlin‐Bennett, and we see
a proud future ahead of it.
Page 37 of 74
10. PUBLICATION COMMITTEE REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS
Annual Report on the State of ISA’s Journals January 20, 2013 Chair: Brian M. Pollins, The Ohio State University (Emeritus) Members: Rose McDermott, Brown University Pat Regan, Binghamton University Kelly Kadera, University of Iowa Edward D. Mansfield, University of Pennsylvania Thomas Risse, Freie Universität Berlin Soo Yeon Kim, National University of Singapore (ex‐officio) Janice Bially Mattern, National University of Singapore (ex‐officio) William R. Thompson, Indiana University (ex officio) Jef Huysmans, Open University, United Kingdom (ex‐officio) João Nogueira , PUC, Rio de Janiero (ex‐officio) Cooper Drury, University of Missouri (ex‐officio) Doug Van Belle, Victoria University (ex‐officio) Paul Diehl, University of Illinois (ex‐officio) Robert Denemark, University of Delaware (ex officio) Renee Marlin‐Bennett, Johns Hopkins University (ex officio) Beth Simmons, Harvard University (ex‐officio) Etel Solingen, University of California, Irvine (ex‐officio) Harvey Starr, University of South Carolina (ex‐officio) Tom Volgy, University of Arizona (ex‐officio) As I did last year, I would like to leave much detail regarding ISA Publications to the individual reports made available to the Governing Council by the editorial teams from the editors of our six journals and the Compendium Project. Here I will concentrate on overarching issues and highlights concerning ISA publications during 2012 as well as looking ahead. Major points include the following: • Circulation for our journals continues to rise as both memberships and library subscriptions (particularly outside North
America) continue to increase at an impressive rate. • This was the first full year during which all six of our journals were recognized and tracked by ISI. We were pleasantly
surprised to learn the Impact Scores and Rankings of our journals, which were generally higher than we would have guessed. This was most timely, given that the results enhanced the value of our full group of journals, just as we entered negotiations with publishers for a new contract in 2015.
• The Committee conducted a successful search for a new editorial home for International Studies Quarterly. The five
year term for William Thompson, Karen Rasler and their associates at Indiana University will end in December 2013, and the Committee received two strong proposals to succeed the Indiana team. The Committee approved both proposals, and their ranking recommendation is provided in a separate memorandum.
• In late summer 2012, the publishers Taylor & Francis suddenly reversed their 2011 decision to end their relationship
with ISA for the management of International Interactions. Though certainly a pleasant surprise, it forced this Committee to begin a search for a new editorial team much later in the year than we normally would. Great generosity has been shown by the University of Illinois and the editorial team led by Paul Diehl in supporting and running the journal for a longer period than they had originally agreed. At this writing, we have received one strong proposal, though it has just this week been submitted to Committee members for discussion. The Committee’s recommendation regarding this proposal will be presented in a separate GC item.
Page 38 of 74
• Wiley Blackwell, publisher of five ISA journals, has fully implemented “Early View”, an on‐line facility that will permit
access to accepted articles to ISA journal subscribers as soon as each article is in its completed form for print publication. They have also been active and creative by greatly increasing the web‐presence of ISA journals, and re‐publishing articles in virtual ‘special issues’ which respond to current events and the blogosphere.
LookingacrossallsixreportsfromtheeditorialteamsIunderscorethefollowing:• Submission Rates: ISA’s journals processed over 1250 new submissions last year, a 20% increase (very roughly) from
the year before. (Not counting > 303 individual book reviews in ISR.) While most of our journals experienced modest growth in submissions, Foreign Policy Analysis experienced a 50% increase (to 175 new manuscripts) Most importantly, each of our journals now has an annual submission rate sufficient to expect a long‐term, quality pool of publishable manuscripts.
• Turnaround Time: Our target is 75 calendar days. Three journals are 10 to 20 days faster than this target. One journal
is on target. Two remain slower (IPS due to editorial transition; ISR due to problem with/change in Managing Editor). We do not see management problems here; overall performance is quite good and trending better.
• Female Participation in ISA Publications: Data gathering on this question continues. Editorial Leadership: we now have
7 men and 4 women serving either as executive editors or co‐editors. Associate Editors number 8 women and 8 men.
• Non‐North American Participation in ISA Publications: There is also increasingly strong evidence that participation by
scholars from outside the U.S.A. and Canada is trending upward. Scholars from outside the USA and Canada represent > 35% of all submissions in each of our journals. In two cases (ISR and IPS) they represent > 60% of all submissions. U.S.‐ Canadian ‘hegemony’ in our journals is waning.
Iwoulddrawyourattentiontosomepointsregardingtheindividualjournals:• International Studies Quarterly processed 657 manuscripts this past year. This is an important leveling‐off from the
huge growth rates of the previous two years. Impressive efforts by the Indiana team and flexibility from Wiley has greatly increased the number of top‐quality articles which appear per issue, and thus has allowed a reduction in the backlog despite an exponential increase in submissions during the previous three years.
• International Political Sociology, the youngest journal in the ISA family, published the first ‘virtual issue’ in 2012. These
issues are in addition to the regular print issues and are an effective means of bringing together past publications on the web to connect to current issues. Our publisher Wiley has been central to developing this concept and helping our editors produce and advertize ‘virtual issues’. More will be forthcoming. IPS has also translated its ‘Call for papers’ into nine different languages, and Wiley has worked hard to give all our journals a higher global profile – using print and especially web‐based media.
InSumThe state of ISA Publications appears to be very solid, and trending in desirable directions in several ways. Journal
management is sound, our readership and the number of scholars seeking to publish with us is rising. We also appear to be increasingly diverse in both gender and geographic terms. Our current publisher, Wiley & Sons, is doing a great deal to innovate and increase our visibility world‐wide, while keeping us on the cutting edge of electronic publishing and web accessibility.
Page 39 of 74
ReportandRecommendationsonthenewEditorialTeamforISQNOTE:
1) This item is conducted in executive session as it pertains to personnel matters;
2) The bids of the two primary editorial team candidates reviewed by the publications committee are available at:
“Georgetown” proposal at: http://www.isanet.org/pubs/isq‐editorial‐team‐proposal‐georgetown.html
“Iowa” proposal at: http://www.isanet.org/pubs/isq‐editorial‐team‐proposals‐iowa.html
================================================================== Recommendation of the Publications Committee for a New Editorial Home for International Studies Quarterly
Originally Submitted August 25, 2012. Updated January 20, 2013
As 2012 was the 4th year in the term of the Indiana University team, a call for proposals was put out via email to the full
ISA membership, and posted on the ISA website in March 2012. The full membership of the Publications Committee
(voting and ex officio) also contacted individuals whom they thought would make good candidates. A June 30 deadline
was announced, and between March and May, four earnest inquiries were received expressing a serious level of interest
in application. Two potential teams reconsidered in light of the work‐load and institutional support, and dropped out of
the competition. In the end, two very solid proposals were received.
Those two proposals were first reviewed and discussed by the full committee (i.e., Voting as well as ex officio members).
In order of receipt, one proposal came from a team led by Professor Sarah Mitchell of the University of Iowa, and
Professor Brandon Prins of the University of Tennessee. Mitchell and Prins have gathered an impressive group of
Associate Editors (see proposal) in order to better serve the diverse sub‐fields and epistemological approaches of the ISA
membership. The competing proposal was sent by proposed Lead Editor, Professor Dan Nexon of Georgetown
University. Nexon adds two colleagues from Georgetown, and three from other universities as co‐editors (see proposal).
In addition, the Georgetown‐led proposal adds six Associate Editors (three from Europe, three from North America) to
better serve the diverse sub‐fields and epistemological approaches of the ISA membership.
Aside: there has been a clear trend toward ever‐larger editorial teams in the proposals we have received for our journals
in recent years. While this may seem cumbersome from the perspective of management, the Publications Committee
has always insisted upon a clear demarcation of responsibility – most specifically by insisting upon the designation of
one person as having ultimate authority and responsibility for the journal’s operation. To date, this model has worked
very well. i.e., the Association has benefitted from the increased diversity which larger editorial teams offer, while not
suffering from the complications which one might expect from larger and more diverse decision teams. We continue to
monitor this situation across all ISA journals, but so long as our experience with large and diverse teams remains
favorable, the Publication Committee will continue to welcome proposals from larger teams who specify clear lines of
authority and responsibility (as both proposals before us do).
When considering proposals for a new editorial team, the committee looks at the scholarly profile of the proposed
editors, the support offered by the home institution (material, staff and release time), the grasp the proposal shows of
the journal’s identity and mission, and the ability we believe these individuals have to run the journal in a reliable and
efficient way. We also look to expand ISA horizons when we can, by hopefully finding new people to edit ISA journals,
women editors, people outside North America, etc..
Page 40 of 74
After one month’s discussion among the Full Committee, our deliberations moved to the six voting members. It was
soon clear that our basic criteria were met more than adequately by both proposals. The voting members agreed that
the Iowa‐led team and the Georgetown‐led team had both submitted proposals that would provide a worthy new home
for ISQ. So which of these proposals was preferred?
On this point (as of August 25, 2012) the Committee was split 3‐3; i.e. three members rated the Iowa‐led group as their
first choice, three preferred the Georgetown‐led bid.
