As many of our readers know, I am the incoming editor-in-chief of International Studies Quarterly, the “flagship journal” of the International Studies Association. My team will begin to take new submissions in October. The full handoff occurs in January of 2014. The scope and nature of the responsibilities involved are inconsistent with an active presence here. Indeed, my time-management and logistical skills are insufficient to support both activities. Thus, I will be phasing out of my various roles at the Duck of Minerva over the next few weeks.
In practice, this means that my last major contribution to the Duck of Minerva will our upcoming symposium on the European Journal of International Relations‘ “End of IR Theory” special issue. I also expect that I will be posting some reflections on nine years of blogging and on the evolution of the Duck of Minerva. I don’t know how much interest there will be on these subjects, but writing about them will provide me with a sense of closure.
My imminent departure means that the Duck of Minerva will be short a number of permanent bloggers. I’m happy to note that additional guest bloggers will be joining the team to ensure a steady stream of content. I think recent blogging on Syria, guest posts on professional concerns, and scholarly debates and discussions at the Duck of Minerva are a good indicator that the blog will continue on its upward trajectory.
Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.
He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.
He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJsjNNp0foE
You will be missed! Although, I guess you’ll still be around, Obi-Wan like, to offer sage advice.
:-(
Thanks for your leadership in this effort here. The Duck is what we make of it, and you made of it quite a cool place to discuss IR and our thinking about IR. You rocked here and you will rock at ISQ.
The IR blogosphere won’t be the same without you, but I look forward to seeing where ISQ goes under your leadership.
I was kind of anticipating a “So long and thanks for all the fish” kind of announcement. Enjoy the move to ISQ — both it and ISA will be well-served by your stewardship.
We’ll try not to burn the house down while you’re gone. See you when you get back. ;)
Congrats Dan. I have a few questions for you based on the discussion about race a few weeks ago.
1. Did you or anyone else at any point notice the lack of racial diversity on your editorial team? Were there discussions about what should be done?
2. Is it of concern that all the members of the team are based at North American or European institutions?
3. Do you personally feel that either of the above is problematic for the editorial board of the flagship journal of the INTERNATIONAL Studies Association?
4. Related to the above, do you view the International Studies Association to be globally representative or really just a space for scholars from the US and Europe to talk about the international politics?
5. Do you think this situation is unique within political science and one to be rectified, or just “how it is” within contemporary political science and not worth discussing further?
As always, I appreciate your candor and look forward to your response.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern%20troll
Wow, you called me a troll. I’m so surprised. I never thought anyone here would dismiss a question about race as trolling. Oh wait, that’s exactly what I expected.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yada%20yada
I guess all these questions are irrelevant. Thanks.
This is fascinating. Guest accuses yadayada of concern trolling. Yadayada then basically cops to concern trolling.
Guest’s accusation isn’t, of course, that the questions are irrelevant. Guest’s accusation is that they are being asked in bad faith: yadayada isn’t interested in a conversation, but instead of accusing the new ISQ team of racism. Or complicity in racism. The giveaways include the choice of pseudonym, the use of capitalization, & the list of conditional questions. The presence of similar comments on PSR is also a clue.
This is actually pretty sad, as there are important questions here about diversity and inclusiveness in the field. Raising them in the context of concern trolling ensures that they won’t likely get addressed. I am also not sure that the accusation is factually accurate. Is Turkey part of Europe or the global south?
I didn’t “cop” to “concern trolling”. I just pointed out that I expect most questions about race in poli sci to be dismissed as babbling by discontented and jealous minorities and embraced that in my moniker. My original post raised a genuine set of questions which have now been dismissed twice. That’s fine, but accusing me of acting in bad faith based on my original post is precisely why I adopted the name I did.
Here’s some more context in case anyone doubts my sincerity. I work on a region of the world that has an academic tradition that is nationally, regionally and internationally focused. Though I was educated in the US, at this point my career, it is more important for me to be relevant within discussions taking place in my country/area of interest. Often times, I (and others I have spoken to about it) have chosen not to publish in so called international journals based in the US since they seem to speak to such a narrow tradition of poli sci, one that has little currency outside of the Anglo-American world. So as an academic based at an institution in the US but interested in participating in debates in a non-Western country, does it make any sense to submit to ISQ when it appears hostile to the work of scholars participating in debates that may not be of interest to Euro-American scholarship? My optimism in seeing Nexon appointed head turned quickly to disappointment when I saw the overall lineup of editors. Hence the questions. Your dismissal was expected and not particularly interesting. But the questions remain regardless of whether you consider them genuine or not. I’m from a racial minority whose basic humanity has long been questioned by Euro-American scholars, so you dismissing my questions barely registers as a slight. But I wonder what it says about you.
