The Study Of Europe In The United States
by Christopher J. Makins
III. An Assessment
This section will provide
an assessment of the field based on the quantitative and qualitative trends identified
in Section II and informed by the comments of practitioners and others consulted
for this review. This assessment is intended to lay the foundation for the conclusions
and recommendations in Section IV. It will address successively the following
questions:
--
Criteria for evaluating the health of the field.
-- The
highest priorities for external funding, especially from funders of the size
of the German Marshall Fund and the European Union.
--
The legacy of the Cold War division of the field.
-- The
implications of the diversity of the institutions engaged in the study of Europe.
-- The
implications of the diffusion of the study of Europe within the academy.
-- The
role of the Council for European Studies and the European Community Studies Association.
Criteria
for Evaluating the Health of the Field. One of the principal problems
about making an assessment of this kind is that there are few, if any, obvious
criteria for measuring the adequacy of the present state of affairs. Statements
about the degree to which the field is underfunded or jobs are in too short supply
or the production of Ph.D.s is excessive beg the question of how the ideal state
is defined. But such a definition is rarely, if ever, given.
Many of the criteria
implied in discussions of this subject suggest a market model based on the supply
of, and demand for, people trained in various ways and at various levels in the
study of Europe and therefore equipped to varying degrees with knowledge of European
countries or the European Union. The idea that such market models could be useful
in situations of this kind has been developed formally under the auspices of the
National Foreign Language Center in connection with the need for language competence.29
But this approach could be translated directly to deal with area studies as a
whole rather than simply the language component. There are obvious questions about
the value of this approach, not least because the market for European specialists
both inside and outside the academy is far from a perfect one in any strict sense.
In particular, it involves several non-market actors such as governments and foundations
and suffers, in terms of the training of new scholars, from long lead times on
the supply side. And there is far less than an optimum amount of information about
important aspects of the market. Nevertheless, the idea of a market does in some
respects provide a useful framework for discussion of the field.
On the supply side,
there is no obvious supply shortage at any level, given what appears to be
the current structure of demand. And supply does appear to be somewhat responsive
to changing market demands. For example, at the level of the Master's degree,
the trend towards introducing a European component to business school training
reflects the value placed by some employers on a more international orientation
for MBAs. Likewise, in the professional schools of international affairs, which
have benefited from this same shift in demand in the private sector, an increasing
importance has been attached to the teaching of skills relevant to business in
conjunction with more traditional area studies courses. Indeed as a recent survey
of these schools noted: 'Rather than serving as a core of expertise to be mastered
for its own sake, area-based knowledge now serves as a foundation on which functional
and skills-based expertise is formed.'30
This is especially visible in the growth of business-oriented programs at these
schools, as well as in the growing number of joint degree programs they offer
with other professional schools, notably law and business schools.31
At the same time, it
is important to note that private sector employers in the United States, in particular,
are often not looking for specific area skills and those that are, as well as
U.S. government agencies in their recruitment, are mostly less interested in a
European specialization than in knowledge of some other area. Moreover, the testimony
of private sector employers contacted in the course of this enquiry was that they
are more likely to look for European nationals as sources of expertise on Europe
than for U.S. nationals trained in European affairs. The former almost always
have stronger language skills and a more instinctive understanding of the cultural
factors that may affect business decisions in their areas. (U.S. employers may,
however, have a preference for European nationals who have done some part of their
graduate work at a U.S. institution.)
These general conclusions
are borne out by a study conducted by a team of researchers at the Center for
Business Education and Research at the University of Washington in 1997.32
This study surveyed 129 private sector employers of all sizes and 21 business
schools in the CIBER program to determine the requirements and preferences for
area knowledge and other skills in recruitment. The study's conclusions were that
(1) there is only a limited need for U.S. nationals to fill positions in overseas
offices; and (2) little value is given to people with language and cross-cultural
skills unless they also have business skills, overseas experience and interpersonal
skills. While the businesses surveyed saw Western Europe as the most important
geographic region at present (ahead of Mexico & Canada and Japan), they expected
E./S.E. Asia, China, Mexico & Canada, and Japan to be all of roughly equal
importance within the next ten years (a conclusion that might be different were
the survey repeated in 1998). In Europe, however, Eastern/Central Europe and the
former Soviet Union were expected to grow significantly in importance over the
coming decade.