ThosefavoringIowa‐ledgroupemphasizedthefollowingpoints:• The Iowa‐led group is overall more senior, and (by publications, especially in ISA journals) more visible professionally.
In particular, we see only one Full Professor listed in either proposal, and that is Sarah Mitchell. Thus by overall standing
and rank of all team members, this is the superior proposal.
• The Iowa‐led team is closer to a cross‐section of the current ISA membership. This team most ‘looks like’ ISA; it fits the
existing mission of ISQ. At the same time, the proposed team (including Associate Editors) is more diverse
epistemologically than many previous ISQ editorial teams.
• While previous ISQ teams have included women as part of the team – and more than once in high‐ranking positions –
we have never had a woman in the very top, Executive slot. We believe it is time we did so, especially when that person
is the lone Full Professor applying for the position, has previous experience as an Associate Editor with another ISA
journal, and is the single most professionally visible scholar named in either proposal.
• Georgetown proposed a significant increase in the number of ‘desk rejections’; i.e., authors who would receive
rejection letters without any outside review. This was proposed since ISQ is now receiving more than 600 submissions
per year. But at least three Committee members worried that such a policy would deprive authors of ‘invisible college’
feedback. i.e., Many members (especially in the developing world, but also at small colleges) have no one in their home
departments or near‐circle with whom to exchange ideas and receive constructive criticism. The ISQ review process has
served as a ‘seminar‐by‐mail’ for such scholars, and we risk losing this if desk rejections become common practice.
ThosefavoringGeorgetown‐ledgroupemphasizedthefollowingpoints:• Greater participation from non‐North American universities (among the Associate editors) was seen as a major
strength of this proposal. It is time for ISQ to move beyond its North‐American roots.
• A desire among some members of the Committee to try a new direction for ISQ; the Lead Editor and Associate Editors
are epistemologically more diverse than past ISQ teams.
• The Georgetown‐led team demonstrated an impressive grasp of modern web‐based technologies, and proposed
innovative ways in which ISQ could reach new audiences via blogs and other forms of web‐visibility. Dan Nexon has
considerable experience and expertise in this area, and if ISA wishes to take its journals in this direction, this may be the
place to start.
Points noted above represent how the Committee stood as of August 25, 2012 (prior to the expected meeting of the
Executive Committee at APSA. That meeting did not occur due to the cancellation of APSA.)
Page 41 of 74
AdditionalInformationasofFall,2012There was some concern on the Committee that the Georgetown team was less strong in the area of quantitative and
formal research than the Iowa‐led team. Historically, such manuscripts represent 45‐60% of all submissions to ISQ.
Responding to this concern, the Georgetown group added Professor Erik Gartzke of the University of California, San
Diego to their group of co‐editors. Gartzke, however, will not be at UCSD in the 2013‐2014 academic year (when the
new team takes ISQ over), and did not feel he could request support from UCSD (office space, RA, release time to
perform editorial duties etc.) Thus, if the Governing Council accepts the Georgetown bid, we will have no assurance that
Gartzke will receive the support our co‐editors customarily receive to perform their considerable duties. This is a point
of serious concern for some members of the Publications Committee. Some others did not consider this to be a
problem. Overall, the committee remains evenly split regarding which of these two proposals should be our first choice.
Respectfully Submitted, Brian M. Pollins, Chair, ISA Publications Committee January 20, 2013
Page 42 of 74
ReportandRecommendationsonthenewEditorialTeamforInternationalInteractions To: Members of International Studies Association Executive Committee and Governing Council From: Brian M. Pollins, Chair, ISA Publications Committee Re: Search for New Editorial Team for International Interactions February 27, 2013
BottomLine:The Committee has voted unanimously to recommend the proposal offered by Prof. Michael Colaresi (Michigan State University) and Prof. Gerald Schneider (University of Konstanz) to edit International Interactions for the 5‐year term 2014 through 2018.
OverviewoftheDecisionProcess:● In addi on to myself, vo ng members of the Publica ons Commi ee include Prof. Edward Mansfield (Penn), Prof. Thomas Risse (FU Berlin), and Prof. Rose McDermott (Brown), Prof. Pat Regan (Binghamton), and Prof. Kelly Kadera (Iowa). ● Taylor & Francis, publisher of International Interactions, informed us in 2011 that they no longer wished for ISA to manage that journal, and that they would seek to find a new editorial team to run their journal. This came as a great surprise to us, given the outstanding job done by Prof. Paul Diehl and his colleagues at the University of Illinois during the previous four years. A second surprise came in late summer, 2012 when T&F reversed their earlier decision, and asked us to search for new editors to replace the Illinois team upon the normal end of their term of editorship on December 31, 2013. ● ISA HQ and the Publications Committee began that search immediately. Notice was posted on the ISA website and within the ISA Newsletter that we were seeking proposals from individuals and teams who wished to edit II for the years 2014‐2018. Individual queries were sent by various ISA officers and members of the Publications Committee to scholars whom we thought would be strong candidates. In this broad notice, we stated that committee deliberations would begin on December 31, 2012, but proposals would be accepted until the committee settled on a recommendation. ● Indica ons of ini al interest were received from (approx) three individuals and academic departments during the September‐December period. In the end, we received one high‐quality proposal by our December 31 deadline. ● The “comment phase” of our commi ee’s delibera ons took place between January 5 and January 31. Full copies of the proposal, including CVs of all proposed editors (2 Managing Editors and 4 Associate Editors), were sent to voting members of the Publications Committee, to all ex‐officio members of our committee, and to all current editors of ISA journals. ● Fewer comments circulated among Commi ee members than was the case for other recent searches. This was clearly due to the fact that we had only one proposal, and the impression of Committee members was highly favorable. A few informational questions came along during the process, and these were addressed to the satisfaction of the Committee. The six voting members of the Committee continued discussion into February, though no new questions or issues were raised. I called for a vote on February 15, the results were a unanimous 6 votes “Yes”.
Page 43 of 74
KeyDetailsfromPublicationCommitteeDeliberations: Michigan State University and University of Konstanz Editorial Team: Professor Michael Colaresi and Professor Gerald Schneider, Managing Editors; and Professors Margit Bussmann (University of Greifswald), Sabine Carey (University of Mannheim), Ben Fordham (Binghamton University), Burçu Savun (University of Pittsburgh), Associate Editors. Support Highlights: Release time of one course per year for Colaresi and for Schneider; office space and infrastructure at both MSU and the University of Konstanz; all stated support items assured in a strong support letters from Professor Richard Hula, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Michigan State, and Dr. Susumu Shikano, Head of the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Konstanz..
KeyStrengthsandConcernsasseenbyPublicationsCommittee:• Academic reputation and visibility of the overall team is quite high. We expect this will serve to maintain the visibility and reputation of II in the academic community. Colaresi and Schneider also have a record of service within ISA, including important management experience. The same can be said of the proposed Associate Editors.
• Office staffing is solid at both main sites. • Geographic representation is a plus, given that II has historically been led by exclusively North American teams. That 50% of this proposed team is based in Europe should expand the visibility and network for the journal. Gender balance is also as good or better than most proposals we see.
• Overall support package offered by MSU and Konstanz is very solid. We particularly like that both managing editors will receive release time from their home institutions each year.
• One concern was raised: Gerald Schneider is currently editor of European Union Politics. We asked Colaresi and Schneider whether taking responsibility for two journals might overburden Schneider. Will the division of labor between the Managing Editors of II truly be split evenly? A detailed reply was promptly delivered by Colaresi and Schneider (see support materials). In short, Schneider is adding a partner co‐editor on the staff of EUP, and given his experience and the submission rate at EUP, there should be no conflict with his commitment to work as a genuine co‐editor at International Interactions. Members of the Publications Committee (i.e., those who offered any comment at all on the Schneider‐Colaresi memo) were satisfied with the Schneider‐Colaresi reply.
InSum:The Committee generally hopes to receive more than one proposal when one of our journals is due to find new leadership. However, it is not unusual for us to receive only one proposal. Happily for ISA, the proposal we received in this case is a very strong one. We always look for solid scholarship and visibility in the editorial team, clear commitment of institutional support, and reliable management skills among core editors. We see all those factors here, and the Committee is confident that the Colaresi‐Schneider team can continue the exceptional leadership that International Interactions has received in the past five years from the University of Illinois team led by Paul Diehl.
Page 44 of 74
11. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON BIDS FROM
PUBLISHERS FOR ISA’S JOURNALS
(Note: this is a contractual matter and one that may involve additional negotiations; therefore the discussion will be held
in executive session. For the same reason, the recommendation and supporting discussion from the committee will be
handed out during the executive session to voting members of the Governing Council.)
Page 45 of 74
12. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AD-HOC SEARCH COMMITTEE PROGRESS
REPORT
(Note: this issue covers personnel matters and will be discussed in executive session)
The ad hoc committee composed a call for a new ISA executive director and headquarters after the 2012 ISA annual
meeting. It was sent to the membership via email last April. It was also announced in the ISA newsletter. Interested
candidates were invited to submit a short proposal by June 30, 2012. The committee received three good proposals
from well‐qualified candidates who were informed of our interest. The committee will meet with each of the three
individuals during the 2013 annual meeting. After that, site visits will be conducted as appropriate. The committee
expects to make its formal recommendation to the Executive Committee in August 2013. We expect to report out our
final recommendation to the Governing Council at the 2014 annual meeting.
