The Bonn Sustainability Portal kindly invited me to share my thoughts on crisis management, technology, and migration in their Bonn Voices for Sustainability series. It was a pleasure to be interviewed, and thanks to Nteboheng Phakisi to organizing it!
The latest issue of Genocide Studies and Prevention features a special collection on technology and genocide/atrocity prevention. I had the good fortune of being asked to write the closing article, a short synthesis of the fascinating collection of articles covering a range of issues from technical challenges to legal and ethical considerations.
It’s a solid collection, and wades into core issues in the tech for atrocity prevention space that demand further multi-disciplinary attention. A special thanks goes to Douglas Irvin-Erickson at George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution for asking me to contribute!
A few colleagues and I are organizing a panel for next year’s International Studies Association meeting in San Francisco on forced displacement, state fragility and international development. We have a few slots open for those who may have a paper that fits the theme – if you have something you’d like to present I’d love to hear from you!
Below is the panel title and abstract:
Panel: Development, Economic Aid, and Forced Displacement
The rapid changes in global political, environmental, and economic systems have strongly impacted patterns of migration, notably manifesting in an increase of people displaced by conflict, climate change and economic shocks. This panel addresses the role that economic aid and development policy play in stabilizing forcibly displaced populations, analyzing migration and displacement dynamics at the local, regional, and global levels. Specific topics include cross-national statistical analysis on the impact of economic aid on migration patterns, regional analysis of intra-African migration policy, case studies of aid impacts at the local level in Southeast Asia, and meta-analysis of how the international studies field conceptualizes state fragility and forced migration. The panel adds value to the wider field of international studies by presenting local, regional, and global analysis of the interplay between the global development and migration fields, using multiple methods that can inform future research and public policy discourse. It also speaks directly to an issue, forced migration, that will become an increasingly important as nations and international organizations adapt to a world marked by rapid political and economic change, the decreasing influence of borders, and increased mobility of citizens.
If you’re interested in having a paper included, please email me with questions or a title/abstract (200 words or less) at: Charles.Martin-Shields[at]die-gdi.de by May 29. It should be a fun and interesting panel, and we’d love to have you join us!
I was at the Bonn/Köln iteration of the March for Science and it was a good time. But as I watched the marches around the world, especially in the U.S., my thoughts turned to how to create further action. Large turnout in cities populated predominantly by people who already value science and empirically-based policy making can only go so far. A few quick thoughts going forward…
- Get involved in local politics. This is a goal I’ve set for myself, at least as much as I can as a non-citizen in the country I work in. It’s amazing how much physical and social science training can be put to use in local settings. For example, everything I know about collective action problems is not only useful in studying participatory governance in developing countries, it’s also applicable to town and city government. If you’re in the Earth sciences, get on the planning board or an Earth-science relevant area of local government.
- Once you have achieved joining the local government *do not turn into a know-it-all*. I have expertise in collection action problems; my job is not to remind people how dumb we are as a species for falling into the normal collection action traps. My job is, understanding those traps and knowing how they work in theory, to help the rest of my town hall compatriots manage them. This isn’t a lecture hall, it’s participation in governance.
- Think about how to broaden the base. Yes, a march is good and snarky signs are funny, but at some point people in districts in other parts of the country will elect representatives. As scientists, we have to make science valuable to people, so that they don’t elect charlatans who would take us back to the Middle Ages to line their pockets with a few bucks from lobbyists. One way to do this is to make the history of applied science, and the collective role of society and government in that history, central to any argument about the value of science in public policy. As scientists this starts with us – we have to be fluent and engaging in not only explaining the practice of our work, but the history (social, political, economic) of how our work fits into society. I read a great book on the history of urban planning in New York City a while back; there was a lot of detailed analysis of the engineering science, but it was written wonderfully. I had no idea how interesting, both from a social and chemical standpoint, concrete was. Making interesting what seems banal to non-scientists would go a long way.
- If you have tenure, run for office. It’s hard as hell getting an academic or research career started, so if you are established and have some clout and job security, take advantage of your privilege and get involved in politics. Younger researchers will model this behavior as they become established as well.
That’s I’ve got at the moment (well, lots more, but it’s only a blog post). Be excited about science, be excited about it’s role in society, and don’t forget: People often vote on emotion. Empirics are good, but an engaging story will go a long way, too.
Anthony Eames, a doctoral candidate in history at Georgetown University, wrote a superb defense of the role of education in supporting strategic strength and the importance of government investment in that enterprise. As an academic who also works in policy, I’ve always believed that government investment in education (especially the humanities) leads to a stronger society.
What I find most compelling about his argument is that he cites not only the importance of tech and math education (which is important), but also the value of the humanities, and comprehensive primary through secondary education.