At the doctoral level,
a market-based analysis is hampered by the lack of good data on the state of the
job market and by other factors related to the way in which academic recruitment
is conducted in the key disciplines already mentioned. Moreover, that market is
evidently so segmented both by discipline and by the differing requirements of
institutions of different sizes and types that a single measure would be hard
to devise. In part, no doubt, because of this segmentation, the testimony of those
consulted on the state of the academic job market was extremely varied. A few
told of positions available for good Europeanists going unfilled for lack of strong
candidates. Many more saw a generally reasonable balance between job seekers and
appropriate positions. A plurality were concerned about the shortage of jobs and
the fact that a number of people were being significantly underplaced. A specific
concern mentioned by some is that scholars specializing in European integration
may face a particularly poor job market, which is plausible given the relative
lack of focus on this part of the field at a number of institutions, at least
until very recently.
On balance, the general
impression given by those academics at all levels contacted for this study was
that the decline or stagnation of the job openings for young professors with a
background in the study of Europe in recent years has not been fully accommodated
by a reduction in the supply of highly qualified Ph.D.s interested in an academic
career. (This would certainly be consistent with the data in Table
10.) Many scholars spoke of the overproduction of Ph.D.s for the needs of
the 'Europeanist' job market in their disciplines. They saw this as raising the
issue of the alternative career paths open to (and in some cases sought by) Ph.D.s
either outside their own disciplines (in other departments or in professional
schools) or in many cases outside the academy altogether (including in policy
institutes and think tanks). (This interesting and important topic lies beyond
the scope of this enquiry.) This comment was made particularly in connection with
Ph.D.s whose dissertations focused on Central and Eastern Europe, which has been
in vogue in recent years, but is unlikely in the view of many to be an area with
great appeal to academic departments in the future.
On the demand side
of the equation, there is even greater room for discussion. Some would argue that
a serious exposure to the study of Europe should be a part of the academic training
of any U.S. citizen, and certainly any U.S. college graduate, and that demographic
changes over the coming decades will make this more necessary than ever. In this
view, the level of European language learning and the current level of student
involvement in studying Europe at the high school and undergraduate levels is
quite inadequate, even if there does not seem to be more demand for it. The fact
that there does not seem to be more demand is largely irrelevant to this view,
since the issue relates to a basic requirement for citizenship in the modern world.
Moreover, this is a situation in which, to some extent, expanded supply (of high
quality teaching) may in itself create demand.
A similar point of
view would see ground for concern in the fact that the U.S.-born students of Europe
are overwhelmingly of European origin. There are apparently some signs that this
is changing, at least so far as Asian Americans and to a lesser extent Hispanic
Americans are concerned in institutions where they make up a large fraction of
the student body. But this remains a serious concern for the future.
The proponents of views
of this kind would find the current infrastructure for the teaching of European
affairs at all levels seriously inadequate. And they would be inclined to put
little faith in a market-based approach to the problem, given the way the market
has operated in recent years.
Taking a more traditional
and less ambitious view of the appropriate level of demand, however, the information
presented earlier in this review suggests little ground for departing from the
conclusions contained in the Tarrow and Hall reports of 1994 and 1996: that there
is a large amount of high quality work going on in the study of Europe and that
graduate students of high quality are still being attracted into the field in
sufficient numbers to ensure a supply of new teachers and researchers to replace
those who are retiring. Accounts of the trends in the numbers of applicants for
graduate schools vary (some see the overall numbers remaining level, at best,
even though the number of high quality applicants may even be rising) and of the
possible reasons for this (the booming economy may keep overall numbers down).
But no sense of serious scarcity was apparent.
Nor is it obvious that
the study of Europe in the highest sense namely interdisciplinary work by
clusters of scholars grouped together in a focused program33
is under any real threat. There are, admittedly, financial and disciplinary
pressures on some of the centers that have traditionally been a focus of such
scholarship. At the same time, other centers and institutions are coming together
and expanding. The Nanovic Center at Notre Dame has already been mentioned. Many
other important and serious initiatives of the same kind, if not all of the same
scale, were apparent in other institutions both during this enquiry and from the
more than 70 applications submitted to the European Commission Delegation in response
to its recent request for proposals for the designation of European Union Centers.