J. Ann Tickner, Chair
Bruce Buena de Mesquita
Robert Kudrle
Thomas Volgy ex officio
Etel Solingen, ex officio
Page 46 of 74
13. LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT
Page 47 of 74
14. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT
August 1, 2012 From: D. Scott Bennett, Chair, ISA Nominating Committee Re: 2012 Nominating Committee Report
After careful deliberation, the International Studies Association Nominating Committee (Karen Alter, Scott Bennett,
Martha Finnemore, Emilie Hafner‐Burton, David Kinsella, Helen Milner, TJ Pempel, Bob Denemark, and Lisa Blaydes)
unanimously agreed to a single slate of candidates for ISA officers: Amitav Acharya for president; Cameron Thies,
Carolyn Shaw, and Kristian Gleditsch for vice presidents. This year we also solicited (for the first time) nominees for at‐
large representatives from outside the recognized ISA regions. Our charge is to forward at least 5 candidates for three
positions. We recommend the following 6 names be considered for the three at‐large positions: Kurt Mills (UK); Olga
Vorkunova (Russia); Toni Erskine (UK); Stephanie Rickard (UK); Mark Kayser (Germany); Thomas Hegghammer
(Norway). We also solicited for the three‐year position of treasurer. We recommend Cliff Morgan as treasurer.
All of these nominees have been contacted by the Committee Chair and have agreed to serve if elected. I’ve attached
their CVs to the email with this report.
The procedures followed were generally the same as in previous years. We met and organized at the spring 2012 ISA
annual meeting and prepared the various calls for nominations that were distributed to the full membership. We set a
deadline of May 25, 2012 for submission of names and asked for a letter of nomination in support of the candidate as
well as a copy of his or her CV. We also asked each of the names forwarded whether they would be willing to serve if
nominated, and asked for statements from them. We made final decisions via Skype conference calls on June 7 and 11,
2012.
We had five nominations for president, six nominations for vice‐president, 12 for at‐large member, and 3 for treasurer.
The committee agreed that we were very fortunate to have such an extremely strong group of candidates from which to
choose, and we had multiple strong candidates for each position.
The committee was extremely pleased with the final slate of candidates and we as a committee believe that they will
serve ISA very well in their capacities as officers of the association. We are also very confident that the slate of
candidates reflects diversity in terms of representing the many constituencies within the association, both this year, and
looking at past officers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to serve the International Studies Association. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Scott Bennett Chair, 2012 ISA Nominating Committee
Page 48 of 74
15. WORKSHOP GRANTS COMMITTEE REPORT
ISA Workshop Grants Committee Report (2012) Cameron Thies (Chair) Melani Cammett, Ajin Choi, Steven Lobell, James Meernik and Laura Sjoberg
The ISA Workshops Grant Committee received 20 proposals for Catalytic grants and 10 proposals for Venture grants this
year. The Committee ultimately agreed to fund 10 Catalytic and 6 Venture grants. This represents an increase of 2
Catalytic and 1 Venture grant over last year. The committee allocated approximately $50,000 for the Catalytic grants
and $75,000 for the Venture grants coming in right at our total budgeted amount. As you can see from the list of funded
projects below, we have a very diverse set of workshops this year.
CatalyticGrants
Hans Günter Brauch (Free University of Berlin), “Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace: Policy Initiatives
of Governments and International Organizations”
Katherine Brown (King’s College London), “Advances in Gender and Military Studies”
Paul Kowert (Florida International University) and Stephen Walker (Arizona State University), “Bridging the Gap
between Role Theory and ‘Role Practice’ in Foreign Policy”
Catherine Lu (McGill University) and Daniel Deudney (Johns Hopkins University), “World Government and Global
Politics”
Stephen Marrin (Brunel University), “Intelligence Analysis, the Social Sciences and History: Understanding and
Explaining International Actors and Outcomes”
Travers McLeod (University of Oxford), Janina Dill (University of Oxford), Sarah Percy (University of Western
Australia), Sean Richmond (University of Oxford), “What Makes Legal Norms Distinctive?”
Kurt Mills (University of Glasgow) and David J Karp (University of Glasgow), “Protecting Human Rights: Duties
and Responsibilities of States and Non‐State Actors”
Maria Rost Rublee (Australian National University), Anthony Burke (University of New South Wales Canberra),
and Marianne Hanson (University of Queensland), “Nuclear Politics: Beyond Positivism”
Laura J. Shepherd (University of New South Wales) and Rune Saugmann Andersen (University of Copenhagen),
“Filming/Film in IR: Visual Methodologies, Aesthetics and Ethics in International Relations”
John Vasquez (University of Illinois), “War in 1914: Analytic Perspectives on Historical Debates”
VentureGrants
Robert Blair (Yale University), “Crowdsourcing Africa: New Communications Technologies in Politics and Social
Science Research”
Han Dorussen (University of Essex), Erik Gartzke (UCSD), and Oliver Westwinter (European University Institute),
“Interdependence, Networks, and International Governance”
Cooper Drury (University of Missouri) and Cliff Morgan (Rice University), “Economic Sanctions and Political
Processes: Going Beyond ‘Do They Work?’”
Thomas Princen (University of Michigan), “Leave It In the Ground: Choosing to End the Fossil Fuel Era”
Page 49 of 74
Idean Salehyan (University of North Texas) and Cullen Hendrix (College of William and Mary), “Best Practices in
the Collection and Presentation of Conflict Data”
Arturo Sotomayor (Naval Postgraduate School, Maiah Jaskoski (Naval Postgraduate School, and Harold Trinkunas
(Naval Postgraduate School), “Hot, Cold, and Cool Borderlines in the Americas: Politics of Cooperation and
Conflict in Frontiers”
IssuesUnderConsiderationAt the annual meeting in San Diego, the committee discussed several issues raised by Executive Director Volgy. Volgy
was concerned that the committee was funding too many grants overall with an inappropriate division between the
Catalytic and Venture categories. In the original vision for the Workshop Grants, the division was expected to be 5
Catalytic at $5,000 a piece and 4 Venture at $25,000 a piece. The committee has never met that target for several
reasons. First, we always receive more Catalytic than Venture grants. Second, those applying for the Venture grants
almost never ask for the full $25,000; in fact, the amounts are often only a few thousand over the Catalytic limit of
$5,000. Finally, the proposals for the Catalytic grants have often been much better than those for the Venture grants.
The committee committed to seeking out true Venture grants approaching the $25,000 amount, but retained the notion
that they would always fund the best proposals regardless of the category. This year, we received more Venture
proposals that requested larger amounts. We still obviously awarded more grants overall, and more of each category
than the original vision for the Workshop Grants. The committee will continue to work on this issue in the future.
Several other issues have arisen since the San Diego meeting that the committee will consider this year. First, both the
applications for, and the successful recipients of, the awards seem to have a hard time understanding both allowable
expenses and that funds are not fungible once they are awarded. The committee intends to work with Jeanne White to
create a worksheet for submissions that will spell this out in much clearer terms. Second, the committee intends to
drop the requirements of a follow‐up panel or roundtable at the subsequent annual meeting after a successful
workshop. These panels have not proven especially valuable to the association since audience attendance is very low,
especially since they occupy in the range of 15‐20 slots that could be used for other purposes. Third, the committee
intends to adopt very specific guidelines for follow‐up conference funding. Currently, the budget for allowed follow‐up
conferences has been negotiated on a case‐by‐case basis. Fourth, we will switch the submission to MS Word documents
instead of PDF files to help the ISA staff with uploading them to the ISA website. Finally, we also need to clarify that a
person can only attend (and be reimbursed for participation in) one workshop.
Overall, we have engaged in a process of fine‐tuning the application and award process in the past few years with the
help of the committee members and ISA staff. This is my final year as chair of the committee, so I would like to thank all
of the committee members I have served with over the past few years and the ISA staff who I have worked with while
chairing the Workshop Grants Committee.
Sincerely,
Cameron Thies
Page 50 of 74
16. COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN REPORT
Committee On The Status of Women Report ISA Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession Report to the ISA Governing Council January 2013
Committee:Laura Sjoberg, Chair Galia Golan, Member Karen Feste, Member Marie‐Joelle Zahar, Member Ismene Gizelis, Member
The members of the Committee on the Status of Women met on Tuesday, April 3, 2012 in conjunction with the 2012 ISA Annual Convention. This report provides information about the data collected by our Committee and summarizes short term and long term goals for the Committee.
I. Activities at ISA 2013 (Informational Item) a. The Committee on the Status of Women Organized and Sponsored two panels at ISA 2013:
i. “Building a Career in a Gendered Discipline: Advice on Publication and Tenure,” which includes current women from a number of different places in the discipline talking about paths to success.
1. Abstract: Research has documented the "leaky pipeline" in the field of IR and the substantive and representational challenges that women often face as they navigate careers as scholars in the field. This panel looks to contribute to bucking that trend by providing advice about how to publish; how to make a tenurable (or, outside the US, promotable) record in teaching, research, and service; and strategies about the tenure application process. Women scholars from different places in their careers, different sorts of institutions, and different backgrounds will talk about tips for success in the field both from their experience and from their positions as journal editors, members of tenure and promotion committees, and tenure letter writers. Roundtable participants will give introductory talks and then field questions from the audience, hoping that their advice will be especially useful to junior women in the field but also generalizable.
