MAY 2012
TRIP AROUND THE WORLD:
Teaching, Research, and Policy Views
of International Relations Faculty
in 20 Countries
DANIEL MALINIAK,
SUSAN PETERSON, AND
MICHAEL J. TIERNEY
Published by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project
The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations
at the College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
TRIP Around the World:
Teaching, Research, and Policy Views of International Relations Faculty in 20 Countries
Daniel Maliniak, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney
Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project
The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations
The College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, Virginia
May 2012
We thank the many international relations scholars in twenty countries who generously gave
time to complete our survey and provide feedback on the survey instrument that will improve
future versions. We especially thank our TRIP partners around the world who helped tailor the
survey to their national academic populations, identify those populations, and persuade them to
complete this survey: Jeff Chwieroth, Michael Cox, and Stephanie Rickard (United Kingdom);
John Doyle (Ireland); Peter Marcus Kristensen and Ole Waever (Denmark, Finland, Norway,
and Sweden); Jacqui True (New Zealand); Jason Sharman (Australia); Soo Yeon Kim
(Singapore); Jéremie Cornut, Anne-Marie D’Aoust, Stéphane Roussel, and Stephen Saideman
(Canada); Zeev Maoz (Israel); Arlene Tickner, Rafael Duarte Villa, Roberto Russell, Jorge
Schiavon, and Juan Gabriel Tokatlian (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico); Peter Vale
(South Africa); Dario Battistella and Jéremie Cornut (France); and Mustafa Aydin and Korhan
Yazgan (Turkey). For assistance in designing the survey, identifying our sample, offering
technical support, and providing comments on early drafts of the survey, we thank our
colleagues and students: Alex Atkins, Sagra Alvarado, Will Brannon, Bruce Bueno de
Mesquita, Michael Campbell, Charli Carpenter, Bridget Carr, T.J. Cheng, Michael Desch, Jim
Deverick, Dan Drezner, Luke Elias, Logan Ferrell, Audrey Glasebrook, Mike Horowitz,
Lindsay Hundley, Bruce Jentleson, Mark Jordan, Richard Jordan, Sam Kennedy, Ben Kenzer,
James Long, Helen Milner, Ana O’Harrow, Brad Parks, Ryan Powers, Haroun Rahman, Brian
Rathbun, Ron Rapoport, Eric Sawchak, Alena Stern, Dustin Tingley, Sasha Tobin, Steve Van
Evera, Kate Weaver, Michael Weissberger, and Emily Wilson. For financial support, we thank
Arts and Sciences and the Reves Center for International Studies at the College of William and
Mary and the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4
I. Teaching International Relations ........................................................................................... 7
II. Questions About Your Research Interests ........................................................................ 17
III. The International Relations Discipline ............................................................................ 47
IV.
Foreign Policy Views ............................................................................................................... 70
2
This cross-national survey builds on previous Teaching, Research, and International Policy
(TRIP) faculty surveys conducted in 2004, 2006, and 2008. In 2004, we surveyed international
relations (IR) scholars in the United States. In 2006, we added respondents from Canada. In
2008, we expanded the survey to eight additional English-speaking countries.1 By including ten
new countries and many new questions on disciplinary practices and current foreign policy
debates—for a total of twenty countries and five languages—the 2011 survey represents another
substantial expansion of the TRIP project.2
The faculty survey is one part of the larger TRIP project, which is designed to study the
relationships among teaching, research, and foreign policy.3 As political scientists who
specialize in international relations, we spend most of our time assembling and analyzing data
on foreign policy and international relations—whether trade or aid flows, terrorist attacks, the
diffusion of democracy, or the outbreak of war—that fall in the lower right hand corner of
Figure 1.
Figure 1: The TRIP Triad
The survey results reported here and in our three previous reports provide important data on two
neglected parts of the triad, teaching and research, at the same time that they include systematic
1
These included the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, Hong Kong, and
Singapore.
2
The new countries in 2011 are: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Mexico, Norway,
Sweden, and Turkey. As in previous surveys, we ask a standard battery of questions of respondents from new
countries, but we do not repeat questions that are not likely to vary over time for countries surveyed prior to 2011.
Where possible, the questions are identical across countries. Because of different naming conventions and
translation issues, however, some questions (and closed-end answer options) are modified slightly to fit the local
context. On each survey, we add questions in the last section that reflect contemporaneous policy debates and
issues in international relations.
3
For further information on the TRIP project, see http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/projects/trip/
3
data on scholars’ views of policy issues.4 In the larger TRIP project, we supplement our survey
data with a database of all international relations articles published in the twelve top peerreviewed IR and political science journals from 1980 to the present.5 These two types of data
allow scholars to describe changes in the discipline over time, observe variation in research and
teaching practices across different countries and regions of the world, analyze network effects,
and identify areas of consensus and disagreement within the IR discipline.
These data also help us to understand the influence of academic research on foreign policy, the
way research affects teaching, the effect of teaching on the foreign policy views of students
(including some future policy makers), the impact of specific policy outcomes and real world
events on both teaching and research, and a variety of other issues that have previously been the
subject of vigorous speculation.
Below, we describe the results of the 2011 TRIP survey of IR faculty, providing descriptive
statistics for every question. First, however, we detail the survey’s methodology.
Methodology
Our sampling method follows those of previous years. We sought to identify and survey all
faculty members at colleges and universities in twenty national settings who do research in the
IR sub-field of political science and/ or who teach international relations courses. Table 1 lists
these countries. The overwhelming majority of our respondents have jobs in departments of
political science, politics, government, social science, international relations, or international
studies, or in professional schools associated with universities. Given our definition of “IR
scholar”— individuals with an active affiliation with a university, college, or professional
school—we excluded researchers currently employed in government, private firms, or think
tanks. Additionally, our definition is not broad enough to include scholars at professional
schools of international affairs who study economics, sociology, law, or other disciplines.
While many faculty at these professional schools do study international issues, for this survey
we define IR primarily as a sub-field of political science, rather than as the interdisciplinary
field taught at professional schools and many undergraduate institutions.6 As in previous years,
we attempted to include any scholar who taught or did research on trans-border issues as they
relate to some aspect of politics. Thus, our population may include political scientists who
4
Previous reports are available at http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/projects/trip/
We are working with Jason Sharman and Kate Weaver to construct a parallel TRIP book database that tracks
disciplinary trends as reflected in published books. See Jason Sharman and Catherine Waever, “Between the
Covers: International Relations in Books,” Paper presented at the 2011 TRIP Data Vetting Workshop at the Annual
Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, March 2011.
6
For a critique of the TRIP project based on its exclusion of economists, scientists, anthropologists, and lawyers
teaching at schools of international affairs, see James Goldgeier, “Undisciplined: The Ivory Tower survey is asking
the wrong questions of the wrong people,” Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/undisciplined, accessed 16 April 2012.
5
4
specialize in American politics and who study defense policy, immigration, or trade. It includes
researchers who study regional integration, as well as many specialists of comparative politics
who teach IR courses. We adopt this broad definition because we are interested in those scholars
who create knowledge, teach students, and provide expert advice to policy makers about transborder issues – whether or not they explicitly identify themselves as IR scholars.
We identified the population of faculty to be surveyed in all twenty countries using similar
methods, although we tailored our methods to each locale. For the U.S. survey, we used the U.S.
News and World Report 2007-08 report on American higher education to compile a list of all
four-year colleges and universities. There were 1,406 such institutions. We also included the
Monterey Institute and seven military schools that were not rated by USNWR but that do have a
relatively large number of political science faculty who do research and/or teach courses on
international relations. We then identified IR professors at these schools through a systematic
series of web searches, emails, and communications with departments and individual scholars.
To identify the population of IR scholars at Canadian universities, we began with Macleans
Magazine, which publishes an annual ranking of all four-year universities in Canada. UNESCO
data were used to identify all universities and colleges in the remaining eighteen countries in the
survey, since that agency collects information on the educational systems of more than 200
countries and territories. The same procedures that were used in the United States were then
followed to assemble lists of IR faculty in all other countries. We also consulted with our
country partners to ensure that these lists were complete.7 By September 2011, we identified a
total of 7,294 individuals in the twenty countries who met the TRIP criteria for inclusion. A
total of 293 respondents or their representatives informed us that they did not belong in the
sample because either they had been misidentified and did not teach or conduct research in the
field of IR, or they had died, changed jobs, or retired.8 These individuals were not included in
the calculation of the response rate. The sample size for each country is listed in Table 1 below.
After generating the pool of potential respondents, we sent emails to each of these individuals,
asking them to complete an online survey. We promised confidentiality to all respondents: no
answers are publicly linked to any individual respondent. We provided a live link to a web
survey. If a respondent requested a hard copy or did not have an email address, we sent a copy
of the survey via regular mail.
With the assistance of our country partners, we worked to construct and administer comparable,
but not identical, surveys for each of the twenty countries. The surveys were adjusted to reflect
differences in terminology, racial categorization, academic institutions, academic rank, and
7
In 2011 we did not have a local partner in Hong Kong. We had local partners in every other country.
If respondents said that they were not IR scholars, but nevertheless met the TRIP criteria, we urged them to
complete the survey and did not remove them from the sample, even if they refused to answer the survey.
8
5
public and private institutions. The wording of some questions and answers was changed to
reflect these differences. Finally, most of our partners contributed country-specific questions
that were included at the end of their country survey.
In all, 3,466 scholars responded to the survey, either online or, in a small number of cases, by
mail. If the intended respondents or their representatives did not inform us that they did not
meet our sampling criteria, they remained in the total population used as the denominator in
calculating the response rate. The total response rate of 49.5 percent, therefore, is conservative,
since there probably were additional individuals who were misidentified by our selection
process, did not inform us, and remained in the sample. There was significant variation in
response rates across countries, as Table 1 shows, but no country had a response rate below 36.6
percent. Brazil, Colombia, South Africa, and Ireland had the highest response rates, while
France had the lowest, followed by the United States.
Table 1: Response Rate by Country
All
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
Colombia
Denmark
Finland
France
Hong Kong
Ireland
Israel
Mexico
New Zealand
Norway
Singapore
South Africa
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Sample Size
7001
57
280
270
488
66
93
24
276
32
47
67
230
42
82
47
40
104
456
842
3751
Responses (N)
3464
36
165
193
252
50
58
11
101
15
32
33
114
20
49
24
28
67
227
404
1585
6
Response Rate (%)
49.5%
63.2%
58.9%
71.5%
51.6%
75.8%
62.4%
45.8%
36.6%
46.9%
68.1%
49.3%
49.6%
47.6%
59.8%
51.1%
70%
64.4%
49.8%
48.0%
42.3%
SURVEY RESULTS FOR 2011
I.
Teaching International Relations
1: In the past five years have you taught Introduction to International Relations (or its
equivalent) for undergraduate students at your current institution?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Yes
57
62
55
50
55
58
50
49
39
55
43
55
28
64
40
35
71
67
48
68
53
No
43
38
45
50
45
42
50
51
61
45
57
45
72
36
60
65
29
33
52
32
47
7
2: In your undergraduate Intro to IR course, what areas of the world do you study in substantial detail (i.e. you devote one or more classes to
discussion of that area)? Please check all that apply.
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Central
Asia
East
Asia
Eastern
Europe
Latin
America
8
9
2
5
6
0
7
0
0
0
6
4
0
25
0
0
0
13
2
27
6
34
40
22
27
56
55
13
22
42
0
6
26
0
19
80
50
15
26
20
39
33
16
17
18
10
8
9
33
27
5
50
19
19
0
22
20
0
0
9
4
21
21
21
23
8
16
9
18
7
15
0
25
6
4
0
7
0
0
5
65
48
67
63
M. E.
and N.
Africa
37
44
30
28
29
27
27
34
26
50
0
30
71
46
0
0
20
17
17
36
19
North
America
Oceania
34
31
34
34
45
45
27
41
42
25
25
30
43
33
40
17
35
48
30
58
60
3
2
<1
2
32
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
6
6
8
Russia/
Soviet
Union
27
31
22
25
17
27
27
29
21
50
25
15
29
37
60
17
10
26
10
24
23
South
Asia
Southeast
Asia
18
24
11
14
29
27
13
10
5
0
0
15
29
7
0
0
0
13
9
24
8
14
14
7
13
40
18
7
10
11
0
6
11
14
7
40
50
10
22
5
30
17
SubSaharan
Africa
20
26
16
16
10
18
20
22
11
0
13
15
14
5
0
0
65
17
11
21
10
Western
Europe
None
43
44
39
35
32
36
47
44
58
50
50
33
43
56
20
33
45
48
32
55
52
35
35
47
50
25
45
20
37
26
25
38
41
29
32
20
17
30
26
36
6
17
3: Approximately what percentage of your undergraduate Intro to IR course is devoted to policy
analysis and/or policy-relevant research? The policies analyzed need not be current.9
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Policy Relevant
28
28
22
25
30
13
26
29
25
14
30
19
22
39
29
14
20
25
32
25
33
9
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76-100%.
To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of respondents;
those responses were then averaged in order to compare the overall percent variation between countries.
9
4: Approximately what percentage of your undergraduate Intro to IR course is devoted to
contemporary empirical issues in IR -- i.e., 2000 or later?10
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
NZ
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Percentage
37
35
40
34
45
30
36
32
39
19
38
31
42
40
53
18
48
38
30
36
47
10
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76100%. To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of
respondents; those responses were then averaged in order to compare the overall percent variation between
countries.
10
5: Approximately what percentage of assigned readings in your undergraduate Intro to IR
course is written by:11
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
NZ
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
HK
Singapore
SA
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
U.S.
Authors
58
71
40
42
45
35
45
43
37
27
40
51
71
52
49
71
43
50
43
47
50
Country X
Authors12
25
-37
23
19
6
5
27
28
42
18
11
9
24
3
4
17
-25
---
Latin American
Authors13
20
----------------23
19
15
25
11
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76100%. To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of
respondents; those responses were then averaged in order to compare the overall percent variation between
countries. These results should be viewed in light of the fact that respondents had to define for themselves what is
meant by a “U.S. author” or “Country X author” or “Latin American author.” We cannot be sure whether
respondents cue on an author’s institutional affiliation, location where Ph.D. was earned, nationality, or country of
origin.
