The PCISE report, and the new ASPA policy on international engagement, will be discussed during a presidential panel at the upcoming ASPA conference. The session will be held on March 21 at 1PM EST. Details here. Powerpoint for the committee’s presentation here.
IRSPM opening plenary will discuss PCISE report
The opening plenary session of the annual conference of the International Research Society for Public Management, to be held in Budapest in April, will be dedicated to a discussion of the PCISE’s final report. Learn more here (Google translation).
ASPA National Council endorses report
At its meeting on February 4, the National Council of the American Society for Public Administration endorsed the report of the President’s Committee on International Scholarly Engagement. The Council has also adopted a policy that incorporates recommendations made by the Committee. ASPA will provide more information about the policy in coming weeks. The report and policy will also be discussed in a special session at the ASPA conference in March.
Committee publishes final report
The ASPA President’s Committee on International Scholarly Engagement published its final report in January 2023. Download the report here.
The report has been endorsed by the Public Administration Committee of the Joint University Council of the United Kingdom.
MIT releases report on engagement
On October 19 2022, the MIT China Strategy Group released a report on principles and practices relating to engagement with China. The Group observes that its approach could also be applied to other countries “whose political
leaders are pursuing policies that are irreconcilable with basic human rights and values.” Read the report.
NAPA panel looks at discussion paper
The International Standing Committee of the US National Academy of Public Administration will host a conversation about our discussion paper on December 2, 2022. Powerpoint for our presentation.
Discussion at NASPAA conference
The Committee will host a conversation about its discussion paper on international engagement at the NASPAA conference in Chicago in October. The session will be held on Friday, October 21, from 1:30PM to 2:30PM CDT. The conversation will be hosted by Committee members Mohamad Alkadry, Leslie Pal, and Meghna Sabharwal. More information about the Committee here.
Committee releases discussion paper
The ASPA President’s Committee on International Scholarly Engagement has released a discussion paper, with draft recommendations on what scholarly organizations in the field of public administration should do to meet the challenges of international engagement. Download the discussion paper. Comments are welcomed. Please send them to PCISE Co-Chairs Alasdair Roberts and Mary-Lee Rhodes. The committee will release its final report in January 2023.
University codes and guidelines
Here are links to some university codes and guidelines on international engagement:
Academic Freedom and Internationalisation Working Group. (2021). Model Code of Conduct – Protection of Academic Freedom and the Academic Community in the Context of the Internationalisation of the UK HE Sector.
Giannelis, E. P., & Wolford, W. W. (2021). Update on international research and engagement: Guidance for the Cornell Community. Global Cornell.
Kotlikoff, M., & Wolford, W. W. (2019, November 14). Guidelines on ethical international engagement: Global Cornell. Global Cornell.
Wolford, W. W., & Giannelis, E. (2019, May 28). Academic Integrity and Undue Foreign Influence: Guidelines. Global Cornell.
International Council. Global Cornell. (n.d.).
Iowa State University. (n.d.). Guidelines for Engagement in Developing Countries. Iowa State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Office of Global Affairs University of Washington. (n.d.). Guidelines for Global Engagement. University of Washington.
Toope, S. J. (2021). Navigating the complexities of international engagement. University of Cambridge.
University of Cambridge. (n.d.). Managing Risks in International Engagement. Strategic Partnerships Office, University of Cambridge.
University of Cambridge. (n.d.). Principles for Managing International Risks. Strategic Partnerships Office University of Cambridge.
University of California Berkeley. (n.d.). UC Berkeley’s Principles of International Engagement. Berkeley Global Engagement.
University of California Berkeley. (n.d.). International Collaboration, Research Integrity, & Foreign Influence. Berkeley Global Engagement.
University of California Berkeley. (n.d.). International Engagement Policy Task Force (IEPTF). Berkeley Global Engagement.
Waugh, R., Tarduno, J., Stein, J., Steele, S., Mejido, J., Liders, G., Kutyifa, V., Heinzelman, W., Gatewood, J., Farrelman, J., Doyle, J., & Dewhurst, S. (2019). International Research & Global Collaboration: Guidance for the University of Rochester Community. University of Rochester.
Western Michigan University. (n.d.). About Global Engagement. Western Michigan University.
Background paper: Academic boycotts
We’ve posted a background paper by Joseph Staruski, an MPP student at University of Massachusetts, on academic boycotts. The title is The Differential Outcomes of Contemporary Boycotting: An Analysis of the Global Boycotts against Israel and Russia. Abstract: “The academic community relies on international engagement to build reliable knowledge and conduct research. International academic engagement has recently stirred controversy because of the desire to cut ties with some countries whose actions fail to respect academic freedom and human rights. Academic boycotts are often a response to such offenses, but recent cases of boycotting in Israel and Russia show that boycotting can produce differential outcomes in similar cases. While Israel and Russia both are accused of committing war crimes and using their militaries to occupy territory, the boycott against Israel has seen far less success. Both boycotts appear to reinforce global power stratification, are accused of prejudice, and poorly communicate their values. Future boycott efforts should establish better ways of coordinating action among diverse entities, communicating values, applying principles consistently, and considering facts. If these steps are taken, boycotts might adopt a more procedural methodology and be less prone to criticism.” Download the paper.