2. Participants: Sandra McEvoy, Chair; Roundtable participants: Marijke Breuning; Brett Ashley Leeds, Katja Weber; Melissa Brown; Drucilla Barker; Mary McAleese
ii. “Where are the ‘Women’? Challenges of Data Collection about Gender diversity in ISA and the Profession,” which discusses the (often hidden) complexities of gender data collection.
1. Abstract: Where are the women? Research on gender and international relations has consistently asked the question "where are the women in global politics?" and disciplinary organizations are starting to ask similar questions about the scholars who study global politics. The Committee on the Status of Women at ISA has been exploring how to collect data on women in the profession, and understanding the sex‐specific challenges of doing International Relations teaching and research. This panel intends to discuss data collection to date, challenges in that data collection, and expanding that data collection to ask questions like who and what are the women, rather than assuming the easy identification of such a category. In so doing, it intends to look forward to planning more data collection, and understanding sex and gender in the profession more deeply.
Page 51 of 74
2. Participants: Marie‐Joelle Zahar (Chair); Roundtable participants: Kathleen Mahoney‐Norris; Meredith Sarkees; Cai Wilkinson; Kath Brown; Laura Sjoberg
b. Joint Reception with the Committee on the Status of Diversity and Representation in ISA, Wednesday, April 3, 6:45‐7:45pm.
II. Changing ISA’s Gender Data Collection (Voting Issue)
a. The Committee on the Status of Women proposes to add both “other” and “choose not to identify” categories to the ISA form for “gender” data collection. We suggest that to know about the status of women in the profession, it is important to know about who "the women" are rather than just what happens to women, and important to make it clear that self‐identifying as male and female aren't as simple as we often make them see. We hope to get the Governing Council’s endorsement to make these changes and bring ISA’s gender data collection into line with other organizations like the American Political Science Association (APSA) and the British International Studies Association (BISA).
III. Publishing ISA’s Gender Data (Voting Issue) The Committee on the Status of Women proposes publishing the gender data of women in the Association (both overall and disaggregated by section and career level) either on the ISA website or in the program of the Annual Meeting
IV. International Network on the Status of Women in Political Science (2 voting issues) a. Proposal (from Pippa Norris) This proposal seeks your support for launching a new international network on the status of Women in Political Science (WPS for short). The aims of the new network are to share knowledge, exchange experiences, develop professional codes of conduct, and advocate effective strategies designed to strengthen equal opportunities for women and men and gender balance in political science as a profession. Why a new network? Background and overview Recent decades have seen growing attempts to monitor the status of women and to promote gender balance within the political science profession. Caucuses, sections, taskforces, sub‐committees, or standing groups have been established for this purpose both within the International Studies Association and in many similar national, regional and international professional associations of political scientists around the world. These bodies have commonly focused on advocating gender equality and diversity policies concerning appointments, promotions, mentoring, and job security; monitoring the loss of women to the profession at certain stages, such as straight after PhD graduation (the ‘leaky pipeline’); analyzing work‐life balance issues of maternity leave, child and family care, and problems of sexual harassment; promoting women’s representation within professional bodies, editorial boards, nomination and appointment committees, and professional meetings; and examining the status of research, teaching syllabi, research funding, and publications on women and politics, feminism, gender equality, and sexuality. Caucuses concerned about these issues engage women political scientists irrespective of their subfield. By contrast, specialist groups study gender politics as a sub‐field of academic research. Despite the growth of activities monitoring the status of women within political science in leading countries and regions, these efforts remain patchy around the globe, especially in many developing societies where political science is poorly institutionalized as a discipline. IPSA’s most recent survey estimates that, in countries where data is available, women are often around one third (34%) of the total membership in national political science associations, although this varies substantially (see Figure 1). The profession continues to lack a common international forum for exchanging information, comparing best practices, monitoring data, and endorsing standards.
Page 52 of 74
Proposed functions of the new network For these reasons, it is proposed to launch a new International network on the status of Women in Political Science (WPS for short). In particular, it is proposed that the new network will develop a one‐stop website which could serve the following functions: Share information about best practices from published reports and pool research on women and gender
equality in political science; Exchange information about relevant events, meetings, and panels; Facilitate an interactive ‘Facebook’ forum, allowing ‘real‐time’ discussions about effective strategies and
policies; Encourage all national, regional and international associations of political science to establish and
support a body responsible for these issues; Develop internationally‐agreed professional codes of conduct for achieving gender balance that could
be endorsed and adopted by political science associations; Host an online directory where individual scholars can post and update their contact details and
research interests; Network scholars studying women/gender politics as an academic sub‐field; Utilize interactive social media, such as crowdsourcing to facilitate online data collection, Facebook for
interactive discussion, Youtube for recorded events, and Twitter feeds, for posting alerts and links. Establishing the structure and organization of the new network To facilitate the network, it is proposed that: Several leading professional bodies (including APSA, IPSA, ECPR, LASA and the ISA) will be approached as
founding partners asked to endorse the initiative and to provide seed funding of $5000 each to cover the costs of a graduate administrator and a professional website design (target funding of $20,000‐$30,000);
A Chair and an international Advisory Board will be established to supervise the network’s activities, appointed for the two‐year period and corresponding electronically;
A graduate part‐time administrator, under the direction of the chair, will be responsible for designing and maintaining the website, gathering materials, coordinating inputs, communicating with national associations and national caucuses, moderating discussion forums, and promoting the network;
National and regional political science associations will be invited to become members of the network, to contribute towards funding activities, and to nominate a representative on the Advisory Board, appointed for a two‐year period and responsible for forwarding information to the online website and communicating with the network;
Independent experts will be invited to contribute towards the network, drawing upon their own experiences and research;
Individuals will be encouraged to post materials, links, and comments in moderated discussions on the network, especially via social media;
Launch events will be planned to publicize the network, such as panels at professional conferences, in conjunction with existing meetings of caucuses, standing groups and sub‐committees;
The network will plan to mobilize support and raise funds during 2012, appoint the webmaster in November 2012, with the initial launch planned to go live in January/February 2013.
We hope that you could endorse this proposal and support this initiative.
Page 53 of 74
Endorsed by: Yasmeen Abu‐Laban (University of Alberta) [email protected] Faith Armitage (Birkbeck College, University of London) [email protected] Stephen Bates (University of Birmingham) [email protected] Drude Dahlerup (Stockholm University) [email protected] Isabelle Engeli (University of Ottowa) [email protected] Joanna Everitt (University of New Brunswick ‐ Saint John) [email protected] Amanda Gouws (University of Stellenbosch) [email protected] Evelyn Huber (University of North Carolina) [email protected] Mona Lena Krook (Rutgers University) [email protected] Joni Lovenduski (Birkbeck College, University of London) [email protected] Jane Mansbridge (Harvard University) [email protected] Irmina Matonyte (ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania) [email protected] Amy Mazur (Washington State University) [email protected] Carole Pateman (UCLA) [email protected] David Paternotte (Université libre de Bruxelles) [email protected] Susan Pharr (Harvard University) [email protected] Joyce Outshoorn (Leiden University) [email protected] Marian Sawer (Australian National University), [email protected] Renata Siemienska (Warsaw University) [email protected] Laura Sjoberg (University of Florida) [email protected] Valerie Sperling (Clark University) [email protected] Aili Tripp (University of Wisconsin) [email protected] Bridget Welsh (Singapore Management University) [email protected] Kristen Williams (Clark University) [email protected] b. Endorsement (1st voting issue):
i. The Committee on the Status of Women suggests that ISA endorse the creation of the International Network on the Status of Women in the profession as furthering its goals of studying and promoting diversity in the profession.
c. Become a sponsoring organization (2nd voting issue): i. The Committee on the Status of Women suggests that ISA (with several other organizations)
become a founding partner in the International Network on the Status of Women in the profession, given that it furthers the organization’s goals of studying and promoting diversity in the profession.
V. Survey Research Ideas (Informational Item) a. The Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) is exploring both doing survey research and finding ways
to support research on: i. The Status of Women in the field in a qualitative sense (what women’s experiences are, what
they want and need, what they see as challenges and tools to address those) ii. The Gender climates of departments in the field (in conjunction with the APSA Committee on
the Status of Women and the SPSA Working Group on Women’s Experiences in the Field) iii. Gendered citation practices in the field
b. Next year’s report will have concrete plans on these goals.
Page 54 of 74
17. COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF REPRESENTATION AND DIVERSITY
REPORT
ISA Committee on the Status of Representation and Diversity Report to the ISA Governing Council January 2013
Committee:Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Chair Xinyuan Dai, Member Christian Davenport, Member Maria Hermíni Tavares de Almeida, Member Arturo Sotomayor, Member Yahia Zoubir, Member The members of the Committee on the Status of Representation and Diversity met on April 2, 2012 in conjunction with
the ISA Annual Convention. This report provides information about the issues discussed by the Committee and
summarizes our recent activities.
ReceptionThe Committee is sponsoring a joint reception with the Committee on the Status of Women at the 2013 San Francisco
conference. This continues the tradition established by previous members of the committee to host a conference with
similar ISA groups/caucuses.