12
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed. In surveys distributed to respondents who
answered this question in 2008, we did not ask this question again. The 2008 data is included in these responses.
Subsequent questions that contain 2008 data will be marked with a footnote indicating that they contain 2008 data.
13
In surveys distributed to Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Brazil, respondents also were asked: “Approximately
what percentage of assigned readings in your undergraduate Intro to IR course is written by authors based in Latin
America?” Respondents in these countries were not asked about readings produced by authors from their specific
countries.
11
6: Approximately what percentage of your undergraduate Intro to IR course do you devote to the study and/ or application of each of
the following international relations paradigms? (If you have multiple answers for other only record the most prominent other
paradigm).14
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Constructivism
13
11
11
11
14
14
11
15
13
11
17
18
7
17
20
16
13
15
13
24
19
Realism
24
25
19
18
19
14
16
25
26
11
20
24
20
33
36
23
25
35
26
35
31
Liberalism Marxism
21
11
22
10
16
10
17
12
19
11
15
7
16
10
22
9
23
6
9
6
19
10
19
10
20
6
24
17
17
5
20
9
22
15
24
11
23
14
27
21
22
17
Feminism
7
7
7
8
8
8
6
4
3
4
9
9
4
8
3
6
6
4
5
8
11
14
English School
8
5
10
7
9
13
7
9
14
5
8
5
5
16
3
7
6
15
18
13
15
Non-paradigmatic
18
19
19
16
20
10
16
23
17
11
18
8
18
19
14
19
16
14
16
9
14
Other
15
17
12
11
18
28
8
9
23
10
8
15
3
20
0
18
12
18
20
19
14
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76-100%. To generate these averages, we identified
the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of respondents; those responses were then averaged across each paradigm in order to compare the
overall percent variation across paradigms. Rows add to more than 100 percent because respondents were asked to estimate a percentage for each paradigm.
Canada (100 percent), The UK (104 percent), and Sweden (108 percent) were closer to 100 percent, while scholars in Colombia (156 percent), Turkey (154
percent), and Mexico (143 percent) overestimated by larger amounts. Scholars in Finland (67 percent) and Israel (83 percent), on the other hand, significantly
underestimated percentages in their responses.
12
7: In the past five years have you taught an International Relations class to graduate students?
Check all that apply.
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Yes, to PhD
students
25
28
22
41
11
5
26
16
8
22
20
12
17
22
7
36
11
12
22
20
14
Yes, to MA international
affairs/public policy students
44
34
64
50
63
42
68
55
59
67
60
35
66
44
36
59
67
53
42
47
34
12
Yes, to other
graduate students
19
12
24
19
19
63
10
35
22
56
22
18
14
14
36
27
70
26
37
33
19
No
42
52
25
40
28
26
29
26
33
22
31
53
34
45
50
23
15
41
35
29
50
8: In your IR class for PhD students, which of the following best describes the way you organize your
course material?
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Issue Areas
or Problems
42
45
39
30
38
0
25
69
33
100
78
14
25
17
0
50
33
50
55
60
64
Levels of
Analysis
6
5
4
3
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
25
8
0
14
Schools of
Thought/Paradigms
33
33
31
45
31
100
25
0
67
0
11
86
50
33
100
38
33
25
21
30
7
14
Rational vs. Nonrational Approaches
4
4
3
5
0
0
25
8
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
13
0
0
3
0
0
Regions
Other
5
2
11
2
6
0
13
15
0
0
11
0
0
21
0
0
33
0
5
0
14
10
10
13
14
13
0
13
8
0
0
0
0
25
2
0
0
0
0
8
10
0
9: In your IR class for MA students, what areas of the world do you study in substantial detail (i.e., you devote one or more classes to discussion of
that area)? Please check all that apply.
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Central
Asia
East
Asia
Eastern
Europe
Latin
America
9
8
7
5
8
0
5
9
4
0
4
0
6
33
0
0
0
17
1
22
11
29
34
22
19
61
13
15
16
22
50
17
32
6
20
67
38
22
44
20
22
31
16
15
18
7
9
13
25
23
15
67
26
26
11
24
0
0
0
17
7
26
26
20
22
10
12
13
13
10
16
4
33
0
16
6
6
0
0
17
83
65
57
63
M. E.
and N.
Africa
29
34
24
15
27
13
30
32
33
33
13
5
83
49
0
15
6
22
19
22
37
North
America
Oceania
28
21
29
22
44
0
25
39
26
33
30
26
39
27
0
23
6
50
34
39
60
4
2
2
<1
31
25
0
7
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
8
0
0
1
4
3
15
Russia/
Soviet
Union
19
22
17
11
16
0
15
14
7
67
22
11
11
39
0
8
11
28
14
26
20
South
Asia
Southeast
Asia
17
20
15
16
27
0
5
18
11
33
4
11
17
11
0
15
0
22
8
17
11
15
15
9
9
54
0
10
9
4
17
4
5
11
8
0
54
17
17
5
26
23
SubSaharan
Africa
19
23
18
15
13
13
20
27
11
33
13
21
28
7
0
8
72
17
12
13
6
Western
Europe
None
36
31
42
22
31
0
50
52
52
83
57
32
22
59
33
8
28
44
30
43
57
33
39
37
52
18
63
35
20
30
0
35
37
11
17
0
31
28
11
28
17
0
10:
Is your IR class for MA students designed more to introduce students to scholarship in
the IR discipline, or more to prepare students to be informed about foreign policy and
international issues and debates?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Introduce
students to
scholarship
in the IR
discipline
Both, but
primarily
introduce
students to
scholarship
in the IR
discipline
Both about
equally
14
13
22
23
7
13
10
12
12
0
13
5
17
7
33
8
11
0
14
13
11
27
25
30
23
19
50
35
33
27
67
38
40
28
28
0
23
22
28
18
35
26
18
18
19
19
22
13
0
12
19
17
21
20
11
23
0
15
22
28
12
17
29
16
Both, but
primarily
prepare
students to
be informed
about
foreign
policy and
IR debates
27
28
19
17
37
13
35
33
31
17
25
20
33
35
33
31
33
28
31
22
20
Prepare
students to
be informed
about
foreign
policy and
IR debates
14
15
10
17
15
13
20
12
12
0
4
15
11
7
33
23
11
17
26
13
14
II.
Questions About Your Research Interests
11:
What is the highest educational degree you have completed?15
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
15
B.A./B.S.
<1
<1
<1
<1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
<1
0
0
0
3
0
0
<1
M.A./M.S.
7
6
2
5
1
6
3
0
22
0
10
19
6
<1
0
8
14
50
<1
59
17
M. Phil
4
<1
2
3
0
0
0
20
2
0
7
0
0
1
0
0
9
-29
---
Ph.D/D. Phil
85
91
95
92
97
94
97
70
73
100
80
77
94
93
100
92
77
38
62
37
79
Respondents in Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico did not receive the “M. Phil” option.
17
Other
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
10
2
0
2
2
0
5
0
0
0
9
8
4
3
12:
From what institution did you or will you receive your highest degree earned? 16
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
10
12
13
14
14
16
17
18
18
20
Institution
Columbia University
London School of Economics and Political Science
Oxford University
Harvard University
University of California--Berkeley
Ohio State University
Universidade de São Paulo
Cornell University
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor
Stanford University
Yale University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Chicago
University of Pittsburgh
University of California--Los Angeles
Johns Hopkins University
IEP de Paris
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
University of Wisconsin--Madison
University of Virginia
16
Count
80
77
56
54
52
45
43
42
42
40
40
39
37
35
35
34
33
32
32
29
Percentage
2.75
2.65
1.92
1.86
1.79
1.55
1.48
1.44
1.44
1.37
1.37
1.34
1.27
1.20
1.20
1.17
1.13
1.10
1.10
1.00
Responses from all countries were counted and averaged to obtain the displayed results. We display the top
twenty institutions sorted by the percent of all respondents who answered the question with that institution. Lists for
individual countries were too cumbersome to include the report.
18
13:
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
9
11
11
13
13
13
13
17
17
19
19
From what institution did you receive your undergraduate degree?17
Institution
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Harvard University
Ankara Üniversitesi
University of California--Berkeley
Stanford University
Middle East Technical University
Oxford University
Boğaziçi Üniversitesi
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor
Georgetown University
University of Toronto
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Oberlin College
Cornell University
McGill University
University of Cambridge
Aarhus University
Bilkent Üniversitesi
Universidade de São Paulo
17
Count
48
47
44
32
31
31
30
29
21
21
20
20
19
19
19
19
18
18
17
17
Percentage
1.64
1.61
1.51
1.10
1.06
1.06
1.03
0.99
0.72
0.72
0.68
0.68
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.62
0.62
0.58
0.58
Responses from all countries were counted and averaged to obtain the displayed results. We display the top
twenty institutions sorted by the percent of all respondents who answered the question with that institution. Lists for
individual countries were too cumbersome to include in the report.
19
14:
What is your age?18
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Turkey
Israel
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Average
Median
46
49
43
47
46
43
38
40
46
43
45
42
41
53
46
46
44
49
43
41
49
44
47
41
45
43
41
38
38
45
44
45
39
39
55
48
43
44
48
41
37
46
Standard
deviation
12
12
10
12
12
13
6
11
12
5
9
11
9
11
12
9
11
12
12
10
11
18
Min
Max
21
26
26
26
27
21
28
25
27
35
28
27
29
37
32
35
27
25
26
27
27
87
87
79
86
80
74
50
65
75
48
65
74
70
73
63
69
61
69
72
65
77
In surveys distributed to respondents who answered this question in 2008, we did not ask this question again. The
2008 data is included in these responses and updated to reflect respondents’ current age.
20
15:
Are you:19
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Male
69
69
70
73
73
50
67
62
74
89
71
53
74
63
91
73
58
76
68
65
60
Female
31
31
30
27
27
50
33
38
26
11
29
47
26
37
9
27
42
24
32
35
40
19
In surveys distributed to respondents who answered this question in 2008, we did not ask this question again. The
2008 data is included in these responses.
21
16:
What is your country of origin?20
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
20
Country X
24
---53
24
53
82
60
67
55
63
93
90
20
23
50
88
69
69
66
US
38
76
10
13
9
12
7
2
2
0
10
0
7
1
0
31
9
0
0
0
2
Canada
8
2
6
60
1
6
3
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
2
UK
9
2
51
5
18
24
17
1
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
1
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.
22
Other
23
20
33
22
19
35
20
13
30
33
33
35
0
9
80
46
32
12
30
31
29
17:
Which of the following best describes your primary field of study? 21
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
21
Area
Studies
10
10
8
8
9
6
7
14
9
13
5
2
0
23
9
14
0
0
4
0
16
Foreign
Relations
5
5
4
7
4
0
0
7
7
0
0
2
12
5
18
5
8
3
8
2
2
Global
Studies
5
4
7
8
7
0
0
4
9
13
5
5
0
4
9
0
0
0
4
10
2
Int’l
Affairs
6
6
5
6
6
0
3
1
2
0
0
2
8
9
0
5
0
6
4
23
8
Int’l
Relations
38
41
36
37
43
47
20
40
20
25
21
33
35
25
27
32
50
33
47
25
27
Int’l
Studies
6
5
9
8
5
12
7
2
2
0
0
9
19
3
0
5
4
15
4
17
11
Political
Science
14
17
9
12
5
6
37
19
11
25
48
28
8
13
27
18
13
15
7
8
12
Politics
Other
3
2
6
2
7
0
3
0
11
0
0
5
0
3
0
14
4
0
1
6
5
14
10
17
13
15
29
23
13
27
25
21
14
19
15
9
9
21
27
20
8
16
In surveys distributed to respondents who answered this question in 2008, we did not ask this question again. The 2008 data is included in these responses.
23
18:
What is your primary subfield within politics or political science?22
Country X Politics
Comparative
Politics/Area Studies
International
Relations
Political Philosophy/
Political Theory
Methods
Development Studies
Political Sociology
Political
Communication
Women's/
Gender Studies
Public Policy/
Public Administration
Other Subfield/
Other Discipline
All
7
US
10
UK Can Aus
8
8
0
NZ
0
Ire
0
37
46
35
42
24
29
23
9
2
2
3
3
2
0
2
<1
Fra Den
44
0
38
0
83
0
40
100
37
21
0
17
21
13
100
8
19
20
0
26
26
50
5
3
0
10
4
0
4
4
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
<1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
8
4
0
0
0
25
10
8
3
10
13
38
0
0
6
0
22
Fin Nor Swe
0
0
5
Isr
0
Tur HK
20
0
Sin
0
SA
0
Arg Bra Col Mex
0
7
0
7
50
33
25
25
21
29
20
7
50
67
50
0
29
14
0
0
0
0
0
40
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
14
7
7
0
29
0
0
0
33
0
7
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
5
0
0
0
0
25
0
7
14
20
0
11
16
50
10
0
0
0
50
7
0
0
Only those respondents who indicated in the previous question that their primary field of study was “Political Science” or “Politics” received this question on their survey. The
number of respondents to this question represents 10.2% of the total sample (355 out of 3464).
24
19:
How would you estimate your current working schedule to be divided between these
components of academic life?23
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey25
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Research
36
33
38
36
36
34
41
45
43
34
49
46
40
39
35
38
26
37
34
31
40
Teaching24
42
44
41
36
42
45
36
22
33
33
32
35
36
44
38
31
45
40
47
48
37
23
Consulting
8
6
5
10
5
5
4
23
13
4
8
4
16
-3
8
9
14
11
15
15
Community Service
12
12
10
15
9
8
11
16
9
12
9
4
11
10
9
10
7
13
8
16
14
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76100%. To generate these averages, we identified the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of
respondents; those responses were then averaged across each activity in order to compare the overall percent
variation between countries across activities.
24
Includes time spent in the classroom, time spent preparing for teaching, and time spent grading students’ work.
25
Due to a technical error, Turkey was not given “Consulting” as a possible option for this question.