There are no doubt yet others. And even more work of this kind seems to be taking
root in ways that do not pass through traditional area studies centers.34
Finally, there is also
an encouraging level of activity to develop the study of Europe, initially at
the undergraduate and Master's levels in a number of institutions that have not
traditionally concentrated in this area. New programs under development or expansion
at such institutions as the University System of Georgia, the University of Oklahoma
and the University of Mississippi are cases in point that came to light in the
course of this enquiry; there are no doubt others. If these programs flourish,
they will eventually have some impact on the demand for qualified faculty.
Against this background,
the more gloomy appraisals of some practitioners about the future of the field
are probably as much, if not more, a response to the threats implicit in some
of the trends discussed in the previous section of this report as they are a reflection
of phenomena currently being experienced. It would be unwise to discount the damage
these trends could do to the field in the future. But equally, in the absence
of better information than seems now to exist, it would be unwise to act on the
threat of such damage alone.
Issues
of Balance. There is an issue of balance within the field of the study of
Europe in the United States that is related to the market model. This concerns
the distribution of effort as between different countries and regions of Europe
and as between different problems and subjects of interest.
This review did not
include a detailed analysis of the distribution of capabilities and teaching resources
in the field. A crude picture of trends in this area can be seen in Table
15. A much more fine-grained analysis than was attempted here would be needed
to identify problems arising from the current distribution of effort and capabilities.
To some extent, conclusions on this score can be drawn from the earlier Tarrow
and Hall reports referred to above. Both note some areas of relative weakness.
But the concerns expressed by those consulted for this report were generally consistent
with the picture suggested by the figures in Table 15,
namely:
-- A disproportionate
level of effort relating to Russia and the former Soviet Union, no doubt caused
by the legacy of the Cold War.
-- A skewing of the
field towards Britain- and Germany-related topics. The former is doubtless a consequence
of language and cultural affinity. The latter is presumably in part a consequence
of the generosity of the German government and other German funding sources as
compared with the smaller efforts of other European governments and donors.
-- A relative scarcity
of dissertations directly focused on the European Community/Union, although, as
already mentioned, this may be somewhat deceptive.35
--A relative lack of
attention to Southern and especially Southeastern Europe, as compared with a relative
wealth of attention to Central and Eastern Europe.
While all these concerns
were certainly expressed, none seems to be, or probably should be, a source of
acute anxiety. The most frequently mentioned was the concern about the skewing
effect of German-source funding. But the fact that the German government agreed
that the centers it has established should be centers for 'German and European'
studies has helped to mitigate this concern. And the fact that the first three
centers will soon be on a self-sustaining basis and that only one of them will
remain so heavily dependent on German-source funding should further diminish it.
A similar concern relating
to EU-source funding is also apparent in some circles. However, the smaller amounts
of money involved and the relatively broad range of themes of widely accepted
importance to which that money can be devoted make it unlikely that it will result
in any serious skewing of the field. The EU can, however, help offset any residual
concern on this score by ensuring that it does not unnecessarily limit the types
of project it is willing to support by adopting too narrow a definition of the
scope of 'European Union studies.'
The general issue of
balance within the field is, however, an important one. It merits the continuing
attention of all the institutions and leaders involved in it, as well as of the
funders supporting it.
Priorities
for External Funding. Despite this relatively sanguine assessment, there
have been negative trends in recent years that could affect the future health
of the field. The German Marshall Fund and the European Union, as two of the principal
sources of external funds for the study of Europe in recent years, should consider
these carefully. The most important of these trends, which have been mentioned
above, are:
-- The decline in enrollments
in several of the principal European languages.
-- The decline or disappearance
of a number of the sources of discretionary funding for the field, particularly
for support of less well-endowed institutions.
-- The real disincentives
for graduate students to move into the serious study of Europe. These result from
the additional time often required for dissertation field work abroad (not least
in view of the language need); pressures from within some departments to choose
topics that fit better within their theoretical and methodological frameworks;
institutional pressures to shorten the time to completion of the doctorate; and
the related difficulty of funding prolonged dissertation work.