PanelsThe Committee has an allocation of two panels at the annual convention. We worked with other
sections/groups/caucuses representatives to sponsor the following three panels for ISA 2013. At the 2013 meeting, we
plan to discuss ideas for panels/roundtables for the 2014 conference.
1) WD08: Wednesday 4:00 PM ‐ 5:45 PM Roundtable Building a Career in a Gendered Discipline: Advice on Publication and Tenure Sponsor(s): Committee on the Status of Representation & Diversity, The Committee on the Status of Women
Chair. Sandra McEvoy, Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights Cmte Chair. Laura Sjoberg, University of Florida Part. Marijke Breuning, University of North Texas Part. Brett Ashley Leeds, Rice University Part. Melissa T. Brown, City University of New York‐BMCC Part. Katja Weber, Georgia Institute of Technology Part. Mary K. Meyer McAleese, Eckerd College Part. Drucilla Barker, University of South Carolina
2) FB11: Friday 10:30 AM ‐ 12:15 PM Roundtable
Critical Pedagogies in World Politics: Structures, spaces and contexts of learning Sponsor(s): Active Learning in International Affairs, Global Development,
Page 55 of 74
Committee on the Status of Representation & Diversity Chair Jason R. Weidner, Virginia Tech Part. Jorge Mascarenhas Lasmar, PUC Minas Part. Siddharth Mallavarapu, Jawaharlal Nehru University Part. Catherine Baker, University of Hull Part. Shiera S. Malik, DePaul University
3) SB61: Saturday 10:30 AM ‐ 12:15 PM Roundtable
What do we teach? How do we teach it? Critical Pedagogies and World Politics Sponsor(s): Active Learning in International Affairs, Global Development, Committee on the Status of Representation & Diversity, Global South Caucus Chair Meera Sabaratnam, University of Cambridge Part. Daniel Bendix, University of Manchester Part. David L. Blaney, Macalester College Part. Naeem Inayatullah, Ithaca College Part. Laura J. Shepherd, University of New South Wales Part. Andrea Paras, University of Guelph Part. Paul C. Kirby, University of Sussex
Issues1) Identifying members of under‐represented groups: At the 2012 meeting, we discussed a variety of issues
surrounding identification of various groups in the ISA organization. We thought it would be helpful to survey other major organizations with global membership to get a sense for a rubric that could be used for group identification in the future for ISA members. We would like to determine strategies for ISA members to self‐identify their race/ethnicity/etc. The difficulty we face lies in identifying members of underrepresented groups. Categories used in one country (e.g. African American in the US context) do not translate well across countries. The committee will continue discussions about how to address these important issues. We would like to put together a roundtable similar to the Status of Women’s 2013 RT on the difficulties in collecting data on gender and expand this to a broader set of under‐represented groups for the 2014 conference.
2) Writing a grant proposal to fund ISA travel for members of under‐represented groups: ISA President Beth Simmons had a useful suggestion about pursuing a grant proposal to provide funding for members of under‐represented groups to attend the annual ISA convention. We will discuss possible funding sources for this initiative at the 2013 meeting. We will also determine if ISA travel funds could incorporate these criteria once we have a better sense for which groups individuals belong to.
3) Recruiting scholars from under‐represented groups at other conferences: One committee member discussed issues with recruiting African American scholars to ISA. We discussed some strategies for networking with minority groups at other conferences, such as APSA and MPSA. We will develop more concrete ideas at the 2013 meeting.
Page 56 of 74
18. ACADEMIC FREEDOM COMMITTEE REPORT
2012 Academic Freedom Committee Report
The ISA Academic Freedom Committee (AFC) met at the ISA annual meetings in San Diego on 1 April 2012. The Chair
scheduled the meeting improperly in his calendar, and thus arrived three hours late, missing the meeting. Harvey Starr
was kindly stepped into the breach and chaired the meeting. At that meeting, the committee discussed a range of
issues, focusing on agenda items: Two issues were discussed at the meeting: (1) how to handle requests about the
committee's decisions on cases, and (2) whether the committee can become more active.
RequestsforCommittee'sDecisionsIt was decided that the AFC Chair can respond to requests by communicating "this is what we recommended to
ISA Executive Committee," and also let the inquirer know the people to whom we recommended ISA ExComm send the
letter.
CommitteeActivityPer her agenda request Alison Brysk led a discussion of proactive monitoring, and whether the committee can or
should do more. It was agreed that referrals have been low, even if the mandate of the committee is limited to taking
them, and that lack of knowledge of the committee is a factor. So we discussed putting a simple paragraph about who
we are and what we do on the web site and/or newsletter, and the Chair of the committee followed up, and this was
done.
It was further noted that Both Brysk and Marchand had previously proposed to periodically monitor and
regularly brief the committee. Each offered to help the AFC to monitor more actively, that is, keeping track of academic
freedom cases that would affect our members from other organizations without waiting for referrals. Specifically, they
would be willing to resume monitoring and brief the AFC on behalf of the Human Rights Section, and/or communicate
with the Human Rights Section (or Mark Gibney) and ask that someone else be designated to do so.
Two members completed their service, Alison Brysk and Marianne H. Marchand. Each played a key role in
getting the committee on its feet and up and running. Two new members, Zhu Feng and Evelyn Goh joined the
committee.
The other major event of the year involved the Ben Gurion University case. ISA member James Ron wrote to the
committee chair in mid September to request that the AFC investigate a threat to academic freedom at Ben Gurion
University (Israel). Professor Ron provided attachments of several documents and links to a number of press reports
about the case. The Chair reviewed these materials and decided that the case likely fell within the AFC's purview, and as
such wrote an email to the committee members providing them the materials and asking them to vote on whether they
agreed with his view regarding the case. The committee unanimously agreed that the case fell within the AFC's charge,
so the Chair asked each committee member to reach a judgment on the case (specifically, whether the AFC should
recommend to the ISA Executive Committee that the ISA President ) using the materials at hand and any additional
material they were able to obtain. The Chair further offered to write a draft of a letter to be submitted to the Executive
Committee for the ISA President's signature, but said he would happily defer to any committee member who cared to
Page 57 of 74
write the others and offer to write such a draft. Professor Ron continued to forward a number of additional materials
(primarily letters of concern from other academic associations), and the Chair distributed those to the committee.
On 4 October the AFC Chair sent a draft of a letter to the AFC members, asking for comments and approval.
Committee members unanimously approved the letter draft, making a handful of suggested revisions. On 5 October the
AFC Chair forwarded the draft letter to the Executive Committee, asking it to deliberate on whether the ISA President
should send the letter (as is, or as amended by ExComm) or reject the AFC's recommendation.
Upon receiving the email from the AFC Chair's the ISA Executive Director wrote back an email expressing
confusion and uncertainty about what was being asked. Something of a row ensued via email between the Exeutive
Director and the AFC Chair, the former of whom expressed concern to the Executive Committee about ISA's potential
legal liability and exposure to threat of loss of its 501c3 status with the US Internal Revenue Service should the Executive
Committee approve the AFC's recommendation that the ISA President write a letter of concern regarding the case. The
Executive Director then recommended via email that ExComm effectively table the issue and take it up at its annual
meeting in April 2013. ExComm agreed.
The Chair of the AFC found this decision unsatisfying, believing that it effectively neutered the committee, which
has as its sole function, marshaling the Association's stature to bear public witness, via letters from the President, to
threats to academic freedom. The Ben Gurion case would be decided in October of 2012, so tabling a decision until April
2013 was a decision not to take action. While the AFC Chair took no position on the outcome of ExComm's eliberation—
which are clearly ExComm's domain—a precedent that deliberation of AFC recommendations could be put off until an
annual meeting struck the Chair as sufficiently threatening to the AFC's integrity, that he wrote the ExComm and
explained that he would publicly resign his post unless they reversed their decision and met ASAP to vote on the
recommendation.
It turned out that while the AFC Chair, ISA Executive Director, and ExComm were exchanging emails during late
September and early October ISA President Etel Solingen was quietly building support to hold an unprecedented
ExComm conference call to address the AFC's recommendation. Indeed, earlier on the day that the AFC Chair sent his
resignation threat President Solingen had persuaded the Executive Director to begin scheduling such a meeting. In that
regard, the AFC Chair unwittingly produced unnecessary stress for the President and Executive Director. President
Solingen's leadership in this situation is greatly appreciated by the AFC.
The Executive Director asked the AFC to resubmit the request to ExComm providing more clear direction. The
AFC Chair shared this information with the committee, and asked whether any felt that the letter should be revised,
given new information (e.g., news reports, other associations' letters) that had been produced since we had written our
initial draft. A few members offered revisions, they were voted on and unanimously accepted. On 16 October the AFC
Chair submitted the revised draft letter to ExComm. On 19 October ExComm held the first teleconference in its history,
deliberated and voted on the recommendation. Per AFC policy, we do not discuss either the contents of our
recommendations to ExComm, nor upon ExComm's decisions, but instead refer any queries about such to the Executive
Director.