25
20:
Which of the following statements best characterizes your work? (Choose the closest
option if none of them is an exact fit.)
I employ a rational
choice framework.
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
7
7
3
5
3
0
13
2
9
0
12
4
8
13
18
0
12
9
16
6
9
My work is broadly
rationalist, but I do not
employ a strict rational
choice framework.
46
50
30
41
34
29
40
48
36
25
54
39
56
56
45
60
52
53
44
66
60
26
My work does not
assume the
rationality of actors.
47
43
67
54
63
71
47
50
55
75
34
57
36
31
36
40
36
38
41
28
31
21:
Which of the following best describes your approach to the study of IR? If you do not think of your work as falling within one
of these paradigms, please select the category in which most other scholars would place your work.
Constructivism
All
US26
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
22
20
22
25
22
11
17
24
23
25
8
33
28
24
9
25
33
22
20
29
19
English
School
4
2
10
6
5
17
0
2
7
0
3
4
4
4
0
0
4
9
9
6
2
Feminism
Liberalism
Marxism
Realism
Other
2
2
3
4
4
11
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
1
0
0
4
3
1
2
0
15
20
7
10
9
6
13
7
16
0
23
9
8
15
18
10
21
0
13
21
11
4
2
7
5
5
6
7
2
0
0
3
2
0
7
9
0
0
6
8
6
8
16
16
7
19
13
11
20
23
11
0
13
9
36
26
18
5
13
16
14
13
19
15
12
24
16
22
28
3
17
20
50
10
11
4
11
9
20
17
16
16
8
25
26
I do not use
paradigmatic analysis
22
26
20
16
21
11
40
24
23
25
38
26
20
11
36
40
8
28
19
15
17
The values reported here differ very slightly (less than one percent due to rounding from those we reported in Foreign Policy in January/ February 2011,
because the data for this question originally were generated with a slightly smaller sample. We believe the results are qualitatively equivalent. Before rounding,
constructivism remains the largest school in the United States at 20.39 percent, compared to 19.9 percent for liberalism.
27
22:
What is your main area of research within IR?
Comparative Foreign
Policy
Development Studies
Global Civil Society
History of the Int’l
Relations Discipline
Human Rights
Human Security
Int’l Environment
Int’l Ethics
Int’l History
Int’l Law
Int’l Organization(s)
Int’l Political
Economy
Int’l Relations of a
Particular
Region/Country
Int’l Relations
Theory
Int’l Security
Int’l Health
Philosophy of Science
US Foreign Policy
Country X Foreign
Policy
Other
I am not an IR
scholar
European Studies/
European Integration
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
4
4
1
5
5
2
2
3
<1
4
4
2
2
2
1
0
6
0
0
3
0
7
2
1
2
16
0
0
0
13
0
7
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
8
0
0
3
3
0
6
2
2
6
6
2
1
4
2
<1
2
1
2
1
2
2
5
<1
3
2
2
<1
<1
3
6
<1
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
<1
2
2
3
2
<1
<1
6
<1
3
3
2
1
2
1
3
0
6
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
7
1
0
0
1
0
4
0
7
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
5
5
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
9
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
4
12
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
2
0
3
0
2
2
3
0
2
2
2
0
8
4
0
1
3
1
3
0
4
3
3
12
13
11
13
9
12
17
5
2
0
12
5
4
6
27
14
16
3
15
4
9
7
4
6
7
11
0
7
11
5
13
2
7
8
12
18
14
4
25
10
25
21
7
19
<1
<1
5
6
21
<1
<1
8
9
20
<1
0
4
6
21
<1
0
2
8
19
<1
0
3
18
35
0
0
0
0
13
0
3
3
7
14
1
1
5
11
5
0
2
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
13
2
0
2
16
24
0
4
4
8
11
1
0
1
0
9
0
0
0
10
29
0
0
0
12
16
0
0
0
16
19
0
0
3
5
22
<1
0
3
10
2
0
0
0
5
8
0
0
1
3
9
-8
1
12
6
10
6
13
0
12
3
3
4
13
5
14
0
13
2
12
4
11
16
16
13
9
0
9
0
0
12
8
3
9
12
8
6
13
7
13
6
6
4
5
6
6
20
4
2
13
17
11
4
5
9
10
4
6
2
2
6
6
4
12
4
1
0
17
11
23
25
24
14
0
11
0
5
0
0
2
4
5
28
23:
What are your secondary areas of research within IR? Check all that apply.
Comparative Foreign
Policy
Development Studies27
Global Civil Society
History of the Int’l
Relations Discipline
Human Rights
Human Security
Int’l Environment
Int’l Ethics
Int’l History
Int’l Law
Int’l Organization(s)
Int’l Political
Economy
Int’l Relations of a
Particular
Region/Country
Int’l Relations Theory
Int’l Security
Int’l Health
Philosophy of Science
US Foreign Policy
Country X Foreign
Policy
European
Studies/European
Integration
Other
27
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
15
12
8
14
13
8
11
12
8
15
13
12
19
24
11
6
24
12
5
0
10
29
6
8
18
7
2
20
20
20
12
15
9
9
19
11
9
0
0
17
5
5
30
30
0
25
0
6
21
29
0
28
17
10
15
-8
35
13
22
19
9
12
5
10
9
5
5
9
8
19
3
11
7
6
3
7
10
20
7
9
12
4
7
12
6
18
6
8
13
3
4
8
8
19
7
11
24
11
13
14
12
21
6
12
18
6
12
12
24
24
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
8
4
6
3
4
9
5
26
7
7
5
9
7
9
16
9
0
0
0
0
20
0
20
0
6
15
0
12
9
0
9
35
2
9
6
6
6
6
0
21
0
5
9
0
14
0
5
0
6
7
5
3
2
12
4
10
0
20
10
0
0
0
0
10
0
6
13
0
6
0
0
25
4
13
21
21
4
8
17
29
7
3
3
0
3
17
7
10
7
12
10
4
2
13
7
30
11
9
11
2
7
22
2
20
9
13
13
12
8
13
6
17
15
17
13
13
22
6
0
13
20
0
21
9
9
7
20
0
33
21
15
13
16
17
20
18
1
3
17
12
16
18
1
3
22
17
25
18
<1
4
12
16
24
20
1
2
14
31
24
17
7
4
18
18
29
24
0
0
12
10
25
10
0
0
10
24
19
29
3
5
22
23
20
16
0
5
7
40
20
20
0
20
0
6
21
18
3
3
15
6
26
17
0
4
2
23
27
23
0
0
5
22
19
15
0
3
6
30
10
20
0
0
10
19
44
6
0
6
0
21
21
25
0
0
8
45
48
21
0
3
10
38
33
18
<1
5
21
33
20
20
2
0
24
30
22
14
1
8
20
9
--
8
17
21
6
10
15
5
20
15
15
14
32
20
6
42
48
39
28
30
9
11
7
11
9
15
8
12
8
14
6
6
40
15
23
15
16
20
20
0
9
3
15
6
9
9
18
7
10
10
0
13
8
8
14
10
5
11
9
11
5
15
Due to a technical error, Brazil was not given this response option.
29
24:
In your research, what is the main region of the world that you study, if any?
Central Asia
East Asia
Eastern
Europe
Latin
America
M. E. and N.
Africa
North
America
Oceania
Russia/Soviet
Union
South Asia
Southeast
Asia
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Western
Europe
Country X28
Transnt’l
Actors/Int’l
Orgs/Int’l
Non-Gov.
Orgs
Global/Use
crossregional data
None
28
All
<1
7
US
<1
9
UK
<1
5
Can
<1
7
Aus
<1
21
NZ
0
6
Ire
0
3
Fra
0
1
Den
0
2
Fin
0
14
Nor
0
3
Swe
2
4
Isr
0
0
Tur
4
2
HK
0
64
Sin
0
19
SA
0
0
Arg
0
0
Bra
1
4
Col
0
7
Mex
0
5
3
3
5
2
1
0
3
7
7
29
3
5
0
7
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
9
8
3
5
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
65
31
37
29
8
8
9
8
3
6
7
14
9
0
0
13
29
19
0
0
0
3
2
9
4
5
<1
1
<1
9
0
17
0
5
6
0
0
0
0
10
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
4
0
2
<1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
10
0
7
0
19
0
3
2
2
2
4
2
4
1
1
4
0
6
13
0
2
1
2
2
0
0
3
5
2
4
0
8
8
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
3
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
2
2
3
2
13
6
0
2
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
2
<1
6
7
5
5
2
0
3
8
14
0
13
5
4
1
0
5
64
3
5
2
<1
12
8
10
8
22
4
10
--
4
8
6
0
37
3
13
4
25
5
14
0
35
8
27
4
8
21
15
22
18
0
5
0
0
20
0
16
4
16
7
9
9
11
10
9
9
11
7
11
10
20
16
29
13
16
8
7
9
14
4
6
11
2
11
14
9
19
10
10
9
12
10
12
10
33
28
13
3
8
5
9
5
0
14
13
5
9
5
4
8
5
6
9
0
5
10
8
0
0
0
12
4
9
4
9
2
Due to a technical error, not all respondents in Canada were given this response choice.
30
25:
In your research, what other areas of the world do you study? Check all that apply.
Central Asia
East Asia
Eastern
Europe
Latin
America
M. E. and N.
Africa
North
America29
Oceania
Russia/Soviet
Union
South Asia
Southeast
Asia
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Western
Europe
Country X30
Transnt’l
Actors/Int’l
Orgs/Int’l
Non-Gov.
Orgs
Global/Use
crossregional data
None
All
6
13
US
6
16
UK
7
12
Can
4
8
Aus
4
24
NZ
18
29
Ire
7
4
Fra
8
8
Den
5
12
Fin
0
14
Nor
5
8
Swe
4
2
Isr
0
12
Tur
15
4
HK
0
9
Sin
11
42
SA
4
8
Arg
0
13
Bra
2
9
Col
15
13
Mex
5
9
11
11
13
8
9
12
22
9
7
14
18
13
4
15
9
0
4
9
3
11
7
13
13
6
11
9
12
0
5
9
14
13
2
0
2
9
5
8
25
32
32
33
15
18
13
6
15
18
7
10
19
14
5
6
31
22
0
26
12
9
13
11
8
17
3
10
2
19
1
22
3
28
14
35
47
26
0
33
1
30
5
14
0
21
0
9
2
27
0
13
0
18
0
16
5
4
0
25
0
32
1
23
4
37
1
11
10
13
11
9
10
6
12
11
22
12
12
7
11
8
10
7
7
29
29
13
5
2
9
0
0
18
2
18
9
5
21
4
16
9
3
7
4
17
17
7
3
9
9
8
7
25
18
4
5
5
14
8
2
12
4
36
32
4
6
4
13
4
9
10
12
9
7
24
4
11
14
29
15
13
8
2
9
5
24
3
4
4
3
23
30
23
29
22
20
21
34
17
35
24
24
22
37
30
24
33
16
71
57
21
23
20
17
8
46
31
38
18
55
16
37
20
24
31
44
21
27
21
36
16
45
25
26
25
27
35
24
30
32
26
14
15
22
19
15
18
21
20
31
25
32
27
19
11
20
12
16
15
17
14
22
6
18
12
11
7
19
10
21
7
29
0
21
5
19
19
15
4
13
10
18
9
16
5
28
8
22
0
17
10
21
6
27
4
29
On the Canada survey, respondents were given the response choice of “USA” instead of “North America.” Due to a technical error on the France survey, respondents were given
the response choice of “USA” instead of “North America.”
30
Due to a technical error, not all respondents in Canada were given this response choice.
31
26:
In general, how would you characterize your work in epistemological terms?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Positivist
47
59
27
42
35
33
70
32
34
14
53
30
62
40
64
60
39
50
28
37
33
Non-positivist
28
21
38
28
34
33
7
36
48
14
21
39
15
30
27
30
17
37
44
30
33
32
Post-positivist
26
20
35
30
31
33
23
32
18
71
26
31
23
30
9
10
43
13
29
33
34
27:
In your research, do you emphasize the role of ideational factors (such as culture,
perceptions, ideology, beliefs, etc.) when explaining international outcomes?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Yes
84
80
92
86
89
94
63
93
88
86
82
93
92
95
73
95
88
94
77
88
88
No
16
20
8
14
11
6
37
7
12
14
18
7
8
5
27
5
12
6
23
13
12
33
28:
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
In your research, what methods do you primarily employ?
Quantitative
Analysis
Qualitative
Analysis
Formal
Modeling
Experimental
15
23
6
6
4
11
37
2
2
14
28
7
23
9
36
10
12
0
8
6
16
58
56
69
71
66
56
53
57
75
86
53
77
62
43
45
76
64
67
44
63
44
1
2
0
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
4
3
2
2
<1
<1
1
<1
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
34
Counterfactual
Analysis
<1
<1
<1
<1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<1
0
<1
Pure
Theory
3
2
4
2
6
11
0
7
2
0
3
4
0
3
9
5
4
0
4
0
3
Legal or
Ethical
Analysis
4
3
7
2
5
11
7
1
5
0
3
2
4
4
0
0
0
3
3
4
3
Policy
Analysis
17
11
13
17
17
11
3
26
16
0
10
11
12
40
9
10
16
27
36
23
32
29:
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
In your research, what other methods do you employ, not including your primary methods? Please check all that apply.