*As a disclaimer, Im not an academic.*
I do see what your concerns are, even though I dont know anything about US academia or what have you
But I dont *get* this endless debate in US academia about diversity of opinion. Isnt it pol sci 101 that certain groups will dominate,and so marginalise weaker voices
If you’re running with a different perspective than anglo IR (or whatever your field) then youre putting yourself outside the mainstream? Thats just the way it is. You have to play by their rules, use their methods, etc etc
I don’t disagree. Its what I’ve been doing. And frankly, its much easier for me to engage with a set of non-American scholars/debates and still find success as a tenured prof. That was not really an option for many of the people I look up to, so one one level, Euro-American parochialism has helped foster robust intellectual life in many parts of the world.
So why do I care at all? Like I said in another post, I am an American citizen and have little interest in witnessing the further intellectual decay of my homeland. Plus, as much as I can engage with scholars outside of the US, I am still based at a US institution and have to engage with American scholars at conferences, in my department, and most importantly from a personal level, I still require their validation for promotion and other professional concerns. So I’m invested. But certainly not blind to how the system works and how systematic biases can undermine the intellectual value of what should otherwise be a space for robust discussion in a rapidly evolving international order.
Btw, I didnt mean my comment to be seen as dismissive at all (which Im glad you didnt take it as) I do see your point, (although I dont know the specific differences in how IR etc is studied in different regions, traditions..)
Id say its difficult to accept when your own research, career, friends, mentors etc are affected by it, so its much easier for me to take a detached and fatalistic attitude when I have no *real* investment (although I do agree that trying to make space for a genuine diversity of opinion is a positive goal for a host of reason)
I explicitly said that the issues you raise are important. I also said that approaching them via the equivalent of “so when did you stop embezzling from your business?” is concern trolling. Looks like a real conversation is underway now, though.
PSR is a cesspool. I’m surprised you didn’t get explicitly racist replies.
Here are the two sentences that surrounded my questions that you acknowledge as important. 1. “Congrats Dan. I have a few questions for you based on the discussion about race a few weeks ago.” and 2. “As always, I appreciate your candor and look forward to your response.”
Those are the ONLY other sentences besides the questions. And based on that you decided I was a troll. Contra to your assertion above, the real conversation started with my legitimate questions. You and the other poster who denigrated my questions were the real trolls. Have you heard of ‘implicit racism’? You should take a look. Maybe useful in understanding your own refusal to consider discussions of race in a forum like this legitimate. And before you feel the need to respond to this, I am not interested in having a meta-conversation any longer. If you have any thoughts on the questions, I’ll take them seriously. But please, no more on how this conversation has been carried out.
So we are racists now? Okey, dokey.
Apparently you haven’t heard of “implicit racism” then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_Association_Test
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Second link let’s you take the test. Take it. Tell us how you do.
just a historical/political point: ISA has long struggled with the question of internationalism – our organization is very international; no denying that, and it needs to be part of the way that we think about it. on the other hand, the BISA, or the Russian International Studies Association, or any number of strong organizations elsewhere would certainly object to ISA declaring itself _the_ International Studies Association – so there is a delicate balance to walk … one that was the explicit subject of debate in ISA in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and might should be again …
I would suggest that it needs to be. My roots are not American, but my citizenship is. And its harder and harder to return to my ancestral home or to the areas of the world I study and pretend that there is no disconnect between the ways in which American intellectuals talk about the ‘world’ and how the world talks about itself and/or the United States. But as someone suggested on PSR when I asked the same question: “Can’t publish, then thou shalt not edit” based on the dubious and I would say highly parochial standard that “scholars based in Africa, Asia, and Latin America” have not published anything of relevance to the study of international politics “over the past 10 years.” Perhaps that is a sentiment that the new ISQ team shares, but I doubt it and asked for a response.