Page 58 of 74
CommitteeMembersWill H. Moore Mark Boyer
CHAIR, MAR 2011‐MAR 2013 MEMBER, MAR 2011‐MAR 2013
Florida State University University of Connecticut
[email protected] [email protected]
Harvey Starr Zhu Feng
MEMBER, MAR 2011‐APR 2014 MEMBER, APR 2012 to FEB 2015
University of South Carolina Peking University
starr‐[email protected] [email protected]
Evelyn Goh
MEMBER, APR 2012 to FEB 2015
University of London
Page 59 of 74
19. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
ISA Professional Development Committee Report Patrick James, Committee Chair, and Dornsife Dean’s Professor of International Relations, USC
Overview The Professional Development Committee (PDC) had a productive meeting at ISA 2012, which produced a range
of interesting ideas for immediate and potential future implementation. I am grateful to all members of the PDC for
their valuable participation.
This report provides a list of events at ISA 2013 either sponsored by the PDC or facilitated in some way by its
work. Summaries of funding requests from the regions and approved by the PDC appear next. (More details can be
obtained from the respective regional web pages.) Finally, ideas for mentoring in ISA, which reflect conversations with
Catia C. Confortini, a PDC member, are provided for further consideration. With the Junior Scholar Symposia getting
underway at ISA 2013, it seemed prudent to leave discussion and potential implementation of these ideas about
mentoring to the new committee.
PanelsatISA2013 SA08: Saturday 8:15 AM – 10:00 AM Roundtable: “An Academic Career Outside One’s Country of Birth: The
Pros and Cons.” Co‐sponsored with Association for Canadian Studies in the United States
WB08: Wednesday 10:30 AM – 12:15 PM Roundtable: “Professional Development and Conference Roles.”
WC08: Wednesday 1:45 PM – 3:30 PM Roundtable: “Professional Development and Grant Writing.”
TC04: Thursday 1:45 PM – 3:30 PM Innovative Panel: “Surviving the Politics of Academe.”
Regions
ISAAsia‐PacificISA Asia‐Pacific will hold a workshop at Gadja Mada University in Indonesia. The workshop focuses on the meaning of
international studies research, along with regional variations and a number of other interesting themes. The workshop
also includes work in progress presentations for early career researchers seeking feedback on their work and how such
scholars might be mentored by those with more experience. The workshop’s various components seek to advance the
discipline of International Studies in the region by providing meaningful professional development opportunities for
prospective academics and early career researchers.
ISACanadaISA Canada conducted four professional development workshops during its regional meeting, with a focus on new and
emerging scholars. The subject areas include: managing your academic career with success; “I’ve made it to associate,
now what?”; how to write a lot; and writing a journal article in twelve weeks.
ISAMidwestISA Midwest conducted three roundtables at its annual conference, with a focus on increasing the participation of
women. Activities scheduled include: roundtable on women’s professional development issues; roundtable on tenure
Page 60 of 74
and publishing; roundtable on post‐tenure success; meeting of invited participants and ISA Midwest leadership; and
broader recruitment.
ISANortheastISA Northeast continues to hold its annual workshop on interpretive and relational methodologies. Faculty and graduate
students come together for discussion and advanced training in non‐statistical methodologies that are not covered in
many departments. The alternative approaches to knowledge production include cutting edge techniques from across
the social sciences.
ISASouthISA South held a roundtable, composed of five panelists, with a focus on professional writing and publication. The
roundtable aimed to inform the region’s membership, especially graduate students and junior faculty, about
opportunities for publication and processes that accompany those opportunities. The roundtable included considerable
audience interaction with the panelists.
ISAWestISA West held two specialized roundtables, with videography services, at its annual meeting. One roundtable offered
advice from recognized experts regarding effective teaching within the discipline of International Studies. The other
roundtable focused on how professionals in the non‐profit sector deal with issues related to human rights and security
“on the ground”.
Page 61 of 74
Appendix:IdeasforMentoringinISAThis list is meant to be the beginning of a conversation on mentoring initiatives to be sponsored through the ISA
Professional Development Committee.
1) Innovative panel: This could be modeled after the one offered by FTGS for four consecutive years. The purpose of the
FTGS panel was to connect students and early career scholars with senior members of FTGS. The panel offered the
opportunity to network with other scholars in the field and share teaching and research strategies in feminist theory and
international studies. The panel was divided into sections to discuss the following: teaching, research/publishing,
work/life balance, activism/scholarship, and professional networking. The room was divided into four areas
corresponding to each topic. In each area two‐three senior scholars with specific expertise on the topic had volunteered
to offer both general and more specific ideas to junior scholars. Junior scholars rotated between the groups at set time
intervals. Having been among the junior scholars that participated in this panel, Catia Confortini observes that she was
offered excellent advice and had a very positive experience. The panel was discontinued (probably) because of a poor
attendance during the last year it was offered. If done at ISA level with the right amount of publicity, it could generate a
lot of interest.
2) Roundtable on publishing, tenure and promotion. This roundtable was also offered at last ISA meeting; it was
organized by Kristen Williams and co‐sponsored by FTGS. Participants from different kinds of institutions talked about
their experiences and advice on publishing and achieving tenure/promotion. The institutions represented were R 1
(Columbia and Georgia Tech), private liberal arts college (Whittier), public four‐year institution not R 1 (California State
University Sacramento), and a non‐US institution. Each person spent 10‐12 minutes describing their institution and
expectations for publishing (emphasis on books and/or articles, how many, etc) and what was needed for tenure (for
some, research was the most important, for others it was a combination of research and teaching). The roundtable had
an audience mostly of graduate students but also a few faculty. The roundtable received overwhelmingly positive
feedback.
3) APSA model: the APSA Mentor Initiative connects junior scholars to scholars and professionals who have volunteered
to provide advice, support, and guidance. There is a downloadable APSA Mentoring Request Form on the APSA website,
where the person seeking a mentor specifies particular issues for which s/he is seeking a mentor, and/or s/he can
request someone for generalized guidance. Based upon the request, APSA staff matches the seeker with a volunteer
mentor who commits to respond. The mentor‐mentee relationship is then negotiated on a case‐by‐case basis. Patrick
James reports positive experiences as an APSA mentor over the last year. As a side note: FTGS intended to try this
model, but only one senior scholar volunteered to be a mentor, so the initiative never took off. If ISA were to follow this
model, a strong effort will need to be put in soliciting volunteer mentors and, possibly, assisting them in becoming
effective mentors.
4) The APSA website also has a dedicated mentoring page, with a list of resources at the following URL:
http://www.apsanet.org/content_6514.cfm
5) The APSA Committee on the Status of Latinos y Latinas in the profession also offers awards (the Adaljiza Sosa‐Riddell
Award) for exemplary mentoring of Latinos/as. We could think of doing the same for several underrepresented
categories of students and junior scholars in IR.
Page 62 of 74
20. PROFESSIONAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMMITTEE REPORT
14 January 2013 TO: Governing Council From: Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee Re: Annual Report This Report briefly covers three principal issues addressed initially in San Diego. Broadly conceived, the first issue
concerns attendance, specifically (a) last‐minute cancellations or no‐shows; (b) the proper requirements of attendance;
and (c) a code of conduct. Some excuses, it was agreed, were unavoidable, but financial constraints were not one of
them. According to provisional records for the annual meeting in Montreal, there were 275 no‐shows. One curious fact
is that there were no geographical or section differentials in the ratios of no‐shows. However, ISA members were less
prone to not showing up than non‐members.
The second issue relates to the requirements of attendance, particularly for those listed as paper presenters on the
program. Paper presenters were required to present a ‘proper’ paper. Currently, the policy is that the paper ought to be
accessible electronically at least seven days before the convention. Regrettably, this policy is not always respected.
The issue of plagiarism was also tackled in the Committee’s deliberations. One option discussed in San Diego to avoid
potential cases of plagiarism was to solicit only a shorter version of the paper. The other suggestion was to create a
‘hidden archive’ accessible only to members. Plagiarism, it was recognized, was not preventable in all instances, but
stressing the need for an established ‘code of conduct’ could help instil positive behavior and also deter negative
conduct.
The above issues were taken up again in a conference call on Friday, January 11, 2013. All current members of the
Committee (except Tom Volgy) were able to participate, despite a short notice. The discussion was coordinated by the
outgoing chair of the Committee, who has also prepared this Report.
On the issue of ‘no‐shows’ there was agreement that financial constraints could not be entirely neglected since
academic institutions took considerable time to decide on prospective travel requests. However, the Committee also
concurred that December 1 would be a reasonable deadline for excused absences. Any absence after that date would be
regarded as a ‘no‐show’ subject to ISA’s ‘no‐shows’ enforcement mechanism.
It was agreed that paper presenters had the responsibility to send their papers to the discussant(s) at last seven days
before the convention preceded by submission of a ‘good abstract’ two weeks ahead of the convention. The discussant
was under no obligation to provide feedback on the panel without timely receipt of the paper. In this vein, the
responsibilities of the chair also needed to be ‘beefed up’ including the authority to disallow the listed author(s) on the
panel participation without a paper. A second reminder to the panel chairs delineating their responsibilities two weeks
before the convention was also proposed.
The question of giving ‘Open Access’ to ISA papers versus setting up a ‘Firewall’ to prevent plagiarism generated a
spirited discussion. The firewall option, some members suggested, had the potential to stunt knowledge, especially
latest research in the field. This option also had the potential to give ‘a false sense of security’ to the authors rather than
reliance on extant copyright laws to protect intellectual property. It was proposed that: (a) more empirical information
was needed to gauge the extent and scope of the alleged abuse; and (b) information on ‘good practice’ of other
professional associations (including APSA) was also needed to avoid producing a ‘draconian’ solution.