Quantitative
Analysis
Qualitative
Analysis
Formal
Modeling
Experimental
22
23
14
23
25
17
12
17
33
14
29
29
21
15
9
15
16
23
21
37
34
27
30
20
17
22
28
42
20
15
14
34
11
29
32
45
15
28
20
33
33
34
7
9
3
5
2
6
23
5
5
14
7
4
4
5
18
0
4
0
6
9
8
5
6
2
3
2
0
4
6
8
0
2
2
4
5
0
0
0
13
6
7
10
35
Counterfactual
Analysis
13
16
10
18
9
11
15
10
18
14
10
11
0
12
0
10
0
3
9
2
7
Pure
Theory
16
14
19
18
20
22
15
20
23
14
17
31
8
15
9
15
12
27
17
15
12
Legal or
Ethical
Analysis
15
15
15
17
19
28
0
12
18
43
20
11
8
14
9
10
12
3
10
13
13
Policy
Analysis
None
43
41
45
43
49
50
23
54
55
29
39
42
38
36
55
50
40
60
43
39
44
8
7
11
7
9
6
12
7
3
14
2
7
8
6
0
15
8
3
13
11
9
30:
Which of the following qualitative methods do you use? Please check all that apply.31
Single Case Study
Comparative Case
Study
Narrative Analysis
Discourse Analysis
Ethnography
Process Tracing
Thick Description
Analytic Induction
Critical Theory
Dialectical Research
Hermeneutics
Ethical Inquiry
Other
All
63
US
63
UK
56
Can
66
Aus
59
NZ
73
Ire
70
Fra
58
Den
69
Fin
71
Nor
60
Swe
67
Isr
64
Tur
63
HK
56
Sin
67
SA
62
Arg
69
Bra
56
Col
57
Mex
76
79
30
32
12
37
23
14
20
4
8
8
4
87
30
22
11
44
25
14
13
3
5
10
4
69
37
45
15
27
30
7
33
4
9
9
4
78
31
42
14
36
28
11
28
4
7
6
6
76
34
45
19
24
24
16
34
3
8
14
3
80
47
33
13
27
13
7
33
0
27
27
0
74
33
33
4
33
19
19
15
0
0
0
4
70
16
49
30
53
21
18
12
4
5
5
5
82
15
36
10
44
33
21
18
0
26
8
8
57
71
86
43
0
0
0
29
0
29
43
29
89
23
29
6
31
17
6
14
3
0
6
0
69
33
46
13
50
15
8
17
2
6
4
4
77
27
32
0
18
14
9
5
0
9
5
5
62
31
36
9
36
14
37
26
6
20
1
<1
89
56
22
11
11
22
22
22
0
0
0
0
83
39
33
22
61
33
28
6
0
6
6
0
71
19
19
10
43
14
24
24
0
0
5
5
88
15
19
4
19
8
12
27
4
8
0
4
61
15
39
7
27
18
13
20
7
8
2
4
77
30
43
11
20
5
18
32
9
27
5
0
77
17
43
11
27
9
13
29
13
11
7
5
31
Only those respondents who indicated that they used qualitative methods in the previous questions (“In your research, what methods do you primarily employ?” OR “In your
research, what other methods do you employ, not including your primary methods? Please check all that apply.”) received this question. The number of respondents to this
question represents 73.3% of the total sample (2504 out of 3464).
36
31:
Does your research tend to be basic or applied? By basic research we mean research for the sake of knowledge, without any
particular immediate policy application in mind. Conversely, applied research is done with specific policy applications in mind.32
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
32
Primarily
basic
21
21
28
18
20
17
20
29
18
71
21
23
17
7
10
36
14
7
25
21
25
Both basic and applied, but
more basic than applied
38
39
41
43
41
33
37
29
44
29
46
48
46
25
70
7
32
40
30
34
27
Both equally
15
16
13
15
14
6
20
13
13
0
5
13
21
18
10
14
18
20
13
17
22
Both basic and applied, but
more applied than basic
15
11
12
15
9
33
20
23
16
0
23
13
8
38
0
36
18
23
18
26
16
Primarily applied
11
12
7
9
16
11
3
6
9
0
5
4
8
13
10
7
18
10
15
2
10
In surveys distributed to respondents who answered this question in 2008, we did not ask this question again. The 2008 data is included in these responses.
37
32:
Which of the following best describes what motivates your research?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Appeal to
popular audience
3
2
3
5
<1
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
<1
0
6
0
3
<1
9
14
Issue area
Methodology
Paradigm
39
40
42
46
41
29
50
53
34
57
38
49
33
22
70
22
43
41
38
41
29
3
2
2
1
2
0
7
1
2
14
5
2
4
5
0
0
4
3
8
2
3
5
4
4
2
6
6
3
5
9
0
0
5
13
22
0
6
0
10
2
2
4
38
Policy relevance/
current events
33
35
26
31
38
35
27
22
43
14
41
27
38
32
30
39
35
28
39
33
35
Region
Other
7
6
8
3
5
6
3
9
5
14
5
7
4
14
0
11
9
7
10
9
10
9
10
16
12
7
24
7
3
7
0
10
9
8
4
0
17
9
7
2
4
4
33:
Which of the following best describes your positions generally on social issues?33
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Very Left/
liberal
17
26
13
15
8
12
13
18
10
0
3
9
13
2
0
5
0
0
<1
0
0
Left/
liberal
36
40
40
40
45
24
40
40
36
0
42
28
22
22
20
37
14
17
22
16
22
Slightly Left/
liberal
20
13
25
-23
24
33
-21
67
19
23
26
34
50
26
38
48
47
42
48
Middle of
the Road
19
12
15
41
14
35
13
31
21
33
22
26
35
26
10
26
43
28
23
18
25
33
Slightly Right/
conservative
5
4
5
-7
0
0
-10
0
11
9
4
14
20
5
5
7
6
22
5
Right/
conservative
3
3
2
4
3
6
0
11
2
0
3
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
Very Right/
conservative
<1
1
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The U.S. survey offered the responses “liberal” and “conservative.” All other surveys offered the responses “left” and “right.” Due to a technical error, the
France and Canada surveys did not receive “Slightly Left/liberal” and “Slightly Right/conservative” response options.
39
34:
Which of the following best describes your positions generally on economic issues?34
All
US
UK
Can
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
34
Very Left/
liberal
12
18
11
10
8
12
7
18
7
0
8
8
9
2
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
Left/
liberal
28
31
37
24
33
24
27
24
26
14
19
15
17
19
10
16
19
20
21
22
24
Slightly Left/
liberal
23
17
24
23
26
18
33
17
19
43
28
30
22
35
30
42
29
37
39
31
41
Middle of
the Road
20
17
15
23
14
29
13
19
19
29
19
30
35
29
40
11
38
37
30
22
25
Slightly Right/
conservative
11
10
10
14
11
6
10
19
26
14
19
13
9
13
10
21
14
7
6
22
10
Right/
conservative
4
5
2
6
6
12
7
3
2
0
3
4
9
2
10
5
0
0
1
2
1
The U.S. survey offered the responses “liberal” and “conservative.” All other surveys offered the responses “left” and “right.”
40
Very Right/
conservative
1
1
<1
0
<1
0
3
0
2
0
3
0
0
<1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
35:
What is your current status within your home department?35
Chaired Professor
Full Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Instructor or
Lecturer
Adjunct or Visiting
Instructor/Professor
Emeritus
Other
Associate Lecturer
Research
Assistant/Fellow,
Teaching Fellow, or
Post-Doctoral Fellow
Maître de
Conférences36
Tutorial Fellow,
Adjunct Instructor,
or Professor
Emeritus37
All
4
25
28
25
US
7
27
29
23
UK
-23
33
36
Can
-28
32
21
Aus
3
12
28
13
NZ
0
6
24
29
Ire
-3
27
67
Fra
-25
---
Den
4
13
33
13
Fin
14
29
0
0
Nor
0
36
38
3
Swe
7
9
18
16
Isr
13
13
22
22
Tur
9
10
23
43
HK
10
40
0
40
Sin
0
10
35
40
SA
4
22
9
17
Arg
-48
24
21
Bra
-15
30
33
Col
-30
32
30
Mex
-75
14
2
6
4
<1
9
28
29
--
--
2
29
3
16
17
10
0
0
39
0
1
2
0
4
1
4
<1
5
2
2
<1
<1
----
1
3
4
--
3
1
6
1
6
0
6
0
-----
18
-17
--
0
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
16
0
4
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
10
0
5
0
0
0
0
9
7
0
0
--
2
1
16
--
2
0
4
--
3
1
5
--
3
<1
4
2
5
0
3
21
22
29
15
16
0
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
<1
--
--
--
--
--
--
18
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
<1
--
2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
35
Because each survey was tailored to each individual country, some of the professorial titles vary across surveys. Some options were collapsed into the categories reported here.
Not all response options were offered in every country. Those responses that were not offered in particular surveys are indicated by “--" in the report.
36
“Maître de conferences” was only given as a response choice on the France survey. On the advice of our local partners in France, this response choice includes assistant
professors and associate professors in France (depending on their CV) and also includes adjuncts in the case of respondents affiliated with the institution IEP de Paris. We
acknowledge that this separate response choice may lower the results for the aforementioned categories.
37
“Tutorial fellow, adjunct instructor or professor emeritus” was only given as a response choice on the UK survey. We acknowledge that this separate response choice may lower
the results for other options with overlapping positions.
41
36:
Other than your native language, how many foreign languages do you understand well
enough to conduct scholarly research?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
None
22
30
31
23
49
33
24
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
15
26
0
0
0
1
One
37
39
34
38
35
28
38
39
24
14
28
39
54
56
50
45
35
33
4
49
32
Two
26
22
23
27
10
28
34
37
29
43
51
39
25
30
40
25
30
30
46
43
45
42
Three or more
14
9
12
12
6
11
3
24
47
43
21
21
17
13
10
15
9
37
50
9
22
37:
How often do you rely on material not written in your native language to conduct
scholarly research?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Never
14
20
21
11
24
22
20
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
15
13
0
<1
0
0
Rarely
20
28
21
22
35
28
17
1
4
0
3
2
4
0
10
15
35
0
5
0
0
Occasionally
19
24
20
27
18
39
27
5
7
0
8
7
13
3
0
30
13
0
11
15
6
43
Regularly
46
27
38
40
23
11
37
93
89
100
90
89
83
97
90
40
39
100
84
85
94
38:
Which of the following have you cited in your scholarship and/or used as a teaching/grading tool? Please check all that apply.38
All
Email Correspondence
Scholarship 35
Teaching
36
Blog Post
Scholarship 20
Teaching
32
Twitter Entry
Scholarship 3
Teaching
5
Facebook Content
Scholarship 4
Teaching
8
Wiki, such as Wikipedia
Scholarship 12
Teaching
29
Wikileaks Document
Scholarship 15
Teaching
21
Podcast
Scholarship 6
Teaching
22
Youtube Video
Scholarship 10
Teaching
57
Other Web Content
Scholarship 54
Teaching
60
US UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col
Mex
31
40
36
20
45
39
38
20
50
13
28
17
80
74
25
15
43
29
36
44
32
32
25
23
36
27
38
25
56
31
30
17
31
52
42
50
33
35
29
37
20
39
19
30
24
30
23
28
31
44
17
45
42
22
23
33
43
43
11
6
12
14
21
19
27
14
0
0
25
19
4
22
14
21
16
21
23
42
18
22
2
5
3
5
2
2
2
7
0
6
3
7
7
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
2
5
6
0
5
0
0
6
0
4
17
0
0
6
7
0
0
1
9
3
9
5
6
3
6
2
5
0
13
10
7
16
3
0
0
29
0
8
6
6
8
6
8
0
9
0
0
6
0
0
9
0
3
5
12
0
7
5
11
9
36
6
19
14
31
7
25
13
38
0
14
35
35
20
28
43
71
19
42
6
18
22
24
5
5
0
38
13
31
9
13
24
28
18
18
7
12
12
15
10
21
15
19
15
24
20
21
31
38
17
28
42
12
10
15
0
14
6
11
10
14
20
17
18
18
13
38
13
13
4
17
21
28
22
25
14
19
32
25
4
24
7
29
8
22
10
34
25
44
3
48
4
1
3
8
0
0
14
25
2
10
10
13
0
9
0
25
0
19
4
26
7
3
10
11
14
12
7
8
6
63
10
59
13
57
14
70
13
81
21
69
20
38
8
33
29
86
0
31
8
48
14
34
18
41
0
75
6
56
0
43
17
48
24
55
21
47
14
46
50
62
60
66
52
53
56
65
50
69
55
69
26
26
50
48
57
43
58
56
68
66
68
58
41
59
38
50
44
56
65
83
62
55
64
62
58
60
58
48
38
The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who answered that a particular option is cited in their scholarship or used as a teaching/grading tool out of the total
number of respondents who selected at least one option for scholarship and/or teaching/grading.
44
39:
Where do you get your information on current events? Please rank your top three sources, using 1 to indicate the source of the greatest
amount of information, 2 for the next greatest source, etc.39
Blogs
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
39
24
28
22
24
22
33
28
37
23
14
15
13
8
20
0
5
17
27
16
20
11
Cable
Television
31
30
13
29
13
6
7
36
33
43
31
23
25
55
60
21
35
50
52
53
47
Newspapers
92
91
93
94
96
78
100
98
91
100
97
95
92
96
100
100
83
93
91
82
88
Network Online News
Television Aggregators
24
58
17
57
44
50
24
61
42
53
28
78
45
52
19
27
12
60
43
57
21
64
52
41
54
67
27
51
0
70
21
84
35
65
10
73
23
82
16
80
13
78
Podcasts
Radio News
5
4
5
7
11
0
3
2
9
0
5
5
4
4
20
5
0
3
3
2
3
42
49
53
37
47
50
45
47
44
29
46
45
38
20
10
26
39
10
13
18
38
Results represent the percentage of respondents who listed each option as a part of their top three rankings.
45
Social
Networking Sites
7
5
7
5
3
11
7
12
9
14
5
13
8
9
10
32
4
13
8
11
13
Twitter
4
4
3
4
5
6
10
3
2
0
3
5
4
7
10
0
13
0
4
2
2
40:
Which of the following apply to your use of, or policy about technology? Please check all
that apply.
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Permit use
of laptops
in class
Permit use
of cell
phones in
class
94
94
96
97
97
94
100
94
93
100
92
98
100
81
90
100
95
97
95
95
95
7
6
8
7
5
0
7
1
9
14
17
9
0
16
0
0
10
3
10
14
8
Allow to cite
Wikipedia
entries in
research
papers
15
15
10
13
8
35
3
13
26
29
25
23
38
27
30
7
15
21
12
7
19
46
Have edited a
Have
Wikipedia
contributed
entry in area
to a blog
of expertise
7
7
6
9
7
18
0
7
9
0
17
9
8
7
0
0
0
7
7
7
2
27
28
32
31
29
24
28
24
37
29
36
23
8
14
10
20
20
24
20
26
16
Regularly
contribute
to a blog
8
7
6
8
7
29
7
10
12
14
3
4
0
13
0
0
5
7
14
14
14
III.