Frankly, it’s not possible to be a strategic power in the modern world unless there is significant government investment in education, from elementary through graduate school. It’s also not enough to put all the resources into STEM; the arts and humanities are a necessary component of a well-rounded education that supports an informed, critically-thinking citizenry.
If the U.S. wants to be a world leader in anything, whether it be security, economic growth, innovation, or good governance, it will have to do away with its current strategy of self-defeating cuts to education and research funding.
I’m excited to announce that I’ll be joining the Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (German Institute for Development Policy) in Bonn, Germany! I’ll be working in their Governance, Statehood, and Security group, doing research and providing policy advice on forced displacement in fragile and conflict affected countries.
I’m excited to have the opportunity to put my skills and knowledge to use working on this topic – I’ll be able to continue applying my knowledge on technology and development to this topic, while also working with experts on migration, geography and economics to produce policy-relevant scientific research.
The intersection of academia and public policy is the space I most enjoyed occupying during my PhD studies, so I’m thrilled to be in a place where my research can speak directly to critical policy issues in the development and peacebuilding fields!
I’m excited to share a new collection of essays published in International Studies Perspectives that I produced with Pamina Firchow, Roger Mac Ginty, and Atalia Omer. Our essays cover a range of issues in using technology for peacebuilding and stabilization, and add to the growing body of work being done on how digital technology is affecting how we engage in social processes, contentious politics, and community-level peacebuilding.
Happy reading, and looking forward to others’ opinions and takes on the Forum!
After an absolutely searing U.S. election season, Donald Trump has won. This result has defied everything we thought we knew in political science, from how parties manage themselves and their candidates to how likely voters will make selections. It also laid bare things that we’re going to have to figure out as Americans. I’ll just give a few overarching takes on a few topics, since it’s all rather early days and I think everyone, on both sides of the aisle, are disoriented and exhausted.
What will Trump do? This is by far the question that most animates my fear and anger over this election. Fundamentally, I don’t know what Trump will do policy-wise. And it’s not just culture-war issues – I’m deeply concerned about how Trump will manage the boring but elemental aspects of public policy. Would he allow bondholders to take a haircut on their Treasury bonds? This is the kind of boring, in-the-background policy issue that could irreparably wreck the global economy and for the first time I see a president-elect who I don’t fundamentally trust to handle these decisions. I could have my mind changed (I don’t think he’s not smart enough to handle them), but in terms of temperament and outlook I have yet to be convinced.
What does this mean for political science? I saw a Twitter post the other day that I responded to:
Maybe political scientists studying US politics should leave their computers and do more ethnographic work in middle America.
— William Lafi Youmans (@wyoumans) November 9, 2016
My response was that at times political science feels like it has increased its focus on quantitative methods and experiments, especially econometric and regression techniques, and is engaging in methodological navel gazing. Daniel Drezner, a Tufts professor who is one of the most active academics at engaging with people through non-academic media, has also lamented what he’s seen as a retreat form theorization in political science. I like doing quant research as much as the next person who likes doing quant research, but I also think much of the debate in political science is being stunted by an increasing lack of qualitative research. I’ll write another post about what I saw missing in the models and survey techniques used during this cycle, but for research that I think speaks to what I think really animated this election I would suggest reading Matthew Desmond’s ethnographic work on poverty in the United States. It’s my hope that this election cycle jolts political science out of its quantitative gravity well, reinvigorates the demand for good qualitative and mixed-method research, and increased theorization.
What’s a bizarre way Trump could be a good president? I’ve read a few things basically saying he might be a functional president. I can’t disagree with those, but I also think there’s something else at work here. I don’t get the sense that Trump has a personal political center of gravity – my perception, having watched him, is that he’s a performer that reflects and acts on what he sees and picks up on from audiences. If the loudest of the audience members are the KKK and white nationalists, that’s what he reflects (which is terrifying). If the loudest though are the people who voted for him and aren’t racists/misogynists/anti-semites etc, people who have fundamental and valid fears about being left behind who were willing to ignore all the terrible things the candidate animated, and they demand that he rebuke the worst of his following and actually find ways to mend bridges he might reflect it. This might actually lead to some progress. Alternatively, I might have totally misjudged him (wouldn’t be the first time this cycle a political scientist was wrong) and he’s actually a dedicated fascist/white nationalist demagogue. *I really hope that’s not the case.*
What’s a surprising way this election has increased my political dialogue? Since the end of the election I have spoken with family members for the first time in months (or years in some cases) about what their political wants and desires are, and been able to articulate my political position to them as well. We actually all listened to each other and while some threads got a bit contentious people were actively keeping it civil. I brought up why an African American, Latino, Female or LGBT voter might be both terrified at the outcome, and could right now be very distrusting of someone they know who is otherwise outwardly decent and voted Trump, and I think this resonated with my more conservative family members. The quid pro quo is that I’m willing to hear them out too. This is corollary to the previous paragraph; most of your friends and family aren’t KKK supporters, Karl Marx incarnate, or the Illuminati. There’s a lot more political overlap between Americans than I think we’re generally led to believe by our Facebook/Twitter echo chambers, so now is as good a time as any to reach out.