Page 63 of 74
On the other hand, the reported abuse due to plagiarism could not be ignored. One idea proposed in addition to
copyrighting papers by authors, was to request the editors of the six ISA‐sponsored journals to use some mechanism to
screen submissions to avert cases of possible plagiarism. Subsequently, the publishers of IR journals could also be
approached for that purpose. The Committee agreed that socialization of professional norms was, perhaps, the most
effective mechanism to produce a proper code of conduct.
To the degree that these are thorny and potentially controversial issues, the key recommendations of this Committee
can be properly reviewed by the Governing Council.
Report prepared by Mustapha Kamal Pasha, Committee Chair, 2011‐2012; member 2010‐2012.
Page 64 of 74
21. UN NGO REPRESENTATIVE REPORT
United Nations NGO Representative Annual Report January 19, 2013 Cecelia Lynch
BackgroundThe ISA has an underutilized but valuable resource for members: since 1974 we have been an NGO in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. This gives us the ability to provide any of our members with temporary passes to visit UN headquarters in New York, Geneva, or Vienna, allowing them to move unescorted around UN grounds for the purpose of doing interview research. It also allows our members to register to attend various ECOSOC‐associated international conferences, most of which are held in New York. The ISA charter makes clear that members may not take policy stances at UN meetings on behalf of the ISA (although they may speak freely as individuals, as long as they make clear they are not speaking on behalf of ISA). Their purposes must be in accordance with our UN mandate, namely to conduct research that shares best practices in the field of economic and social development, or increases awareness of the work being carried out by the United Nations and its affiliates. The primary role of the UN NGO Representative is to facilitate the issuing of these passes. I was appointed the UN NGO Representative at the ISA Annual Meeting in San Diego in April 2012. About that time, my predecessor (Kimberly Marten) gave me the UN ECOSOC website password that allowed me to begin my work. (That password is now shared between me and the ISA Director of Operations, Mr. Dana Larsen.)
WorkfromApril2012tothepresent:While still ISA’s UN representative, Kimberly Marten facilitated five (5) registrations for ISA members to participate in the Rio + 20 Preparatory Conference in June 2012. After taking over as ISA’s UN representative, I facilitated the attendance of one member at the CEDAW‐NGO meeting in New York in July 2012, one registration for an ISA member at the September 2012 GA Meeting on the Rule of Law, in New York, and a grounds pass for Charlotte Patton during the discussion of SC 1325 in New York in late October (this meeting was moved to late November because of Hurricane Sandy). To my knowledge, one ISA member (Dr. Charlotte Patton) ended up not attending one of the meetings she requested a pass for (the July CEDAW‐NGO meeting), but she and other members attended the subsequent meetings. Most of the requests since that time have been from members who wish to attend the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meetings in New York in March 2013; we have three (3) ISA members (including one graduate student) registered to attend. In addition, I received a request from a member to attend (possibly) meetings on the Framework Convention for Climate Change, which have not yet been scheduled. I am in discussions with this member regarding whether these meetings will be held under the rubric of ECOSOC; if not, then the ISA is not automatically accredited, and a request for accreditation may or may not go through. I will update the Council with any relevant information on this process at the Annual Meeting.
NotificationofnewUNProceduresforGroundsPasses:In August, 2012, UN‐ECOSOC changed its procedures to attempt to streamline the ability to obtain grounds passes. I have cut and pasted the new procedures below so that there is a record for future ISA‐UN representatives. The new procedures are as follows:
Page 65 of 74
As of 21 August 2012, NGO Branch, DESA will move to the main Secretariat building and will no longer be based in DC‐1. Therefore, the application process for UN grounds passes for NGOs in ECOSOC consultative status will be the following:
• You will no longer be required to visit the DESA NGO Branch for issuance of UN Grounds Passes. • Instead, you will be required to pre‐register your request online at http://csonet.org/?menu=86. • As before, you will need a letter from your organization (on the organization’s letterhead) in order to obtain a pass. This is a mandatory requirement. • You will then apply for the pass, with all the necessary documentation, in person, at the UN Pass and ID office, situated at the corner of 45th Street and 1st Avenue, between the hours of 9:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. • Registrations submitted online before 4 pm (New York time) will be endorsed the next business day by the UN Pass & ID office.
For more details please visit: http://csonet.org/?menu=86.
FutureworkI intend to visit the UN’s offices in New York myself sometime in 2013, hopefully in late June/early July, in order to maintain personal contact with ECOSOC as the ISA representative. I also plan to attend the UNHCR‐NGO annual conference in Geneva in July 2013. The ECOSOC accreditation is a valuable tool which should be maintained. I intend to ask ISA members who take advantage of ISA accreditation to attend UN conferences and request grounds passes to give some feedback on what they did, the overall utility of their attendance for research, and any publications resulting from it, so that members and the Council can see the benefits of the ISA‐UN relationship. My predecessor, Kimberly Marten, regularized information about UN procedures and conferences on the ISA website, and I also plan to work with ISA staff to consider additional types of information that might be of benefit to ISA members.
Page 66 of 74
22. REGIONS, SECTIONS, AND CAUCUSES BUSINESS8
OnReligionandInternationalRelations:RequesttoformanewsectiononReligionandInternationalRelations The petition below meets all the new constitutional requirements for forming a new section. The initiators of the
request will attend the meeting in order to answer any questions. The Governing Council is asked to approve the
petition and create this as a new section of the association
5/22/2012
PetitiontoFormaNewISASectionon“ReligionandInternationalRelations” On behalf of 164 members of the International Studies Association, representing twenty‐four U.S. states, twenty‐two
countries worldwide, and four continents, I am writing to petition for the formation of a new ISA section on “Religion
and International Relations”. Per your guidelines, I am enclosing three pieces of information: (1) a brief justification of
the need for a section; (2) a list of proposed officers; and (3) a list of signatures by ISA members in good standing who
support this endeavor.
1. Justification of the need for a section: The number and quality of papers on religion and international relations at ISA annual conventions is on the rise. In
recent years, some 3‐5% of papers delivered at ISA annual conventions have been on religion, indicating a widespread
interest. The advantages of having these papers sponsored by an organized section are considerable. Scholars
interested in religion have a hard time locating like‐minded colleagues or panels at ISA conventions, developing common
projects or furthering their interests as a sub‐group. The American Political Science Association has had a religion and
politics section since September 1987. It boasts close to 600 members, making it the 13th largest of the forty APSA
sections. Setting up a section on religion and IR at ISA will allow participants to sponsor their own panels and expand
the number of papers presented at ISA at an even faster pace. It will also afford ISA members who are interested in
religion the opportunity to network at an annual reception, recognize outstanding papers and books with section awards
and initiate round tables and discussion forums. The formal goals of this section, as agreed upon by the signatories
below, will be to “encourage ISA papers and panels on religion, broadly defined, without prejudice regarding
methodology, region, or issue area.”
2. Proposed section officers: Section Chair: Ron E. Hassner (U.C. Berkeley) Vice‐Chair M. Steven Fish (U.C. Berkeley) Secretary Nukhet Sandal (Brown) Program Chair Isak Svensson (Uppsala) Communications Chair Turan Kayaoglu (Washington) Treasurer Sara Silvestri (Cambridge, UK) Awards Jocelyne Cesari (Harvard) Executive Committee Yosef Lapid (New Mexico); Patrick James (USC) 3. Signatures:
8 Requests to create 3 new sections
Page 67 of 74
The following pages list the 164 ISA members who support this petition. I began collecting signatures a mere month ago
and thus expect the list to expand, substantially, by the time the Governing Council meets in San Francisco ten months
from now. Please let me know if you would like an updated list at that point in time.
Best, Ron E. Hassner Associate Professor of Political Science U.C. Berkeley Signatories: (HQ verifies 164 signatories who appear to be current ISA members)
Page 68 of 74
OnGlobalHealthSection:RequesttoformanewGlobalHealthSectionatISA
Dear Tom,
on behalf of more than 100 members of the International Studies Association, I am writing to petition for the formation
of a new ISA section 'Global Health'. In accordance with your regulations I am attaching a justification, including a list of
proposed officers. As we have already forwarded the hardcopy and electronic signatures, I am not including them in this
email, but am happy to resend if necessary.
With best wishes, and with many thanks again for your help with this.
Professor Stefan Elbe
ProposalforaGlobalHealthSectionoftheInternationalStudiesAssociation(ISA)Rationale
The study of global health is now a salient part of International Studies and International Relations. This is evidenced
both by the formation of a sizeable (interdisciplinary) community of scholars researching the international politics of
health, and the fact that a number of leading International Relations and Political Science departments have established
dedicated research centres on global health. Moreover, several new journals now focus specifically on global health,
whilst established disciplinary journals have published several articles and special issues addressing core themes in this
area. Changes in the teaching curricula of many international relations and international studies programs are beginning
to reflect these developments, with global health being more frequently offered at both undergraduate and
postgraduate levels to students in IR/political science. Conversely, many schools of Public Health and Medicine in Europe
and North America have developed programmes that focus on the political or political‐economic dimensions of health
under globalization.