The International Relations Discipline
41:
What percentage of IR literature do you estimate is devoted to each of these paradigms today? 40
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Constructivism Realism
20
33
17
32
23
31
20
31
25
33
20
28
18
29
31
29
21
33
20
18
19
30
22
25
31
39
22
43
13
44
21
38
23
39
27
37
24
36
26
36
30
38
Liberalism Marxism Feminism
28
9
7
29
7
7
26
9
9
28
9
8
28
8
8
23
9
9
24
7
9
22
6
7
27
6
6
13
5
7
28
8
5
26
7
9
23
8
8
28
13
7
17
6
5
32
5
3
35
18
10
29
14
8
31
14
7
34
18
7
35
16
12
40
English School
9
6
11
8
12
7
9
12
9
9
8
9
9
12
8
10
15
19
17
16
19
Non-paradigmatic
17
19
16
13
14
21
11
18
21
18
19
10
22
14
16
9
18
16
16
16
23
Other
13
13
9
18
6
10
3
5
13
3
8
3
29
16
0
8
5
3
25
25
19
Respondents were offered the following response options: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 76-100%. To generate these averages, we identified
the midpoint of each range and multiplied by the number of respondents; those responses were then averaged across each paradigm in order to compare the
overall percent variation across paradigms. Rows add to more than 100 percent because respondents were asked to estimate a percentage for each paradigm.
Finland (93 percent), Hong Kong (109 percent), and Ireland (110 percent) were closer to 100 percent, while scholars in Mexico (192 percent), Colombia (178
percent), and Brazil (170 percent) overestimated by larger amounts. The ranking of paradigms is likely the most relevant feature of this table, rather than the
absolute amounts estimated.
47
42:
List four scholars who have produced the best work in the field of IR in the past 20 years.
Please provide both first and last names.41
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
15
18
19
19
Scholar
Alexander Wendt
Robert Keohane
John Mearsheimer
James Fearon
Joseph Nye
Robert Jervis
Martha Finnemore
Peter Katzenstein
Kenneth Waltz
John Ikenberry
David Lake
Stephen Walt
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
Barry Buzan
Stephen Krasner
Samuel Huntington
Beth Simmons
Jack Snyder
John Ruggie
Michael Barnett
All
24
21
14
14
13
10
9
9
8
8
7
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
41
US
21
21
17
18
15
11
10
9
8
8
8
7
7
3
6
6
6
6
4
5
UK
30
20
5
1
7
8
9
8
8
6
3
4
1
14
4
0
2
2
1
1
Can
28
22
8
6
13
8
5
6
13
5
5
5
3
11
0
6
2
0
11
9
This question was asked of half the respondents in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. The other half
of respondents in these countries received question 43. Respondents were randomly assigned to one group or the
other. The results displayed here represent the percentage of respondents who answered that a particular scholar
belonged in the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one scholar’s name.
48
43:
List four scholars who have had the greatest influence on the field of IR in the past 20 years. Please provide both first and last
names.42
Scholar
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Alexander Wendt
47
45
53
57
48
64
36
58
43
100
33
50
35
51
50
88
50
43
33
57
31
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Robert Keohane
Kenneth Waltz
Joseph Nye
John Mearsheimer
James Fearon
Samuel Huntington
Robert Cox
39
26
20
19
11
10
41
26
19
24
20
10
36
22
20
20
5
9
36
19
21
8
8
4
22
30
14
26
2
11
27
36
9
18
0
18
23
27
14
14
5
0
28
12
21
21
0
7
57
57
13
13
0
13
50
0
50
0
0
0
40
40
40
13
13
13
63
42
13
13
0
13
18
18
24
0
6
24
31
36
29
16
2
24
20
33
33
20
0
0
75
50
0
25
13
0
19
13
32
0
0
19
62
38
5
10
0
5
51
26
31
11
0
6
47
17
27
13
0
20
44
23
23
6
0
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
Barry Buzan
Peter Katzenstein
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
Robert Jervis
Stephen Walt
Stephen Krasner
8
8
7
7
7
6
2
2
10
12
11
8
16
15
6
1
1
2
29
8
8
4
1
3
12
11
11
0
2
6
27
9
0
0
9
9
18
14
9
5
0
14
0
19
2
0
5
9
4
13
9
0
0
9
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
13
0
0
4
21
0
0
0
4
0
6
6
0
19
6
10
18
<1
<1
2
6
0
33
20
20
0
33
13
0
13
0
0
0
13
25
0
0
0
0
14
24
5
0
0
19
16
20
0
<1
<1
2
0
23
0
0
0
7
9
4
4
2
0
2
15
16
17
18
19
20
Martha Finnemore
John Ikenberry
Bruce Russett
John Ruggie
Susan Strange
James Rosenau
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
7
6
7
3
2
5
1
9
2
9
7
8
10
1
4
11
10
9
2
3
0
7
10
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
9
0
5
2
0
2
9
4
0
0
0
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
4
4
0
8
0
4
0
0
0
6
0
0
5
2
3
3
0
2
20
0
0
0
0
0
13
13
38
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
14
8
2
0
0
<1
3
7
3
0
0
3
0
2
0
4
0
8
8
4
2
3
6
1
0
0
19
0
0
0
4
12
7
0
0
6
5
4
3
4
Rank
1
42
This question was asked of all respondents in every country surveyed, except the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. In these three countries, we
randomly assigned half the respondents to receive question 42 and half to receive question 43. To calculate the “All” column in this table, we double-weighted
responses in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada to accurately reflect the relative percentage of respondents in these countries who selected each
response.
49
44:
Aside from you, please list four scholars who have produced the most interesting scholarship in the past five years. Please
provide both first and last names.43
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Scholar
Alexander Wendt
Joseph Nye
Martha Finnemore
John Mearsheimer
Peter Katzenstein
Stephen Walt
Michael Barnett
John Ikenberry
Kathryn Sikkink
Barry Buzan
James Fearon
11
12
13
14
15
16
David Lake
Beth Simmons
Robert Keohane
Daniel Drezner
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
Daniel Deudney
17
17
19
20
20
Patrick Jackson
Andrew Hurrell
John Mueller
Robert Jervis
All
12
11
10
9
US
7
8
8
7
UK
4
2
2
4
Can
13
4
4
2
Aus
4
3
4
2
NZ
0
8
17
8
Ire
0
5
11
5
Fra
6
9
3
0
Den
0
0
5
14
Fin
0
0
0
0
Nor
6
6
0
11
Swe
10
0
5
5
Isr
15
0
0
0
Tur
16
12
2
12
HK
0
40
0
0
Sin
25
0
0
0
SA
6
19
6
0
Arg
18
0
5
9
Bra
4
7
4
5
Col
19
11
0
4
Mex
14
6
2
0
9
8
8
7
7
7
5
5
5
6
6
2
4
3
1
4
4
8
7
3
7
2
<1
3
4
2
5
3
3
3
0
8
8
0
8
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
6
14
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
11
0
0
0
6
10
5
5
10
10
10
0
0
8
0
0
0
4
11
2
2
1
22
40
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
38
25
13
0
0
0
6
0
13
0
0
14
0
23
0
23
<1
<1
<1
<1
0
10
7
4
0
4
0
19
4
0
2
2
4
4
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
2
4
4
2
<1
<1
4
2
<1
4
6
0
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
4
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
11
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
20
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
<1
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
11
0
0
0
2
4
8
0
2
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
<1
3
3
4
4
6
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
0
2
1
2
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
43
The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who answered that a particular scholar belonged in the top four out of the total number of
respondents who listed at least one scholar’s name.
50
45:
Do you believe that a job candidate who completed his or her PhD in an American
university is generally advantaged on the Country X job market compared to one who
completed his or her PhD in a Country X university? 44
All
US45
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Yes
50
84
31
54
46
47
65
24
24
17
35
21
60
85
88
100
53
63
45
68
69
No
35
7
49
32
39
27
19
52
45
83
39
48
25
9
13
0
26
25
41
15
23
Don’t Know
16
10
20
14
15
27
15
24
31
0
26
31
15
6
0
0
21
13
14
18
8
44
“Country X” represents the country name in which the respondent is located.
The U.S. survey asked respondents if they believed that a job candidate who completed a PhD at a U.S. university
is generally advantaged in the U.S. job market compared to another candidate who completed a PhD elsewhere.
45
51
Table 2: Worldwide Aggregate Journal Results46
Rank the four journals that publish articles with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think about
international relations. (1 indicates the journal with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with the next greatest
influence, etc.) These can include IR journals, general political science journals and/or non-political science
journals.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Journal
All
International Organization
International Studies Quarterly
International Security
Foreign Affairs
American Political Science Review
World Politics
European Journal of Int’l Relations
Journal of Conflict Resolution
Foreign Policy
Review of International Studies
Millennium: Journal of International Studies
American Journal of Political Science
International Affairs
Security Studies
Review of International Political Economy
Journal of Peace Research
International Studies Review
International Relations
Comparative Politics
Global Governance
65
42
39
33
23
23
20
15
13
11
10
9
9
8
6
5
5
4
4
4
46
This table reports the aggregate results for questions 46 and 47. The results for response option “Other” from question 47 were not
reported in this table because they have no comparable option on the open-ended question 46. The results displayed represent the
percentage of respondents who listed a particular journal among the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least
one journal. Results are presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
52
46:
Rank the four journals that publish articles with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think
about international relations. (1 indicates the journal with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with the
next greatest influence, etc.) These can include IR journals, general political science journals and/or nonpolitical science journals.47
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
18
18
Journal
International Organization
Foreign Affairs
International Security
International Studies Quarterly
World Politics
Foreign Policy
European Journal of International Relations
American Political Science Review
Review of International Studies
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional
International Affairs
Millenium: Journal of International Studies
Journal of Conflict Resolution
Contexto Internacional
Le Monde Diplomatique
International Relations
Journal of Peace Research
Foro Internacional
American Journal of Political Science
Relaciones Internacionales
All
58
38
27
24
16
16
13
12
10
9
8
8
6
6
5
4
3
3
3
3
47
Ire
62
10
10
38
19
0
33
24
19
0
19
5
19
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
Fra
67
31
39
14
19
19
17
8
14
0
6
3
6
0
0
6
3
0
0
0
Den
80
15
25
15
30
10
30
15
15
0
0
15
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
Fin
67
0
33
67
0
0
67
0
67
0
0
67
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
Nor
73
13
20
47
47
13
20
27
0
0
13
0
33
0
0
7
20
0
7
0
Swe
76
16
20
44
28
0
32
24
20
0
4
4
4
0
0
8
8
0
0
0
Arg
74
58
63
16
5
32
5
0
16
0
11
16
0
0
5
5
11
5
5
0
Bra
54
43
26
18
5
15
3
7
6
25
9
12
5
17
8
2
0
0
2
0
Col
36
54
18
18
18
29
11
7
14
0
7
11
7
0
7
4
7
4
4
0
The wording of this question is identical to that in the following question. This table reports the results for Argentina, Brazil,
Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden, where responses were open-ended. The results
displayed represent the percentage of respondents who listed a particular journal among the top four out of the total number of
respondents who listed at least one journal. Results are presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
53
Mex
41
57
22
26
20
19
9
15
2
0
4
6
0
0
6
2
2
13
4
17
47:
Rank the four journals that publish articles with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think
about international relations. (1 indicates the journal with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with the
next greatest influence, etc.) These can include IR journals, general political science journals and/or nonpolitical science journals.48
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
Journal
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
International Organization
International Studies Quarterly
International Security
Foreign Affairs
American Political Science Review
World Politics
European Journal of Int’l Relations
Journal of Conflict Resolution
Foreign Policy
Review of International Studies
American Journal of Political Science
Millennium
International Affairs
Security Studies
Other
Review of International Political Economy
Journal of Peace Research
International Studies Review
Comparative Politics
Global Governance
International Relations
Survival
66
46
42
32
26
25
21
16
12
12
11
10
10
9
7
7
6
5
4
4
4
4
71
52
45
32
32
28
12
22
13
4
13
4
4
10
5
5
6
6
5
3
2
2
66
36
37
17
14
15
52
6
3
37
6
19
18
5
12
13
5
2
2
6
6
5
69
47
38
26
21
26
27
8
8
21
6
19
6
8
10
14
3
3
4
8
5
3
58
39
47
33
7
17
35
4
15
19
4
19
20
7
7
10
2
7
3
5
8
11
45
82
0
27
9
9
45
0
0
45
0
9
18
0
9
18
9
27
0
0
9
0
55
55
45
25
40
5
25
30
0
10
15
0
5
30
15
5
20
5
5
0
0
0
40
21
29
55
17
20
24
12
21
10
10
25
31
5
8
2
6
5
5
2
10
9
67
33
83
50
17
17
0
0
0
0
17
0
33
0
0
0
0
17
33
0
0
0
91
36
73
9
9
36
27
9
0
9
18
9
0
18
0
9
0
9
0
0
0
9
38
13
13
63
19
19
0
13
38
13
6
25
19
13
0
13
0
25
0
0
6
13
48
The wording of this question is identical to that in the previous question. This table reports the 2011 results for all countries
surveyed in 2008 (excluding Ireland). On the advice of our local partners in Turkey, respondents in Turkey also received this question.
The 2008 responses were used to generate the responses that were offered to respondents in 2011. Unlike question 45, which was
provided to nine new countries and Ireland, the ten countries that received this question were offered closed response options,
although they were able to list additional or alternate journals. The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who
listed a particular journal among the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one journal. Results are
presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
54
Table 3: Worldwide Aggregate Press Results49
Rank the four presses that publish books with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think
about international relations. (1 indicates the press with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that
with the next greatest influence, etc.)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Journal
All
Cambridge University Press
Oxford University Press
Princeton University Press
Cornell University Press
Routledge
Palgrave Macmillan
Columbia University Press
Lynne Rienner
Harvard University Press
MIT Press
University of Michigan Press
SAGE Publications
Stanford University Press
University of Chicago Press
Yale University Press
Polity
University of California Press
Editora Universidade de Brasilia
Presses de Science Po
Editora Saraiva
82
56
46
38
32
20
16
15
12
10
8
7
7
7
6
5
4
1
<1
<1
49
This table reports the aggregate results for questions 48 and 49. The results for response option “Other” from
question 49 were not reported in this table because they have no comparable option on the open-ended question 48.
