The Study Of Europe In The United States
by Christopher J. Makins
Executive Summary
I. Purpose and Approach. This report makes recommendations to its two
sponsors on the state of the study of Europe in the United States and on the priorities
they should adopt in their grantmaking and other activities related to the study
of Europe. This report is based on data gathered from many sources and extensive
interviews in the field. Its primary focus is on scholarly research and teaching
about Europe broadly defined, but it also covers work on Europe in institutes
and think tanks outside the academy.
II. A Portrait of the Field. The report presents data to describe the
state of the field, even though there are few good data available on essential
aspects of the situation. The report then offers a qualitative description of
key aspects of the field based on the assessments of practitioners and the author's
direct observations. Issues covered include:
-- Changes in the international environment
since 1989.
-- Epistemological debates about the
proper role and direction of area studies.
-- Internal changes within the academy.
-- The changing role of think tanks and
policy institutes in relation to the academic mainstream.
-- The rise and significance of the study of the European Union and the process
of European integration.
III. An Assessment. This section of the report presents an assessment
of the state of the field and its needs as the basis for the conclusions and recommendations
in the final section. The assessment addresses the following issues:
-- 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.
IV. Recommendations. This section proposes the following principles
for the two sponsors' activities in the field:
-- Strict respect for quality work, wherever
possible assured by peer review or equivalent validation.
-- Support for research at different
stages of the academic cycle based on two priorities:
Dissertation field work in Europe.
Research programs that engage both
senior and more junior scholars either at the pre- or post-doctoral stage.
-- The promotion of interdisciplinary
work on a broad basis, embracing both disciplines that have not tended to engage
with the community of Europeanists and all the tendencies within the disciplines
engaged in the study of Europe.
-- Facilitation of the coming together
of the community of scholars and policy experts concerned with Western Europe
and those concerned with Central and Eastern Europe and the states of the former
Soviet Union.
-- The encouragement of dialogues about public policy issues relating to Europe
that bring together scholars from the academic mainstream, policy analysts, policy
makers and other practitioners.
The report makes specific recommendations on the following issues:
--The organization of support for
scholarly research on Europe. The German Marshall Fund should consolidate
all the support it now provides for research fellowships, pre-dissertation fellowships
and research planning groups into a single research support program to be administered
directly by the Fund. Other donors with similar goals, including the Delegation,
should be encouraged to make use of this system.
--Annual conferences of Europeanists.
The Fund and the Delegation should continue to support annual conferences
of Europeanists, alternating between a conference focused on European integration
and a broader conference covering all aspects of European affairs. They should
make the commitment to do so far enough in advance to permit the conferences to
be more carefully structured and planned.
--A New Role for the Council for
European Studies. As its principal external funder, the German Marshall
Fund should challenge the Council for European Studies to play a different and
more activist role in the field as a condition for sustained funding.
--The role of the European Community
Studies Association (ECSA) and the proposed new network of European Union Centers
supported by the European Union. The role of ECSA requires little redefinition
except in the context of the additional responsibilities it may acquire in relation
to the new network of European Union Centers. The report also suggests a number
of specific conclusions relevant to the establishment of the new European Union
centers.
--Building bridges between the academy
and public policy analysis and debate on European issues. In their support
of both scholarly research and public policy dialogues, the Fund and the Delegation
should have in mind the desirability of engaging mainstream academics and public
policy specialists together in addressing policy questions.
--Establishing a monitoring function
for the vitality of the field. The Fund should institute a modest effort
to track a set of key indicators of the health of the field of the study of Europe.
--Developing a dialogue with other
interested institutions. The Fund and the Delegation may wish to use the
presentation of this report as an opportunity for a dialogue about the needs of
the field with other current and prospective funders, notably among the ma--or
foundations, but also including the Social Science Research Council/ American
Council of Learned Societies and possibly other organizations.
Next Section
Table
of Contents