Global health has thus moved rapidly from being a niche area in International Studies and other disciplines, to occupying
a far more high profile place in the disciplinary and policy‐making landscape. Yet outside of the UK (where the British
International Studies Association established a Global Health Working Group in 2011) there is no ‘institutional home’ for
this global community of scholars. In practice, as we detail below, the ISA Convention has become an annual meeting of
this research community, making the ISA an ideal place to establish an international hub for the study of Global Health
politics. ISA section status would: 1) strengthen and enhance the profile of global health scholarship within the
discipline; 2) make IR the first discipline to provide this multidisciplinary field a formal basis to develop and grow in the
years ahead; and also 3) enable the global health movement to benefit from the unique perspectives that international
relations and international studies can bring to bear on it.
Goals and Objectives
The principal aims of the proposed ISA Global Health Section are:
1. To facilitate disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration on the politics of global health between ISA
members from around the world.
2. To promote global health as an important area of study in the discipline of International Relations, and as one
that sheds light on the changing nature of international politics.
Page 69 of 74
3. To disseminate global health research being conducted in International Studies to policymakers and other
practitioner audiences.
4. To offer scholars from other disciplines a clear hub and means of organization for strengthening and advancing
their work on global health politics.
5. To actively collaborate with other research networks, associations and programmes focusing on the global
politics of heath.
Proposed activities
In order to achieve these goals we propose a range of activities, including:
1. The Annual ISA Convention: Owain Williams and Simon Rushton (Centre for Health and International Relations,
Aberystwyth University, UK) have successfully co‐ordinated a large number of global health panels for the ISA
Conventions in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, whilst other proposed section members have organized further global health
related panels for recent ISA conferences. These panels have attracted healthy (and growing) audiences, and have
established ISA as the annual meeting for a large community of scholars working on the politics of global health. ISA
Section status would enable us to build on this success.
2. ISA Workshops: The Section will arrange and sponsor workshops addressing a variety of issues in global health,
including workshops aimed specifically at the development of PhD and early career scholars. The BISA working group has
launched a similar programme of workshops, with an initial meeting at Sussex University (September 2011), followed by
City University, London (December 2011), and a planned postgraduate convention at Aberystwyth University in the
summer of 2012. We would initially seek to develop a further series of workshops in North America.
3. Publications: The outputs of the workshops and conferences will be consolidated in special issues and/or edited
volumes. ISA panels have already formed the basis of two collections edited by members of the launch committee (with
Palgrave’s IPE series), and many papers presented at previous ISA conventions have been published as book chapters
and journal articles.
4. Website: The Global Health Section will create and maintain a dedicated website hosting news and
conference/workshop announcements; details of recent publications by Section members; a discussion forum/notice
board; other resources and links; and contact details for Section members. A listserv will be created in tandem with the
website to allow for the dissemination of conference announcements, workshops, global health events, etc.
5. Collaboration with other ISA Sections: The Global Health Section would actively seek to cooperate with other sections
(e.g. in hosting joint seminars/workshops). Health panels at ISA are currently sponsored by a variety of other ISA
sections – including International Organization, International Political Economy, Global Development and International
Security Studies ‐ and scholars associated with those sections regularly attend global health‐related panels. It is clear,
therefore, that many of the issues germane to their research areas have synergies with global health.
Estimated interest of ISA members
There is evidence of significant support within the ISA community for the establishment of a Global Health Section.
Enclosed with this proposal is a petition signed by more than 100 current ISA members in good standing. In particular
since 2009, global health has been extremely well represented at the annual convention, with a number of dedicated
panels each year and many health‐focussed papers appearing on other panels. Indeed, over the past four years there
have been more than 35 dedicated global health panels. The participants in these panels have evolved into a genuine
Page 70 of 74
community, holding a social event at the ISA Convention each year, attracting both scholars and editors from a number
of publishers. Indeed, this community now includes a number of scholars from other disciplines such as Public Health
(and from a range of countries including China, Australia and parts of Latin America) who attend the ISA Annual
Convention solely for the purpose of attending and participating in the Global Health panels.
Organizational structure
The Global Health Section would fulfil all of the formal requirements of an ISA Section, including preparing an Annual
Report to the Governing Council and a review document during the fifth year of the Section's existence for the purpose
of re‐chartering the Section.
Once established, we propose that the Section would be governed by an Executive Committee of 10 Section Officers
comprising: Chairperson; Vice‐Chair; Secretary; Treasurer (who will be responsible for authorizing the expenditure of
Section funds); and six members without portfolio (one of whom would be responsible for the web‐based profile of the
section). We would seek funding for a part time administrator post in the longer term.
For the purposes of establishing the Section the following have agreed to serve as members of the Executive Committee:
Chair: Professor Stefan Elbe, University of Sussex, UK Vice‐Chair: Dr. Owain Williams, Aberystwyth University, UK Treasurer: Dr. Jeremy Youde (University of Minnesota, Duluth) Secretary: Dr. Simon Rushton, Aberystwyth University, UK (University of Sheffield, from January 2013) Twelve months after the official establishment of the Section an election will be held amongst all Section members in
order to elect a new Executive Committee.
(HQ verifies that the petition met and exceeded the minimum signatures required by the ISA constitution)
Page 71 of 74
OnHistorySection:RequesttoformaHistorySection Dear Tom Volgy, We hereby petition the ISA Governing Council to start a new section of the ISA entitled Historical International Relations
(HIST). A list of 175 signatures was submitted on September 10, and we understand that at least 141 of these were deemed
valid. A Charter for the new section is attached.
The aim of this section would be to create a room for historical work which engages with international issues in a broad
sense. Over the past Annual Conventions, we have witnessed an increasing interest in historical scholarship in the discipline,
an interest which is largely reflected in papers and panels presented. We see the role of such a section as carving out a space
for scholars who engage historically to work together, meet, and engage with each other’s work. This common space would
allow for conversations across sub‐disciplinary boundaries, conversations which are difficult to carry out within many of the
other sections of the ISA, and it should thus also increase the overall cohesiveness of the discipline. As such, we hope that
Historical International Relations Section will contribute to increased intra‐disciplinary dialogue.
It is important for us to emphasize too that HIST is not meant to be a section for international history. What we think we
have identified, is that to the extent that IR scholars engage historically, they do so as “merry amateurs” rather than
professional historians. It is this spirit of collegial openness and inclusion as well as intellectual curiosity which we would like
to foster by creating a new section. In short, we see the founding of a new Historical International Relations section as a way
to create a space for this type of scholarship, but also legitimize efforts to address IR historically, as it would make these
topics interesting in their own right, and not because of their potential relevance for the other sections.
We suggest the following Acting Executive Committee which will act until the section holds its first business meeting:
Chair: Daniel Green
Program Chair: Halvard Leira
Secretary: Benjamin de Carvalho
Treasurer: Andrea Paras
Member At Large: Daniel Nexon
Thank you for all the support so far. We look forward to working more closely with you in the near future. Please do not
hesitate to get in touch should you require more information.
Best wishes,
Benjamin de Carvalho, NUPI
Daniel Green, University of Delaware
Halvard Leira, NUPI
Daniel Nexon, Georgetown University
Andrea Paras, University of Guelph
Page 72 of 74
23. OLD BUSINESS
Page 73 of 74
24. NEW BUSINESS
RequestfromDeutschAwardCommitteeTo: ISA Governing Council From: 2012‐2015 Deutsch Award Committee: Miles Kahler (Chair), Andrew Bennett, and Ashley Leeds Date: October 11, 2012 Subject: Monetary Prize associated with the Deutsch Award The Karl Deutsch Award is presented annually to a scholar who is within ten years of his or her Ph.D. or under the age of
40 and is judged to have made (through a body of publications) the most significant contribution to the study of
International Relations and Peace Research. This prize has been awarded since 1981 and is one of the most prestigious
honors that the association bestows. Currently the monetary prize associated with this award is $500. The amount of
the prize has remained unchanged since at least 2001 (the first year for which the annual ISA budgets are available on
the ISA website) and perhaps much longer than that. While the value of the award is, of course, primarily in scholarly
recognition, we believe that an increase in the cash prize is appropriate for an award of this nature. We recommend
that the Governing Council increase the value of the prize associated with the Deutsch award from $500 to $1000
beginning with the 2014 recipient.
HQStaffResponseThe change in monetary prize being requested is clearly a policy decision for the Governing Council, and HQ takes no
position on the matter. However, please note that the last policy decision by the Governing Council was to allocate the
same dollar amount for all awards being sponsored by the association9, unless those awards are specifically endowed
with other amounts by outside sources or organizations. That is presently ISA policy, and would need to be changed in
order to accommodate this request.
9 In the case of the Strange award, Susan Strange requested that there be no money associated with the recognition.
Page 74 of 74
RequesttocreatetheJamesN.RosenauDistinguishedAchievementAward
Proposed by: James H. Mittelman
University Professor of International Affairs
School of International Service
American University
Proposed James N. Rosenau Achievement Award
In keeping with James N. Rosenau’s innovative work, this annual award honors the scholar who has made the most
important contributions to globalization studies. A past president of the International Studies Association and a pioneer
in globalization research, Rosenau offered great insights into the intersection of domestic and foreign affairs, boundary‐
spanning actors in world politics, and parameteric transformations in our field.
Letters of nomination or self‐nominations, plus curriculum vitae, should be submitted to the chair of the Rosenau award
committee. The ISA president will appoint members of a three‐person committee for two‐year terms, and present the
award at the Annual Convention.