The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who listed a particular press among the top four out of
the total number of respondents who listed at least one press. Results are presented this way to be comparable with
data from 2008 and before.
55
48:
Rank the four presses that publish books with the greatest influence on the way IR
scholars think about international relations. (1 indicates the press with the greatest influence,
2 indicates that with the next greatest influence, etc.)50
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
13
14
14
16
17
17
19
19
19
Press
Cambridge University Press
Oxford University Press
Routledge
Princeton University Press
Palgrave Macmillan
Cornell University Press
Editora Universidade de Brasilia
Columbia University Press
Harvard University Press
MIT Press
SAGE Publications
Polity
Presses de Science Po
Editora Saraiva
Lynne Rienner
Ashgate
Editora UNESP
University of Chicago Press
Pearson Longman
Stanford University Press
Juruá Editora
Percentage
68
52
40
27
23
11
9
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
50
The wording of this question is identical to that in the following question. This table reports the results for
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden, where responses
were open-ended. The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who listed a particular press among
the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one press. Results are presented this way to be
comparable with data from 2008 and before.
56
49:
Rank the four presses that publish books with the greatest influence on the way IR scholars think
about international relations. (1 indicates the press with the greatest influence, 2 indicates that with
the next greatest influence, etc.)51
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Press
Cambridge University Press
Oxford University Press
Princeton University Press
Cornell University Press
Routledge
Palgrave MacMillan
Columbia University Press
Lynne Rienner
Harvard University Press
MIT Press
University of Michigan Press
Stanford University Press
SAGE Publications
University of Chicago Press
Yale University Press
Polity
Other
University of California Press
All US UK Can Aus NZ Isr Tur HK Sin SA
88
85 83 79 76
83 83 67
84 84 87
61
55 67 47 65
33 50 67
57 54 65
43
28 17 32 38
50 75 13
48 56 34
37
31 25 21 11
67 67
0
42 52 29
45
47 50 37 62
17 17 67
32 21 42
22
32 58 26 41
33
8
67
19 11 31
21
20 33 11 18
50 17 13
18 17 16
23
21
8 11
5
0
0
27
16 16 16
12
18 17 21 18
0
8
27
12 10 15
5
7
10
8 11
4
0
8
0
10 13
4
2
2
0 16
2
0
0
0
8 12
8
4
5
9
0 21
8
33 17
0
8
6
4
8
10
8 16 17
0
0
27
7
8
6
3
4
8 21
8
17
0
0
7
7
11
1
4
0 11
4
0
0
7
7
2
15
5
14 17 0
2
0
0
7
5
4
5
5
0
0
5
8
0
0
0
4
5
3
3
4
0
5
2
0
0
0
4
51
The wording of this question is identical to that in the previous question. This table reports the 2011 results for all
countries surveyed in 2008. On the advice of our local partners in Turkey, respondents in Turkey also received this question.
The 2008 responses were used to generate the responses that were offered to respondents in 2011. Unlike question 48, which
was provided to the nine new countries and Ireland, the ten countries that received this question were offered closed response
options, although they were able to list additional or alternate presses. The results displayed represent the percentage of
respondents who listed a particular press among the top four out of the total number of respondents who listed at least one
press. Results are presented this way to be comparable with data from 2008 and before.
57
50:
Rank the three kinds of research outputs that it is most important for you to publish in order to advance your academic career.52
Book: SA, UP
Book: SA, CP
Book: CA, UP
Book: CA, CP
Book: E, UP
Book: E, CP
Book Chapter: UP
Book Chapter: CP
Journal Article:
SA, PR
Journal Article:
SA, NPR
Journal Article:
CA, PR
Journal Article:
CA, NPR
Own Blog Post
Other Blog Post
Newspaper Article
Policy Report
Conference Paper
Other
52
All US UK Can Aus
94
96 90
86 90
39
30 48
27 22
19
21 18
19 19
2
1
1
4
2
7
11
6
11 10
<
1
<
1
0
3
2
5
10 13
11 11
1
1
1 <1
2
NZ
100
54
15
0
8
0
0
0
Ire
96
19
4
0
4
0
4
0
Fra
87
5
32
0
39
0
11
0
Den
93
22
19
4
7
4
19
0
Fin
80
40
20
0
0
0
20
20
88
89
93
87
86
100
96
74
93
100
3
3
1
1
<1
8
0
3
0
0
37
41
30
31
23
15
65
29
37
20
<1
<1
<1
1
1
4
<1
<1
<1
<1
1
<1
4
1
0
<1
0
<1
2
<1
<1
2
0
0
<1
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nor Swe Isr Tur
74
95 89 66
9
16 21 38
22
22 47 13
6
0
0
5
4
19 11 17
13
0
0
0
10
0
3
0
4
4
3
0
88
100 95 84
1
0
0
0
33
70
46 32
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
<0
0
0
0
4
9
3
5
<1
0
0
0
HK
86
14
29
0
0
0
14
0
Sin
100
36
14
0
7
0
0
0
SA
63
26
5
11
16
11
16
11
Arg
92
21
17
4
17
0
25
4
Bra
56
24
13
3
11
6
26
7
Col
53
27
20
13
7
17
13
3
Mex
71
27
31
5
18
5
18
10
100
93
89
79
83
80
69
0
0
0
0
10
13
3
43
36
37
13
48
33
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
4
0
4
0
8
0
<1
0
0
2
<1
8
0
7
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
0
Index of Abbreviations: SA = self-authored; CA = co-authored; UP = university press; CP = commercial press; E = edited; PR = peer-reviewed; NPR = not peer-reviewed
58
51:
In the past two years, have you consulted or worked in a paid capacity for any of the following? Please check all that apply.
Foreign
Gov’t
Interest
Groups
Int’l Orgs.
NGOs
Defense
Contractor
Private
Sector
Think
Tanks
Country X
Gov’t53
Other
None
53
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
HK
Sin
SA Arg
7
7
12
6
8
15
9
7
11
0
0
3
5
2
13
18
11
3
11
12
2
7
13
3
17
9
3
11
9
2
9
8
0
23
23
4
26
22
0
23
7
11
18
14
0
0
20
4
13
13
5
0
14
0
0
16
2
7
15
0
0
13
0
18
0
4
5
2
1
5
0
0
5
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
10
10
10
8
6
0
9
11
7
20
13
5
0
8
15
15
13
13
16
8
4
23
25
0
8
8
16
20
7
53
20
7
55
10
6
54
23
7
55
24
9
53
31
0
62
17
4
48
25
0
41
21
18
54
20
20
20
42
17
42
19
5
59
16
16
63
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.
59
Nor Swe Isr Tur
Bra
Col
Mex
8
6
16
16
6
22
17
0
29
21
8
15
15
3
16
19
6
14
14
0
6
4
2
3
0
25
9
22
21
11
19
14
24
0
55
28
29
13
19
14
11
5
60
0
0
63
27
27
45
17
22
28
38
13
25
31
6
43
25
9
31
33
13
40
52:
In the past two years, have you consulted or worked in an unpaid capacity for any of the following?
Foreign
Gov’t
Interest
Groups
Int’l Orgs.
NGOs
Defense
Contractor
Private
Sector
Think
Tanks
Country X
Gov’t54
Other
None
54
All
US
UK Can Aus NZ
Ire
Fra Den Fin Nor Swe
8
8
9
8
9
0
9
5
7
0
10
0
6
3
50
0
6
6
8
4
10
9
9
23
9
8
23
8
10
18
12
11
25
14
8
30
15
15
54
9
5
23
3
20
20
15
22
33
20
0
60
25
30
35
15
3
21
6
17
33
5
11
24
13
13
38
9
18
18
11
6
22
12
24
12
7
9
19
0
8
15
13
10
20
<1
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
5
5
5
8
<1
0
5
5
7
0
5
0
11
5
25
0
0
0
4
0
5
16
11
18
21
19
15
14
28
19
20
5
15
44
34
38
36
22
24
18
12
10
16
7
50
13
6
56
14
7
49
24
8
41
18
10
43
15
8
38
23
5
45
28
3
38
33
19
33
20
20
40
25
5
30
15
3
59
28
0
33
15
3
46
13
0
38
27
18
36
28
6
33
12
18
29
18
11
50
12
8
54
20
5
45
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.
60
Isr
Tur HK Sin
SA
Arg Bra Col Mex
53:
What are the five best PhD programs in the world for a student who wants to pursue an academic career in international relations?55
Rank
1
2
3
4
Institution
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Harvard University
Princeton University
Stanford University
Columbia University
London School of
Economics and
Political Science
Yale University
Oxford University
University of Chicago
University of
California--Berkeley
University of Cambridge
University of
California--San Diego
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
University of
Michigan--Ann Arbor
Cornell University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Aberystwyth University
George Washington
University
Ohio State University
New York University
All
65
50
39
37
US
67
59
52
42
UK
64
38
20
29
Can
68
48
35
34
Aus
62
43
22
26
NZ
78
0
44
22
Ire
58
32
21
47
Fra
58
38
8
54
Den
69
54
23
38
Fin
0
0
0
0
Nor
63
50
50
25
Swe
50
42
17
8
Isr
67
50
58
58
Tur
63
46
34
34
HK
100
40
40
80
Sin
67
89
33
56
SA
15
15
31
23
Arg
67
60
40
60
Bra
57
32
15
26
Col
50
29
17
29
Mex
54
22
22
28
24
23
23
20
9
26
12
26
54
19
41
15
32
24
31
12
35
15
46
19
33
22
33
11
42
16
37
16
54
17
25
0
38
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
13
38
25
13
33
25
8
8
8
17
0
8
36
34
42
18
40
0
0
0
33
22
33
22
46
38
54
15
40
13
20
27
59
15
36
6
42
29
46
17
26
9
33
4
15
14
19
6
4
21
18
21
7
26
11
11
5
21
13
25
15
23
0
0
13
25
17
0
25
17
13
27
20
0
11
11
8
69
0
20
11
24
13
25
11
13
12
20
3
9
4
11
16
0
0
0
13
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
4
2
11
17
3
5
7
11
0
0
23
0
13
0
0
6
20
22
0
7
4
4
0
10
10
10
8
7
17
11
9
7
2
1
7
7
5
25
6
16
8
8
12
1
26
6
9
24
0
22
0
11
33
0
11
0
5
26
0
0
13
13
8
0
8
8
8
15
0
0
0
0
0
25
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
17
8
25
17
0
3
6
11
8
7
0
20
0
20
0
11
11
0
0
0
8
0
23
15
23
0
0
33
27
7
0
5
18
10
3
0
0
13
25
8
0
11
17
22
0
5
4
4
7
6
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
6
4
0
11
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
17
0
1
3
6
0
0
20
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
6
1
7
8
0
4
2
0
2
55
Responses from all countries were counted and averaged to obtain the displayed results. We display the top twenty institutions sorted by the percent of all respondents who
answered the question with that institution. Lists for individual countries were too cumbersome to include in the report.
61
54:
What are the five best masters programs in the world for a student who wants to pursue a policy career in international relations?56
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Institution
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Harvard University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Columbia University
Princeton University
London School of
Economics and Political
Science
Tufts University
George Washington
University
Oxford University
American University
University of Cambridge
Stanford University
Yale University
University of Chicago
IEP de Paris
University of California-Berkeley
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Syracuse University
University of California-San Diego
King's College London
All
53
50
44
35
34
US
54
66
58
39
42
UK
60
26
22
22
23
Can
58
35
35
43
22
Aus
52
30
34
18
34
NZ
33
33
50
17
33
Ire
38
44
25
38
13
Fra
48
29
24
38
19
Den
58
33
8
8
33
Fin
0
0
0
0
0
Nor
80
20
40
40
60
Swe
9
18
18
27
18
Isr
40
80
70
50
10
Tur
54
27
21
32
33
HK
75
0
50
75
75
Sin
43
57
86
43
43
SA
25
25
33
33
17
Arg
50
64
36
64
43
Bra
52
25
20
24
19
Col
43
35
26
26
9
Mex
29
27
32
24
15
27
27
11
39
69
12
41
19
34
9
33
17
63
0
43
10
67
8
0
0
40
20
36
9
10
40
46
11
25
25
29
43
50
8
21
14
44
11
39
22
32
15
23
16
12
10
9
9
6
4
36
5
19
2
6
5
8
1
3
42
2
16
9
16
<1
4
22
13
9
8
14
10
3
3
13
32
4
27
11
11
4
7
33
17
17
0
17
17
17
0
0
38
0
31
0
19
13
6
0
19
0
24
5
14
0
33
0
8
8
8
17
8
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
0
9
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
4
39
3
29
24
22
9
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
29
29
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
58
0
67
17
17
17
0
7
14
0
21
7
7
0
0
4
31
1
19
10
10
4
12
4
48
0
22
17
17
0
17
5
22
7
12
10
7
2
20
4
2
0
3
7
0
0
0
17
0
20
9
10
11
25
0
0
0
6
9
7
3
3
4
5
<1
<1
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
8
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
10
4
0
25
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
6
0
4
0
0
0
3
3
4
<1
0
16
1
0
0
11
0
0
6
6
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
4
25
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
0
56
Responses from all countries were counted and averaged to obtain the displayed results. We display the top twenty institutions sorted by the percent of all respondents who
answered the question with that institution. Lists for individual countries were too cumbersome to include in the report.