Against this background
there is an important continuing role for the supply of discretionary resources
to the field at critical points in the academic career cycle.
What are these critical
points? Although there are, as one would expect, many different views and nuances
among those consulted as part of this review, there emerged nonetheless a fairly
broad consensus along the following lines:
-- Support for the
pre-doctoral period is the most critical, not least because that is the time at
which students make the fundamental choice whether to acquire deep contextual
knowledge of one or more European countries. Within the pre-doctoral period, the
large majority of those consulted see support for dissertation field work, perhaps
including some time back in the United States to embark on the write-up of field
work notes, as the most pressing need. This is not to say that they slight the
importance of predissertation field work support. Such support can help to lock
students in to a regional focus (especially those who because of their ethnic
background or for other reasons might not readily gravitate towards Europe), improve
research designs and also, partly as a consequence, shorten the length of time
to completion. But the majority argued that the relatively small sums required
for this purpose could more easily be found from the internal resources of universities
and colleges. By contrast, few institutions can fully fund dissertation work and
students considering a dissertation requiring field work in Europe can be critically
influenced by their ability to see possible sources of funding to support the
additional time needed for that purpose.
-- Dissertation field
work support need not, however, be offered in a 'one-size-fits-all' manner. In
some disciplines, such as history, and for some dissertation topics a full year
abroad may be needed; in others the time required may be shorter no more
than a semester. And in cases in which the bulk of the work can be done using
data available in the United States, periods as short as a few weeks to undertake
interviews and develop local context for the analysis may suffice. On this latter
point, however the critical importance of dissertation field work as a source
of deep knowledge of a country or society should be borne in mind. Most scholars
will have few, if any, later opportunities to acquire the kind of intellectual
capital that results from an extended stay in Europe. Some of those consulted
questioned whether short stays of only a few weeks would serve to attain this
important objective.
-- There is also a
need for support in the post-doctoral period. The majority view of those consulted
(reluctantly in the case of tenured faculty!) was that the priority here should
be for the early post-doctoral period, pre-tenure, rather than for tenured faculty
research. However there were a range of views as to how such support could most
usefully be provided. Some took the view that the allocation should be to the
highest quality proposals in an open competition. But most argued for one or another
additional selection criterion, while recognizing that in the pre-tenure phase
the pressures on junior faculty to hew tightly to the dictates of their departments
in making tenure decisions are intense and irresistible. The following were among
the principal selection criteria suggested:
Specifying thematic
areas within which research would be funded.
Assigning special
value to parallel or collaborative research by groups of scholars, especially
on an interdisciplinary basis.
Encouraging
research programs that link scholars across the Atlantic.
Giving preference
to carefully conceived research programs that bring more senior and more junior
scholars (both pre- and post-doctoral) together on a regular basis. (A number
of different models of such programs were described from which both the senior
and the junior scholars had evidently derived unusual benefits.)
Challenging
scholars to conceive innovative collaborative endeavors that take them out of
traditional molds.
No one of these ideas
would probably command a majority among those consulted. And several scholars
were concerned about establishing criteria that might result in unnatural or superficial
collaborative projects held together only by the desire to qualify for grants.
But the number and variety of these suggestions seemed to reflect a broad sense
that the open research fellowship competition that the German Marshall Fund has
managed for over 25 years might with advantage be modified to reflect a new approach
to the support of post-doctoral work, assuming that the Fund decides to continue
such support.
In short, there was
a considerable body of opinion that would favor a change in the pattern of funding
provided by the German Marshall Fund and, to a lesser extent, by the European
Commission Delegation in recent years and a clear sense that dissertation field
work support should have the highest priority.
There is, of course,
at least an apparent inconsistency between this conclusion and the view expressed
by many of those consulted that there is currently an overproduction of Ph.D.s
with a specialization in Europe. There are two explanations of this discrepancy,
to the extent that it can be explained. The first is that the system has not yet
adjusted to the changed circumstances in which the funding available for dissertation
field work through the SSRC, Fulbright scholarships and some other sources is
less than in the past. (In the case of the SSRC, of course, the issue is more
one of dedicated funding for Europe than the absolute amounts theoretically available.)
