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 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.