62
55:
What are the five best colleges or universities in Country X for undergraduate students to
study international relations?57
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
20
Institution
Harvard University
Princeton University
Stanford University
Columbia University
Georgetown University
Yale University
London School of Economics and Political Science
University of Chicago
Aberystwyth University
University of Toronto
Oxford University
Dartmouth College
University of British Columbia
Middle East Technical University
George Washington University
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro
Bilkent Üniversitesi
Universidade de São Paulo
Australian National University
American University
McGill University
University of California--Berkeley
Boğaziçi Üniversitesi
57
Percentage
25
22
16
15
14
12
10
9
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed. Because this question asked respondents to
name the best colleges or universities in their own countries, the aggregate data reported here does not reflect an
accurate ranking of world institutions for undergraduate study. Rather, it largely reflects the effects of individual
country sample sizes.
63
56:
To what extent do you think that a blog devoted to international relations should count in
the professional evaluation of colleagues in each of the following categories? (Please check
all that apply.)
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Should
Count
66
66
58
66
67
64
69
76
62
25
61
57
84
67
38
70
65
70
67
81
59
Service
Should Not
Count
34
34
42
34
33
36
31
24
38
75
39
43
16
33
63
30
35
30
33
19
41
Should
Count
29
25
24
27
25
14
12
36
23
20
26
33
32
64
0
30
22
41
37
43
34
64
Research
Should Not
Count
71
75
76
73
75
86
88
64
77
80
74
67
68
36
100
70
78
59
63
57
66
57:
How useful are the following kinds of IR research to policy makers?58
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
58
Area
Studies
2.54
2.52
2.52
2.5
2.56
2.75
2.42
2.53
2.32
2.25
2.47
2.48
2.32
2.64
2.83
2.55
2.59
2.55
2.59
2.63
2.71
Contemporary
Case Studies
2.48
2.44
2.46
2.51
2.55
2.75
2.61
2.55
2.32
2
2.47
2.33
2.16
2.52
2.83
2.36
2.56
2.48
2.67
2.57
2.72
Formal
Models
1.09
1.03
1.14
0.79
1.13
1
1.26
1.02
0.83
1
0.63
0.94
0.94
1.46
0.83
1.2
1.35
0.81
1.44
1.34
1.69
Historical
Case studies
2.04
2.07
2.05
1.91
2.09
2.45
1.83
1.7
1.87
1.75
1.63
1.88
1.47
2.07
1.83
2.18
1.94
1.81
2.16
2.03
2.19
Policy
Analysis
2.50
2.47
2.43
2.46
2.63
2.58
2.54
2.52
2.36
2
2.53
2.45
2.21
2.55
3
2.45
2.76
2.48
2.67
2.59
2.83
Very useful = 3, Somewhat useful = 2, Not very useful = 1, Not useful at all = 0, Don’t know = not included
65
Quantitative
Analysis
1.81
1.8
1.79
1.69
1.69
1.75
2.04
1.81
1.5
1.5
1.94
1.76
1.32
1.86
1.33
1.5
1.69
1.73
2.19
1.89
2.28
Theoretical
Analysis
1.54
1.51
1.45
1.3
1.62
1.92
1.82
1.07
1.26
1
1.69
1.53
1.11
1.68
1.67
1.5
1.65
1.64
1.96
1.59
1.97
58:
What statement comes closest to representing your views on the relationship between the kind of research IR scholars produce
and the kind of research that the policy community finds most useful?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
The gap is
growing.
37
42
36
38
34
36
46
28
42
40
26
26
35
18
38
50
44
25
24
19
30
The gap, whatever its size, is about
as wide as it was 20-30 years ago.
39
43
46
47
38
36
42
43
42
60
42
50
35
23
25
33
33
38
11
39
25
66
The gap between IR scholars and
policy practitioners is shrinking.
23
14
18
15
25
21
13
30
17
0
32
24
30
59
25
17
22
38
53
42
44
There is no gap.
2
<1
<1
<1
4
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<1
13
0
0
0
13
0
2
59:
Which statement comes closest to representing your views on the ideal relationship
between the academy and the policy community?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
There should be a higher wall of
separation between the academic
and policy communities.
10
8
21
14
15
17
17
17
14
20
18
11
5
7
13
8
6
5
7
3
9
67
There should be a larger number
of links between the academic and
policy communities.
90
92
79
86
85
83
83
83
86
80
82
89
95
93
88
92
94
95
93
97
91
60:
Which of the following best describes what you believe should primarily motivate research in the discipline?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Appeal to
popular audience
3
2
3
3
<1
0
4
7
4
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
13
<1
10
11
Issue area
of problem
51
54
57
55
62
50
31
69
39
60
70
53
50
29
75
42
65
33
35
29
26
Methodology
Paradigm
2
1
1
2
<1
0
12
0
4
0
0
0
0
8
13
0
0
0
7
3
5
4
3
2
2
2
14
0
7
0
0
0
3
10
22
0
0
6
4
3
6
5
68
Policy relevance/
current events
29
29
17
25
27
21
38
11
39
0
17
23
40
29
13
33
29
38
47
35
40
Region
Other
2
1
2
<1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
<1
10
5
10
9
18
12
8
14
15
2
14
40
13
23
0
3
0
25
0
8
7
6
8
61:
Which of the following changes to current academic norms would have a beneficial impact on foreign policy and/or on the academic
discipline of IR?59
All US UK Can Aus NZ Ire Fra Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Bra Col
Departments assign greater value in personnel decisions to publications in policy journals
Policy Impact
53 57 54
49
48 67 53 50
39
67
33
45 49 58
57
82 36 20
49 32
Impact on the Discipline 54 57 43
51
53 33 24 50
52
67
58
50 38 32
57
82 57 65
57 75
60
Universities increase support for “Diplomat in Residence” or “Professor of Practice” positions
Policy Impact
29 33 24
31
32 31 34 30
25
14
19
16 25 45
50
38 17 41
-56
Impact on the Discipline 33 39 25
37
35 19 24 32
18
14
14
28 33 41
63
25 39 17
-37
Universities support policy-relevant education and training opportunities for faculty
Policy Impact
36 42 25
31
38 38 45 14
35
14
8
26 27 45
63
50 39 48
38 40
Impact on the Discipline 39 44 29
31
28 25 31 35
33
29
17
24 45 32
75
31 39 34
49 44
Government agencies and inter-governmental organizations support more systematic training of policy-makers in IR academic research
Policy Impact
47 52 39
39
51 50 31 46
48
29
19
30 47 59
75
38 39 52
48 51
Impact on the Discipline 31 34 25
24
29 25 28 35
20
14
8
18 28 32
50
50 43 24
46 37
Departments encourage academics/faculty members to accept consulting or part-time policy-making assignments
Policy Impact
52 56 44
45
56 44 52 48
43
43
28
36 57 73
75
69 48 45
55 63
Impact on the Discipline 32 35 27
28
39 19 28 22
25
29
11
20 27 32
25
56 30 34
40 19
Departments stop the tenure clock for faculty who accept full-time policy making assignments
Policy Impact
36 47 22
29
25 25 28 28
23
0
3
10 31 50
63
44 22 21
32 33
Impact on the Discipline 35 46 19
25
28 19 28 35
30
14
14
28 24 41
38
38 26 10
27 35
Departments provide stronger incentives for academic/faculty members to write op-eds, contribute to blogs, and engage popular media outlets
Policy Impact
45 51 35
42
48 38 45 32
43
43
25
34 45 59
75
50 35 41
43 56
Impact on the Discipline 26 29 22
26
23 13 28 20
25
14
17
12 16 18
25
44 26 41
30 19
59
The results displayed represent the percentage of respondents who answered that a particular option would have a beneficial impact on foreign policy and/or on the academic
discipline of IR out of the total number of respondents who selected at least one option for a beneficial impact on foreign policy and/or on the academic discipline of IR.
60
Due to a technical error, Brazil was not given this response choice.
69
Mex
31
69
33
26
23
33
42
25
40
29
22
22
21
29
IV.
Foreign Policy Views
62:
Which area of the world do you consider to be of greatest strategic importance to Country X today? 61
Central Asia
East Asia
Eastern
Europe
Latin America
M. E. and
N. Africa
North America
Oceania
Russia/
Soviet Union
South Asia
Southeast Asia
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Western
Europe
61
All
2
34
US
2
46
UK
1
21
Can
0
20
Aus
0
76
NZ
0
38
Ire
0
4
Fra
0
4
Den
0
11
Fin
0
17
Nor
0
30
Swe
0
29
Isr
0
5
Tur
7
3
HK
0
88
Sin
0
57
SA
0
39
Arg
0
17
Bra
0
20
Col
0
23
Mex
0
13
<1
7
<1
2
<1
<1
0
5
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
60
0
58
0
20
23
10
<1
30
2
<1
17
10
0
4
63
0
<1
4
3
0
15
38
8
8
0
44
4
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
0
3
0
0
79
16
0
60
3
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
2
12
0
3
13
0
2
58
0
2
5
2
<1
7
<1
1
6
2
<1
2
0
0
<1
15
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
0
33
0
0
10
0
0
26
3
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
29
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
1
<1
1
1
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
0
2
0
0
14
9
40
4
<1
0
75
38
67
50
45
40
0
20
0
0
11
0
0
0
6
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.
70
63:
Which area of the world do you believe will be of the greatest strategic importance to Country X in 20 years?62
Central Asia
East Asia
Eastern
Europe
Latin America
M. E. and
N. Africa
North America
Oceania
Russia/
Soviet Union
South Asia
Southeast Asia
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Western
Europe
62
All
2
58
US
2
72
UK
1
40
Can
0
46
Aus
0
79
NZ
0
69
Ire
0
25
Fra
0
41
Den
0
33
Fin
0
17
Nor
0
53
Swe
0
41
Isr
0
5
Tur
12
21
HK
0
100
Sin
0
77
SA
0
59
Arg
0
57
Bra
<1
45
Col
0
42
Mex
2
43
<1
6
<1
4
<1
0
0
5
0
<1
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
32
0
35
0
14
9
7
<1
8
2
<1
11
5
0
0
41
<1
<1
2
3
0
8
23
0
4
0
20
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
79
5
0
43
2
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
0
0
6
0
0
37
0
2
3
2
1
3
<1
3
5
3
<1
2
<1
0
6
7
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
7
0
0
0
33
0
0
5
5
0
24
0
3
0
0
0
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
6
6
0
0
9
<1
2
2
0
3
13
0
0
2
3
3
3
2
<1
0
0
2
7
0
0
0
0
<1
0
0
24
0
7
0
0
9
4
30
1
0
0
67
22
44
50
37
29
11
11
0
0
6
0
0
0
3
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.
71
64:
In general, do you think that multilateral trade arrangements (like the EU, NAFTA, and
WTO) have been good or bad for Country X?63
64
All
US65
UK66
Canada65
Australia66
New Zealand66
Ireland
France67
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel66
Turkey
Hong Kong66
Singapore66
South Africa66
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Very Good
-20
32
15
10
14
44
-40
33
32
26
38
19
36
64
0
9
6
6
9
Good
-61
53
55
53
64
44
-40
67
58
58
50
50
57
29
40
23
59
35
52
Neither Good nor Bad
-13
10
17
27
18
12
-20
0
11
11
13
21
7
0
30
55
21
42
23
63
Bad
-6
4
8
10
5
0
-0
0
0
5
0
10
0
7
30
14
14
13
13
Very Bad
-1
1
5
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed.
We do not calculate an “All” category for this question because the data come from three different surveys in
2006, 2008, and 2011.
65
Based on the 2006 survey data. Respondents in Canada did not receive a French version of the survey in 2006.
66
Based on the 2008 survey data.
67
Due to a technical error, France was not asked this question.
64
72
65:
In general, do you think that multilateral trade arrangements (like the EU, NAFTA, and
WTO) have been good or bad for developing countries?
68
All
US69
UK70
Canada69
Australia70
New Zealand70
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel70
Turkey
Hong Kong70
Singapore70
South Africa70
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Very Good
-2
2
2
1
0
4
6
0
0
5
3
12
8
14
14
0
0
3
13
4
Good
-34
26
34
25
32
24
30
38
50
42
36
41
47
50
43
20
32
47
34
54
Neither Good nor Bad
-21
17
21
21
27
20
34
27
0
21
18
29
23
36
21
20
27
18
31
16
68
Bad
-31
41
31
47
32
44
28
23
50
32
38
18
22
0
21
60
41
30
19
20
Very Bad
-12
14
12
5
9
8
2
12
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
3
7
We do not calculate an “All” category for this question because the data come from three different surveys in
2006, 2008, and 2011.
69
Based on the 2006 survey data. Respondents in Canada did not receive a French version of the survey in 2006.
70
Based on the 2008 survey data.
73
66:
Do you prefer that your country give economic aid directly to a country or give aid to an
international organization (such as the World Bank), which then disburses aid to countries?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Give aid
directly
39
33
44
24
44
53
50
23
41
33
40
38
47
62
50
33
32
70
63
47
54
Give aid to an
international organization
40
44
36
48
31
27
31
45
41
17
55
30
37
29
50
27
47
17
26
47
34
74
Don't know
21
22
20
28
25
20
19
32
17
50
5
33
16
10
0
40
21
13
11
6
11
67:
What is your best guess as to whether you prefer that your country give economic aid
directly to a country or to an international organization (such as the World Bank), which then
disburses aid to countries?71
Give aid directly
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
51
51
54
49
54
33
80
14
50
50
0
58
100
77
40
33
100
55
100
43
Give aid to an
international organization
49
49
46
51
46
67
20
86
50
50
0
42
0
23
60
67
0
45
0
57
71
This question was asked only of those respondents who answered “Don’t Know” to the previous question (“Do
you prefer that your country give economic aid directly to a country or give aid to an international organization
[such as the World Bank], which then disburses aid to countries?”).
75
68:
What are the top two reasons that you prefer that your country give economic aid directly to another country? (Enter a 1 for your top choice
and a 2 for your second choice.)72
This means that your country controls
the economic aid and that other
countries cannot influence how it is
used.
This gives your country the most
flexibility.
This sends a message to countries
receiving aid from your country that
your country has strong convictions.
This sends a message to other countries countries not receiving aid that your
country does not have good relations
with - that you country is more
serious/determined to achieve its goals.