This being so, there is arguably a need to bolster the funding available so as
not to leave too great a disincentive for those about to embark on doctoral work
to opt for a dissertation requiring field work in Europe. The second is that the
relatively healthy situation with respect to the production of Ph.D.s does not
reflect an adequate level of field work in Europe (since not all of them involved
such field work) and that this element still requires substantial external support,
especially at less well-endowed institutions, for all the reasons mentioned earlier.
These explanations
are perfectly reasonable. But the apparent mismatch between the conflicting impressions
of those in the field (overproduction of Ph.D.s, need for field work support,
bad job market) and the reality of substantially increasing numbers of dissertations
with European topics (even though not all involve serious field work in Europe)
suggests a need for ongoing tracking and analysis. Funders need, at the least,
to keep closer track of the numbers of Ph.D. candidates who are choosing to undertake
field work in Europe and, to the extent that this can be foreseen, the state of
the job market they will face on completion of their doctorates.
The
Legacy of the Cold War on University Campuses. As has already been noted,
many universities have made considerable progress towards breaking down the barriers
that have historically separated scholars concerned with Central and Eastern Europe
and Russia and those concerned with Western Europe. But many institutions have
a way to go before the end of the political division of Europe is fully reflected
in their structures and programs. There are several reasons why this change has
been so slow and difficult in some institutions:
-- A principled view
that the intellectual questions of importance at least in Russia and the states
of the former Soviet Union are still distinct from those of Western Europe and
the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
-- A more intuitive
view that the Slavic world, with its related languages, should not be swallowed
up by Western Europeanists.
-- The availability
of financial resources tied to the study of one or other half of the continent.
The most glaring example of this is Title VI (and the waning Title VIII). But
there are other examples, some specific to particular institutions. It would indeed
be illogical for grant seekers to fail to respond to opportunities that funders,
for good or bad reasons, offer, even if they are based on outmoded political assumptions.
In many institutions the barriers caused by the existence of separately funded
centers of Eastern and Western European studies are not serious and cooperation
across the dividing line is effective. But in others these financial incentives
have continued to inhibit the creation of a seamless program.
-- Predictable human
and institutional factors. These will gradually play themselves out. But for a
period of years they will present difficult challenges, if not outright disincentives,
to administrators keen to prevent the perpetuation of outmoded structures.
The lesson for external
funders is to make it plain that they place value on lessening and if possible
ending these barriers. Realistically, without outside intervention (and perhaps
even with it) the disappearance of these barriers will probably proceed in close
step with the expansion of NATO and the European Union. But as one respected leader
of the field put it, if ever the major foundations were to resume support for
the study of Europe on a large scale they would almost certainly not tolerate
the continuation of such divisions. The federal government could also encourage
this development, notably by discouraging the perpetuation of a division of the
field as a result of the way in which Title VI funds are distributed. However,
no change of this kind seems likely.
The German Marshall
Fund and the European Union do not have the same leverage as major foundations
or the government would have in this respect. But they can still exercise some
influence and set an example. The Fund has already expanded its area of interest
to include Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria and may expand
it further in the future. The European Union, in designating the proposed new
European Union Centers in the United States, could with advantage place a premium
on institutions that take explicit account of the forthcoming enlargement of the
Union by including in their proposed programs activities related to the candidate
countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
Implications
of the Diversity of Institutions in the Field. Reference has already been
made to the diversity of institutions in which the study of Europe is conducted.
Some are well-endowed and have large graduate programs and research centers. Others
are less well off financially and smaller, with correspondingly less diversity
of program. Some are on the well-beaten path for visiting scholars and government
officials, while others are more remote and less likely to be on the itineraries
of visitors. For yet others Europe may not be the geographic area of primary interest,
as compared with institutions that have a long tradition of attention to one or
another region of Europe. Finally, there are large differences in the institutional
structures and practices affecting area studies and interdisciplinary collaboration.
There are several reasons
not to pay too much attention to these differences in considering funding priorities.
Among them are:
-- The paramount importance
of quality in research and other activities supported.
-- The fact that historically
a relatively small number of institutions have produced the large majority of
serious scholars and scholarship on Europe.