I think these are really important questions, but I am also a bit surprised to seem them on this particular thread. As I understand his post, Dan is leaving the Duck precisely to draw a distinction between his role as a blogger and his role as editor-in-chief. It seems to me that queries or critiques of ISQ editorial decisions ought to be emailed directly to Dan at ISQ. In my view at least, a thread like this should be a place for honoring Dan’s achievements as a founder of the blog not to vent frustrations with ISQ.
That said, I do think these kinds of questions merit some discussion of their own at the Duck, which will remain a place for critical thinking not only about world politics but also about the discipline. I’d be very interested in receiving suggestions for guest posts on the topic of editorial board diversity in the discipline, which could then spark a wider discussion of these dynamics on a thread appropriate to the topic.
I would add that we’re likeliest to publish posts that look broadly at an issue like this in a collegial, professional way rather than singling out a specific journal or editor. Also, guest posts cannot be published anonymously, as snarky comments so often are.
Hi,
First, thanks for your kind words and comments.
Second, you raise a number of valid concerns. I think that the best way to approach them is to ask you a question: what do you think we can do to ensure that the journal is as open as possible to those you worry about being excluded?
1. Diversify, diversify, diversify! (the editorial board, that is)
I occasionally check out the The Disorder of Things blog that is perhaps the closest thing to the Duck coming out of the UK. I am struck by the difference in contributors when it comes to race or gender and presumably, sexuality. England, last I knew, is fair more homogenous demographically than the US. Are the voices of diversity over there just smarter? Or are there other factors that explain the huge underrepresentation of people of color within the study of IR in the US? My feeling is clearly the latter, obviously. Again, I don’t think this is racism, but other systematic factors that people often prefer to ignore.
I don’t suggest diversity for symbolic reasons, but practical ones. As I’ve mentioned enough times now, I am a US citizen based at a US institution. But as someone with roots outside the US, I keep very strong connections to networks of intellectuals outside of the US. I’ve never been on an editorial board nor have I been asked to join one nor is this an appeal that I be appointed (hence the anonymity) so I don’t really know the process of how it works. But from what I know about networks, they can often be self-replicating. A diverse editorial board ensures that at least a diverse set of networks can be connected and tapped into for support. For example, if I was an editorial board member of any journal, I’d be inclined to encourage people in my network to both submit to the journal and to tap them to serve as reviewers. At this point, I actively discourage non-Westerners from submitting to American poli sci journals since I know the reception they would receive.
2. Reach out to those who have left ISQ behind.
Too many scholars who could enrich ISQ would prefer to publish in area studies journals since the assumption is that American political science will never take seriously other alternative approaches. ISA, as a conference is extremely diverse and I prefer it to APSA as do many others I know. But ISQ as a journal doesn’t seem to generate much in the way of interdisciplinary or area studies scholarship. How is it that I can go to a panel at ISA that is filled by scholars doing what is basically international political anthropology (think someone like Carolyn Nordstrom), but never see such articles in ISQ? Or why is it that things like Marxism and post-modernism continue to be very vibrant intellectual traditions in other countries but receive almost no coverage here? I get that many American scholars still view both with skepticism bred by the Cold War, but they are living intellectual traditions and often provide fascinating ways of understanding the world. I see articles in those traditions published in Millennium or Third World Quarterly, both of which I like and believe maintain a high standard of quality (and neither of which I have ever submitted my work to, fyi), so I’m not sure why ISQ cannot.
3. Methodological openness and clarity on what will be considered seriously.
I submitted to JCR once as a grad student. It was way before the whole poli sci blog world came into being and I had often read many articles out of JCR so assumed my work would be considered seriously. Instead, I received a desk reject. No big deal there– I’ve received many. But the Editor’s justification was interesting. He explained that JCR views itself as an explicitly ‘scientific’ journal and that my article did not take a positivist approach to the study of international politics (my recollection). He wasn’t wrong at all. But I would have appreciated a clearer sense of what and what isn’t acceptable before sending in the article. The JCR approach to politics seems to have colonized all of IR, though too many of the top journals resist speaking so frankly as that editor did. I wish they would. And if there are real alternatives, I wish they would identify themselves as clearly through words and actions.