Internationalization and Liberal Arts Institutions

Varshney is correct that not all institutions and all scholars are created equal with respect to international collaboration. His proposals provide a useful starting point. However, they do not in all respects take account of the professional environment of faculty at small liberal arts institutions. As a faculty member at a primarily undergraduate public liberal arts institution, I offer an additional perspective to Varshney's suggestions. I will highlight, first, some of the features of the professional environment at primarily undergraduate institutions as they pertain to internationalization and, second, suggest some additional ways in which the APSA could help “level the playing field” for international collaboration by faculty at such institutions.

First, the professional environment at a primarily undergraduate liberal arts institution offers many rewards; for this reason, this type of institution is often consciously chosen by the faculty who teach there. Among the many rewards are small classes (which permit innovative teaching strategies), the ability to work individually with students (which permits faculty to better monitor student intellectual growth and become mentors), and contacts with colleagues in other disciplines (which often foster fresh insights into our subject matter).

At their best, undergraduate institutions provide a stimulating environment for both students and faculty. Yet, the high emphases on and expectations for excellent teaching and frequent interaction with students also impose constraints on professional development: many undergraduate institutions frown upon too numerous absences during the semester for professional travel. The absence of graduate assistants places the onus of course continuity on the back of colleagues (who may or may not feel qualified to teach a particular subject) or on other creative methods to maintain learning if a faculty member is off campus. In addition, release time often presents greater logistical challenges at primarily undergraduate institutions than at research institutions. Teaching is often an institutional priority—one to which the faculty generally subscribe—that, coupled with the difficulty of finding substitutes for the classroom, add up to distinct scheduling challenges for faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions. These constrain the likelihood that faculty can participate in international conferences.

Against this backdrop, it must be said that collaboration with faculty at other institutions (domestic or international) is greatly facilitated by electronic communications. This is also true for the research endeavors of faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions, as access to conference papers, articles, data, and other such resources is much improved as a result of electronic databases.

Many primarily undergraduate institutions welcome opportunities for their faculty to engage in collaborative research both domestically and internationally, but the funding for such endeavors often presents a stumbling block. Many primarily undergraduate institutions either do not have a grants office, or have one that is small and understaffed. This means that faculty interested in international collaborative research may have difficulty locating grant sources and, more importantly, preparing a competitive grant. The former has been mediated to some degree by the listing of grant sources on the APSA web site <http://www.apsanet.org/PS/grants/>. The lack of access to grant-writing expertise continues to present a disadvantage for faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions for many types of grants.

The preceding paragraphs are not meant to present an exhaustive exposition on the peculiarities of primarily undergraduate institutions, but have hopefully served to sketch some of the ways in which these institutions differ from research-oriented universities—especially as they pertain to building international connections for purposes of collaborative research or other forms of internationalization. Many primarily undergraduate universities are open to international engagement by their faculty and, for instance, prominently boast of those among their faculty who have participated in Fulbright programs. Many institutions are especially interested in broadening their students' horizons in preparation for careers in an increasingly multicultural American society and interconnected global environment. Study abroad is one option toward achieving this goal, but many institutions also welcome the opportunity to bring an international faculty member to campus, which can help foster student interest in study abroad.

Students in the Midwest have traditionally had less exposure to the world beyond the borders of their own country and are less likely to have traveled. After 9/11, and aware of continuous but vague threats of terrorism, some students (and their parents!) have become increasingly reluctant to study abroad. Although there is obviously variation among undergraduate institutions, lack of exposure to the world beyond the borders aptly describes the student body at a Midwestern primarily undergraduate public liberal arts institution. Having international faculty members on campus can make a tremendous difference in the learning of such students and potentially lead to a greater willingness to travel overseas.

In sum, internationalization and cross-national collaboration at primarily undergraduate institutions is likely to have an impact not only on the faculty, but also—and very directly—on the students. In other words, investing in the internationalization and cross-national collaboration of faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions enriches the education of students and better prepares them for the challenges of a multicultural and globalized environment.

Having made a case for the importance of internationalization and cross-national collaboration by faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions, I now turn to the question of how, specifically, the APSA can foster such collaboration.

First, the APSA must consider how academic and conference schedules intersect. Given the variation of academic calendars both domestically and abroad, it would be exceedingly difficult to time meetings to everyone's satisfaction, but it must be given some thought. Scheduling a smaller conference (or series of conferences in specific areas of research) during the summer may enable faculty from primarily undergraduate institutions and international scholars to investigate or start collaborative projects. A workshop format would be especially conducive to such an objective. At a traditional conference of panels and roundtables, the participants, if they do not know one another already, often gain only limited insight into the research agendas of the other participants. The participation of international scholars in such conferences should certainly be encouraged, but it is not sufficient to bring together faculty from primarily undergraduate institutions with international counterparts for purposes of collaboration.

Second, faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions often lack the infrastructure necessary for successful grant writing. The APSA should consider offering workshops on grant writing in conjunction with the Annual Meeting or pair faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions with faculty at research institutions who have access to such resources. This could be targeted with the express purpose of writing grants that involve cross-national as well as cross-institutional collaboration.