In the end, the best I can do is appeal to the best in us. We’re all going to need it.
While scanning Twitter this morning I came across a post from Duncan Greene that caught my eye:
— Duncan Green (@fp2p) September 29, 2016
The blogpost he was linking to raises some excellent questions about the benefits of closer relations between academics and practitioners in the development space, and how to increase the overlapping parts of the academic/practice Venn Diagram. It resonated with me because if I hadn’t had a close relationship with institutions like the World Bank, TechChange Inc, UNDP, the U.S. Institute of Peace and many smaller NGOs during my PhD studies, I wouldn’t have been able to develop my dissertation topic, gather my dissertation data, or have a policy audience that would find my dissertation results useful. Greene proposes some good points about how to create these linkages that I completely agree with, and as an academic that has spent time as a practitioner in INGOs and IOs I felt motivated to chime in.
So why is it so hard to get academics to work with international organizations, NGOs and policy bodies? Greene’s post makes two major points about larger mandates (knowledge for the sake of knowledge versus knowledge to make evidence-based decisions) and time scale (academic research isn’t responsive to what’s happening in real time) that I think will forever dog the ability for practitioners and academics to work together. While there are more academic departments that are recognizing the value of research that feeds into policy development, for the most part academics receive little to no benefit (and indeed sometimes incur a negative cost) for engaging with government/international agencies and INGOs. This doesn’t mean there’s no space to collaborate, but it’s an issue that I think will always be there.
This gets at a major point that is critical for folks at INGOs and IOs to recognize. Academia is quite stringent about what counts toward advancement. With some rare exceptions, there’s little if any institutional reward for working on policy issues. Even if a department is supportive of it, tenure and rank decisions are made at the university level, so any policy work has to be on top of the expected publications and research funding that count in the eyes of the wider university. I’d argue the way to work around this as an INGO is to focus on relationships with PhD students and senior faculty. PhD students benefit from being ‘out there’ and having their research be seen more broadly – it’s been a huge help in my academic experience to have a wide range of contacts in INGOs and IOs who know my work. For senior (tenured) faculty the advantage is building relationships that can be useful to their students (many of whom won’t go into academia, but would love to work at Oxfam!), as well as having access to things like public service sabbaticals which makes it easier for them to take time off the research production line.
Indeed, Greene mentions having a PhD student who was doing his topic in coordination with with an Oxfam thematic policy. This is a fantastic way to bring academia and practice closer together, and it’s what I did a lot of during my PhD. It was great: I got the occasional nice consultant’s payday, got interesting feedback from non-academics, helped with policy issues, and still did work that is academically relevant. The main issue I found though was that this was not systematic at all – every INGO, IO, or agency I worked with was based on specific personal relationships. As long as the colleague was in that agency, I had a good relationship with that agency. When they left, the relationship with the agency ended (or more accurately, followed that colleague to their new agency). There are some good systemic efforts in the U.S. Government to bring academics into the policy fold, such as the AAAS fellowships which place social and natural science PhDs in government agencies for 1-2 years. To bring academics and policy people closer, there need to be more of these kind of system-level programs in place that cover the costs of having researchers working in organizations that are funded primarily to respond to current events.
It’s not impossible to work with junior faculty, but this is where understanding the idiosyncrasies of academia is crucial. One example is the idea of 50/50 action/research funding; it’s a good idea, but it’s hard to pull off in a way that mutually benefits the academic party. If an academic puts in many hours drafting a proposal and the only money they see is through a consulting arrangement, then it doesn’t count as grant money for them departmentally. If the research that then comes out of that money isn’t peer-review grade then they’ve potentially spent months of time working on a proposal and project that won’t move them toward tenure or their next academic rank. Most academic departments won’t count consulting work, even if it’s in-field, toward a junior faculty member’s tenure file. The way to solve this is for the INGO and an academic department to be co-applicants, so that the research side of the funding goes straight to the academic department with the academic’s name on it as a principal investigator. This allows the academic, at the very least, to count it on their CV as research money that was brought into the university even if the research outputs never see peer review.
The discussion about how to find new, better ways to bring academia and practice into a mutually beneficial relationship is important – a lot of public money goes into research, and the results should have public as well as theoretical value. While many departments are recognizing the importance of professors being involved in real-world work, it’s also important that INGOs and NGOs recognize that academia places very specific, often idiosyncratic, demands on researchers. By understanding those demands and working with academics to shape projects that meet those demands, I think there will be many more opportunities for academia and the practice community to create an increasingly overlapped venn diagram.