-- The consideration
that even the largest and best endowed institutions do not, and perhaps cannot
be expected to, support a complete range of teaching, including languages, relating
to Europe, let alone institutions to promote interdisciplinary research with a
European focus.
Nevertheless, those
at smaller and less well-endowed institutions make a persuasive case that funders
should be wary of devoting too large a fraction of their support to institutions
which have the means to provide a great deal of internal support to their students
and faculty and, indeed, in some cases have easier access to other sources of
external funds.
This is, above all,
a question of balance. But the different considerations advanced by those in the
field at least argue for flexibility and careful attention to need in funding
strategies.
One aspect of diversity
which some scholars see as presenting an underappreciated opportunity at a time
of shrinking resources is the potential for more collaboration across different
institutions, especially in graduate training or more "interactive
specialization," as one senior scholar characterized it. This would permit
a broader base of training in institutions less able to maintain such breadth
with their own internal resources. Such a development is not easy for relatively
small funders such as the Fund and the EU to promote and it is, in any case, something
that the universities should be able to organize themselves to the extent that
it is useful. But the new network of European Union Centers provides an opportunity
for exploring the possibilities of such a division of labor in that particular
part of the field.
Implications
of the Diffusion of the Study of Europe. The last section noted that there
has been a considerable diffusion of the in-depth study of aspects of European
affairs within academic institutions. The implication of this is that those concerned
with a broad interdisciplinary approach to European affairs need to be sure to
draw into their ranks those who are engaged in this work throughout their institutions.
This applies especially to the two organizations, CES and ECSA, which seek to
embody the community of scholars working on Europe.
This is easier said
than done. Reference has already been made to the fact that economists have for
various reasons not been active participants in the communities of Europeanists
either on many individual campuses or within CES and ECSA. The same is certainly
true of many of those in business and law schools and in departments not traditionally
associated with 'European studies' who are nonetheless engaged in the serious
study of one or another aspect of Europe and European integration. This situation
should be seen as a challenge to those who value the idea of interdisciplinary
approaches to these issues. For funders, the challenge is to ensure that their
support is given in ways that promote, or at least do not discourage, such a broad
approach.
The
Roles of CES and ECSA. The existence of the Council for European Studies
(since 1970) and the European Community Studies Association (since 1988) has given
the interdisciplinary study of Europe an invaluable space in which to draw together
and support scholars and, to a lesser extent, practitioners from other fields
and to encourage dialogue and cooperation across disciplinary and other boundaries.
Both organizations, with modest budgets and staff and a large amount of volunteer
leadership, have contributed immensely to the health of the field.36
Their role has perhaps been of special importance for scholars at institutions
where there is no institutional focus for the study of Europe (such as a center
or committee) and which are off the beaten track for visitors from Europe.
On the face of it,
two such organizations may seem to be a luxury for a field that constantly feels
the shoe pinching in terms of resources. Some of those consulted for this review
went so far as to suggest that they could be merged, if not immediately, at least
in the not-too-distant future.
Even leaving aside
their respective histories, however, the two organizations have distinct roles,
interests, and, to a large extent, memberships.37
In certain respects, moreover, they have engaged in sensible collaboration, for
example in the practice of holding their biennial conferences in such a way that
there is one conference for Europeanists in each calendar year. Moreover each
is run on such a lean basis that there can be little if any waste in their operations
that could be eliminated by a merger. Last, but not least, the separate identity
of ECSA is important to the European Union and to the ECSA in Europe and will
almost certainly be enhanced in the implementation of the European Parliament's
decision to support a new network of European Union Centers in the United States.
For all these reasons,
the practical question is how best the two organizations can position themselves
to help respond to the various challenges facing the field. On this a variety
of opinions and ideas were forthcoming from those consulted during the course
of this review.
A first conclusion
is the perceived high value of the conferences of both organizations. These meetings
seem to fill a strongly felt need for an interdisciplinary space of manageable
size in which those interested in European affairs from a scholarly perspective,
and especially younger scholars, can meet and transact business with one another.
In this respect, they are widely seen as much more useful than, and quite distinct
from, the much larger conferences of the professional associations within the
disciplines.