The APSA can mediate the challenges to international collaboration faced by faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions that result from lack of access to information and resources. If the Association takes up this challenge, it would enable such faculty to create broader networks which would enhance their research and have an immediate impact in their classrooms.

International Perspectives/Cross-National Scholarship

Distinguishing American and non-American scholars is not always easy—and certainly more complex than Varshney portrays. Scholars of non-U.S. origin routinely obtain Ph.D.s in political science at U.S. institutions. Some of these scholars remain in the U.S., while others return to their country of origin or teach at institutions in yet other countries. In addition, many American scholars teach at institutions outside the U.S. or obtain degrees from non-U.S. institutions. Although I do not have hard statistics, my guess is that the former is a more frequent occurrence than the latter—i.e., the movement of graduate students and academics is more often toward than away from the U.S.

Graduate students and academics whose formative experiences occur outside of the U.S. bring their perspectives on politics with them as they enter U.S. graduate programs. Those that take academic (or other) positions outside of the U.S. after completing their Ph.D. are in a position to be bridge-builders between American and non-American political science—these are scholars who are by the nature of their life and academic experiences multi-cultural, although some will be so more consciously than others.

This brings me to an additional point: American scholars who hail from immigrant or minority communities in the U.S., as well as those with significant experience living abroad, are in an excellent position to help foster the internationalization of our discipline, especially if these scholars possess knowledge of languages besides English. International or crossnational connections depend in part on the international and intercultural knowledge already present among American political scientists.

Training in U.S. graduate schools thoroughly familiarizes non-American scholars with American political science, its values, its approaches, and its theories. Obtaining a degree in the U.S. is not a prerequisite to understanding theories first proposed by American scholars (indeed, many have gained such knowledge without studying in the U.S.), but other aspects of American political science are more difficult to absorb from abroad—such as the training in quantitative methods favored at many U.S. institutions. Painting with a broad brush and ignoring variation within both American and non-American scholarship, the trend in the former is a focus on theory-informed scholarship and a concomitant emphasis on quantitative methods. A focus on generalizability, theoretical relevance, and quantitative evidence (or comparative case studies if quantification is not appropriate) sets American scholarship apart. Much of American political science—though by no means all—emphasizes the scientific pursuit rather than activism.

As George (1993) has pointed out, American academics and policy makers often inhabit separate worlds and rarely cross paths. This is not equally true of non-American scholarship. Especially in the countries of the global South, but also in Europe, there are much more frequent exchanges between academia and government. This includes academics who become policy makers and politicians, or who serve as advisors, and policymakers who become academics after a career in politics or in the bureaucracy. Although political engagement carries much risk in non-democratic societies, academics in such societies often play a much more pronounced role in the political life of their countries. With that focus on engagement often comes a lesser focus on generalizability, theory, and quantification. If we genuinely want to establish cross-national networks, we need to take seriously the differences in values that undergird these different academic traditions.

One of the values that cross-national cross-fertilization might impart on American scholars is reassessment of what our scholarship contributes to our (and other) societies. How does our focus on theory and quantification help improve the conduct of politics and elections, the structuring of democracies (with the objective of creating enduring democratic institutions), and the management of international relations and foreign policy in an ever more interdependent world?

Internationalization: Why and for Whom?

The internationalization of APSA is not the same as the internationalization of the profession, although the two are obviously interconnected. Internationalizing the membership of the Association may have very little effect on the internationalization of the profession. It would simply be more likely that American scholars would find themselves on a panel alongside scholars from other countries. Although such interactions may lead to collaborations, there is little guarantee that they will. Something more is needed.

To internationalize the profession, it is necessary to create venues where American and international scholars can explore the similarities and differences in their scholarship, what they can contribute to the improvement of each others' scholarship, and how collaboration can be mutually beneficial. In doing so, we will be holding up a mirror to ourselves. At minimum, we gain better insight into the motivations of our own scholarship. At best, we gain the mutual respect necessary to engage in fruitful collaboration.

Why should the APSA wish to foster internationalization of the profession? First, fostering collaboration will enhance the status and prestige of the Association at home and abroad. Second, the Association's role in facilitating international collaboration for scholars at primarily undergraduate institutions will bring many scholars back to the Association who currently believe the APSA does not meet their needs. This is especially true of scholars in comparative and international politics. Third, the internationalization of the profession will likely lead to an increase in international memberships for the Association. Fourth, fostering discussion, understanding, and collaboration, rather than implicitly imposing American political science as a standard, is good diplomacy. That is not to say we should abolish standards for good scholarship, but it does mean we should consider the merits of different approaches. In a world where the U.S. is too often perceived as imposing its culture and its might, a little diplomacy goes a long way. Fifth, fostering international collaboration by scholars at primarily undergraduate institutions will have a direct impact on the education the students who enroll at such institutions receive. It will encourage the internationalization of curricula and intersect with efforts to build student competences for living and working in a multicultural and globalized world (Gurin et al. 2002). Especially at primarily undergraduate institutions, internationalization and cross-national collaboration will directly enhance students' civic competence for life in a diverse democracy—and world.