The two organizations'
conferences have somewhat different characters. The ECSA conference draws on a
number of policy makers and others to promote interaction between scholars and
practitioners, whereas the CES conference has been more narrowly confined to scholars
and scholarship. Moreover, according to some who have participated in both in
recent years, the ECSA conferences have been not only larger, which is a mixed
blessing, but also livelier in an intellectual sense and better attended by European
scholars. By contrast the CES conference has been growing somewhat smaller than
it was several years ago and has apparently not attracted as many leaders in the
field in recent years as might seem desirable.
A second conclusion
is that neither organization, in part for reasons of limited resources, has been
as quick as would have been desirable to exploit new communications technologies
for the informational services it supplies to its members and the field. There
is a broad consensus that much of what each organization puts out in its newsletters
could be more timely provided electronically. There are other informational services
that could and probably should be provided in the same way. These include:
-- Information about
European scholars and visitors coming to the United States, which would be of
particular value in relation to the intra-American travel grants provided by CES.
-- More specialized
opportunities for scholarly exchange (including, of course, on a transatlantic
basis) through list servers. ECSA does operate a list for those of its members
who wish to sign up, but CES has not experimented with this device.
Both services could
be of special value to scholars at smaller institutions with less of an internal
community of Europeanists.
Whether it would be
wise at this time to make the two organizations' newsletters entirely electronic
is more debatable, although cost considerations might dictate this. But much more
of the community-building tasks of both could be more efficiently and effectively
performed on the Internet. Needless to say, attention should be paid in so doing
to the relationship between the two (until very recently the World Wide Web site
of neither organization contained a hyperlink to the other). Some coordination
of both design and content would be desirable. This would apply especially to
the development of list servers that might be established for different purposes.
The third set of conclusions
is broader and more controversial and relates to the purposes of the two organizations.
The purpose of ECSA is easier to express because it is by definition limited to
issues relating to European integration. Few of those consulted about this report
expressed serious concerns about the way in which ECSA has defined its role. Even
on this point, however, there is room for a broader or a narrower view. This review
would argue strongly for the broader approach that embraces the impact of the
integration process on the societies, economies and polities of the members and
includes candidate as well as current members of the EU.
The proper purpose
and program of CES in the changing circumstances outlined earlier is harder to
define. It is also somewhat more controversial among practitioners in the field.
Few of those who attach
importance to the study of Europe would dispute that the existence and programs
of the Council have been important factors contributing to the well-being of the
field as it has weathered the vicissitudes of the 1980s and early 1990s. However,
a substantial number of practitioners see the Council as having become too conservative
and unimaginative in the role which it has played in navigating the turbulent
times since the end of the Cold War and during the debates on the future and structure
of area studies. This has been a time at which, as Tarrow articulated in his 1994
report quoted earlier, there has been a need to find a new vision of the relationship
between area studies and innovations in political science and sociology, in particular.
Yet during this period, many scholars see the Council as having been dominated
by a particular set of scholarly approaches, notably in political science, and
relatively inhospitable to other important schools of thought. By contrast, as
one prominent Europeanist put it, in a field that is becoming increasingly diffuse
and involves more and more people who do not think of themselves as being engaged
in 'European studies' in a narrow definition, what is needed is an association
for the advancement of the study of Europe in a broad sense, open to all the significant
tendencies in the field.
The Council has not
played the role that it could have as a key forum for airing these issues and
promoting dialogue among the various points of view in the field, however difficult
that might have been to achieve at times. There have been considered reasons for
this approach, which has been described by a former member of the Council's Executive
Committee in the context of a review of the conferences of Europeanists as "...the
Council's fundamental commitment to the virtues of passivity."38
Many of those consulted would, however, welcome the Council playing a more activist
role in the future.
These are controversial
matters within the field and ones on which there is no unanimity of opinion. But
they are no less important for that, especially for funders like the German Marshall
Fund and the European Commission Delegation to the United States which have, for
better or worse, each become the principal supporter of one of the two organizations
in question and between them provide by far the largest amount of the external
funding available to the two organizations combined. Some recommendations on how
to approach these issues will be found in the concluding section of this report.
Next
Section
Table
of Contents