It is harder for multilateral aid agencies
to be monitored by your country.
Other
72
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
47
46
44
45
41
78
63
56
23
0
71
62
42
46
50
80
50
41
49
53
61
56
60
48
58
59
33
56
56
54
33
29
43
83
56
75
40
50
65
51
53
52
26
25
26
29
27
11
13
11
23
33
0
19
17
36
0
0
17
24
29
33
21
12
12
7
5
0
0
6
11
15
0
0
14
8
28
0
0
33
18
21
0
6
37
15
34
17
52
14
25
22
34
27
67
0
56
6
56
11
31
31
33
67
43
43
38
5
17
17
25
5
75
0
80
0
33
17
47
0
34
5
53
7
42
12
This question was only asked to those respondents who answered “give aid directly” to questions 66 or 67.
76
69:
What are the top two reasons that you prefer that your country give aid to an international organization? (Enter a 1 for your top choice and a 2
for your second choice.)73
This involves sharing the costs of
economic aid with partner countries.
This locks your country into its
international commitments more solidly
and reassures other countries about your
country's good intentions.
This sends a message to country
receiving aid that your country's motives
are shared widely
This sends a message to other countries
who do not receive aid that your country
and its partners are more serious about
achieving their goals.
Multilateral aid agencies are monitored
by more organizations around the world.
Multilateral aid agencies prevent your
country's government from using aid for
things other than economic development.
Other
73
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
27
27
26
22
15
33
11
40
7
100
0
23
14
33
0
57
50
50
44
29
45
49
46
55
47
63
67
44
56
71
0
45
23
29
68
25
43
60
75
42
64
45
26
32
15
15
13
0
22
24
29
0
9
23
29
20
25
29
20
25
31
43
23
7
7
5
4
10
0
11
12
7
0
0
0
0
10
25
14
0
25
11
14
9
29
26
35
28
45
50
44
24
7
100
55
46
57
28
50
14
30
0
28
50
41
50
7
51
6
58
4
63
16
55
0
50
0
44
11
36
0
57
21
0
0
55
27
54
23
57
0
40
0
50
25
43
0
30
10
25
0
36
3
0
0
27
9
This question was asked only to those respondents who chose “give aid to international organization” in questions 66 or 67.
77
70:
In your opinion, will Europe be able to maintain the current membership of the
Eurozone?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Yes
43
43
33
42
29
33
46
49
46
33
32
39
68
45
63
33
61
41
43
47
68
No
37
38
47
35
45
33
27
20
21
33
47
24
11
41
25
25
22
18
36
47
17
Don't know
20
19
20
23
26
33
27
31
32
33
21
37
21
15
13
42
17
41
21
7
15
78
71:
In your opinion, which of the following is best able to take effective actions against the effects of the financial and economic
crisis?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
The EU
17
14
21
13
5
17
42
46
38
60
32
36
22
13
13
17
29
5
7
23
32
Country X Gov't74
3
-2
10
10
0
0
2
3
0
26
8
6
5
13
0
0
9
3
0
3
The G20
31
29
31
36
36
33
8
22
21
0
21
22
28
41
50
50
41
32
42
40
18
The IMF
9
11
7
7
4
0
15
7
10
0
11
8
22
3
13
0
6
0
12
3
7
74
The US
13
19
9
9
5
8
4
2
7
0
0
3
11
10
0
0
0
18
12
13
15
Other
5
4
5
6
7
17
4
9
14
0
5
6
6
2
0
0
6
5
6
0
8
None
14
16
16
12
18
17
12
7
0
20
5
3
0
17
13
25
12
23
8
20
13
Don't know
9
9
8
8
15
8
15
7
7
20
0
14
6
8
0
8
6
9
10
0
3
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed. Respondents in the United States did not receive this option because the United States
was already an option.
79
72:
In your opinion, which of the following is best placed to regulate and reform global financial markets?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
The EU
8
6
11
8
4
0
23
11
28
17
21
11
5
7
0
8
12
5
3
14
19
Country X Gov't75
<1
-<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
The G20
41
39
40
43
48
58
27
48
34
17
42
37
53
44
63
42
47
55
50
43
24
The IMF
14
15
15
15
5
0
19
17
14
0
11
20
16
6
13
17
12
0
20
7
20
75
The US
10
13
7
5
10
0
8
2
3
17
11
0
11
13
13
8
6
5
7
14
14
Other
4
3
4
7
4
17
8
9
10
17
11
0
0
2
0
0
6
5
3
7
5
None
14
15
15
14
17
8
4
7
3
17
0
6
5
17
13
17
6
23
10
14
15
Don't know
8
9
8
7
13
17
12
7
7
17
5
20
5
7
0
8
12
5
7
0
3
“Country X” denotes the country in which respondents were surveyed. Respondents in the US did not receive this option because the US was already an
option.
80
73:
What are the three most important foreign policy issues facing Country X today?
Arab Spring
Collapse of the Doha
round of trade
negotiations
Collapse of the Euro
Conflict in the Middle
East
Cyber-security
Decline of the U.S.
dollar as a reserve
currency
Epidemic disease
Ethnic conflict
Failed states
Global climate change
Global debt crisis
Global financial
regulation
Global population
growth
Global poverty
Global reliance on oil
Immigration
International organized
crime
International terrorism
Persistence of the U.S.
trade deficit
Reform of the UN
Regional integration
Resource scarcity
Rogue states
Russian resurgence
Rising power of China
War in Afghanistan
War in Iraq
WMD Proliferation
Other
All
28
US
33
UK
31
Can
13
Aus
5
NZ
0
Ire
12
Fra
60
Den
27
Fin
0
Nor
22
Swe
19
Isr
74
Tur
68
HK
0
Sin
8
SA
18
Arg
0
Bra
<1
Col
0
Mex
7
5
25
3
20
2
53
4
23
2
9
17
8
0
81
4
78
4
46
0
67
6
39
0
53
0
5
0
23
0
38
0
23
12
18
19
10
32
12
7
10
0
10
15
5
19
8
14
4
7
5
4
6
0
0
8
0
7
4
12
0
0
0
11
0
8
0
58
11
42
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
<1
2
0
0
2
3
10
<1
3
8
26
30
11
<1
2
12
25
28
4
2
<1
3
27
36
13
1
1
4
48
41
10
2
2
8
51
39
8
0
0
8
42
42
8
0
4
0
23
65
0
0
0
9
9
33
4
4
4
12
54
19
0
0
0
0
83
50
0
0
0
11
28
17
6
0
0
6
53
33
11
0
0
16
0
11
3
0
31
2
6
22
38
13
0
0
13
50
31
0
0
0
31
46
12
6
6
12
29
12
19
0
0
5
5
14
18
0
0
2
20
22
10
0
0
3
10
13
17
0
0
2
8
15
21
16
26
31
17
25
42
29
27
33
17
11
0
8
38
31
12
38
43
13
32
2
13
9
4
2
12
12
2
4
16
8
3
2
15
8
2
4
21
6
11
8
17
8
17
4
4
12
0
0
4
4
2
4
8
8
0
0
33
0
0
6
17
6
6
0
25
11
0
0
0
11
0
<1
3
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
24
0
24
0
19
5
0
2
12
6
0
0
23
10
10
0
14
7
37
6
10
2
12
4
6
1
7
2
4
0
8
0
4
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
17
19
8
0
11
3
29
0
0
0
8
12
12
19
0
18
<1
70
10
68
5
6
3
7
5
<1
1
27
10
2
8
4
6
1
<1
5
2
1
32
14
2
11
3
2
1
4
5
<1
0
13
15
2
4
4
14
3
7
4
0
2
25
6
0
6
5
7
0
6
8
0
0
57
7
<1
6
4
0
0
17
0
0
0
58
0
0
8
8
4
4
8
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
2
2
0
20
4
0
2
2
4
0
12
12
0
0
19
4
0
12
4
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
22
0
6
6
11
17
0
0
11
6
3
6
0
0
8
17
3
0
0
3
5
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
42
21
<1
<1
12
5
0
5
5
0
6
5
2
13
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
0
0
62
0
0
0
0
0
6
29
0
0
0
29
0
0
6
12
0
5
81
14
0
0
24
0
0
0
4
<1
24
42
3
0
<1
28
0
0
3
3
13
0
47
3
0
0
20
0
0
3
10
12
2
15
7
0
0
8
0
0
2
8
81
74:
What are the three most important foreign policy issues Country X will face over the next 10 years?
Arab Spring
Collapse of the Doha
round of trade
negotiations
Collapse of the Euro
Conflict in the Middle
East
Cyber-security
Decline of the U.S.
dollar as a reserve
currency
Epidemic disease
Ethnic conflict
Failed states
Global climate change
Global debt crisis
Global financial
regulation
Global population
growth
Global poverty
Global reliance on oil
Immigration
International organized
crime
International terrorism
Persistence of the U.S.
trade deficit
Reform of the UN
Regional integration
Resource scarcity
Rogue states
Russian resurgence
Rising power of China
War in Afghanistan
War in Iraq
WMD Proliferation
Other
All
9
US
10
UK
11
Can
7
Aus
<1
NZ
0
Ire
4
Fra
12
Den
4
Fin
0
Nor
0
Swe
3
Isr
26
Tur
24
HK
0
Sin
0
SA
0
Arg
5
Bra
<1
Col
0
Mex
2
4
9
3
6
4
20
4
4
3
4
8
0
0
46
0
10
4
19
0
17
6
28
0
18
0
5
<1
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
9
16
8
11
7
2
4
18
10
22
12
15
8
8
8
2
11
8
17
13
0
17
7
19
4
0
0
17
0
9
6
79
21
46
7
0
0
0
8
6
0
9
5
3
5
0
0
5
7
14
2
5
10
40
18
18
3
4
14
38
17
9
2
2
5
50
23
11
3
3
8
62
25
7
4
2
7
58
27
17
0
8
0
25
42
4
0
4
4
38
42
5
0
2
7
46
17
12
4
0
12
58
12
0
0
0
0
50
17
11
6
0
11
39
17
3
9
6
9
44
24
0
0
5
21
0
5
4
<1
39
7
17
13
57
0
0
0
0
29
25
8
0
0
50
17
6
0
6
6
53
6
14
0
0
5
18
5
23
2
0
2
36
11
7
0
0
7
39
11
25
2
0
9
30
9
19
14
25
28
19
17
42
39
31
83
17
15
5
11
43
25
18
45
38
21
19
4
16
15
5
4
16
15
3
5
21
16
3
6
18
16
4
10
19
17
10
0
25
0
17
0
13
21
4
10
15
20
7
8
23
15
0
17
17
17
0
0
22
0
11
6
35
9
3
0
0
5
5
3
3
12
10
0
0
0
14
17
0
8
8
6
47
12
18
0
14
9
0
3
10
10
3
0
29
25
11
4
23
18
26
5
8
2
9
3
7
2
8
2
5
0
0
0
8
5
5
4
0
0
0
6
17
15
3
0
16
4
21
0
0
0
17
12
6
36
0
14
2
36
7
46
2
6
2
7
10
1
3
37
2
<1
10
4
8
2
<1
11
2
3
43
3
<1
13
3
2
2
5
12
<1
1
29
1
0
7
4
8
3
7
8
1
4
32
1
0
5
8
5
<1
5
11
0
<1
55
4
0
6
4
8
0
8
25
0
0
67
0
0
0
8
8
0
8
4
0
0
17
0
0
0
8
2
5
10
5
0
2
27
2
0
12
2
0
4
12
12
0
0
15
0
0
23
8
0
17
33
0
0
17
0
0
0
17
0
6
11
17
0
0
6
33
0
0
0
11
3
6
12
6
0
9
29
0
0
9
6
5
0
0
11
11
0
0
0
0
58
5
<1
0
17
6
<1
9
14
0
4
8
<1
0
0
14
0
0
0
86
0
0
0
0
8
0
25
17
0
0
67
0
0
0
0
0
18
29
6
0
6
18
0
0
6
6
5
0
50
9
0
0
32
0
0
9
0
6
10
31
12
0
<1
38
<1
0
3
4
4
4
36
7
0
0
32
0
0
0
4
9
0
12
9
0
0
19
0
0
0
9
82
75:
In March 2011, did you support the use of force against Libyan government forces?
Yes
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
No
57
60
54
64
69
64
61
57
65
0
67
85
84
40
63
58
53
18
45
35
44
43
40
46
36
31
36
39
43
35
100
33
15
16
60
38
42
47
82
55
65
56
83
76:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest likelihood, how likely is war
between the United States and China over the next decade?76
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Ranking
1.33
1.34
1.14
1.16
1.56
1.64
1.23
1.35
1.36
0.80
1.28
0.94
1.21
1.38
1.38
0.69
1.73
1.21
1.58
1.48
1.63
76
Due to a coding error, respondents received options on a scale of 0 to 10, rather than 1-10 as suggested by the
question. We report the actual results that we received them. Some respondents did select “0” as their answer. All
numerical responses were averaged to obtain the displayed results.
84
77:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest likelihood, how likely is war
between the United States and China over the next 30 years?77
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Ranking
2.28
2.27
1.89
2.07
2.83
3.00
1.74
2.38
2.26
2.00
2.28
2.09
2.18
2.36
2.00
1.50
2.64
2.53
2.56
2.61
2.62
77
Due to a coding error, respondents received options on a scale of 0 to 10, rather than 1-10 as suggested by the
question. We report the actual results that we received them. Some respondents did select “0” as their answer. All
numerical responses were averaged to obtain the displayed results.
85
78:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest influence, how much influence does
the United States have in the world today?78
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Ranking
6.63
6.80
6.27
6.50
6.58
6.25
5.82
6.79
5.81
6.20
6.44
6.32
6.79
6.18
6.75
6.42
6.13
6.27
7.17
6.43
6.51
78
Due to a coding error, respondents received options on a scale of 0 to 10, rather than 1-10 as suggested by the
question. We report the actual results that we received them. Some respondents did select “0” as their answer. All
numerical responses were averaged to obtain the displayed results.
86
79:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest influence, how much influence does
China have in the world today? 79
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Ranking
4.34
4.51
4.10
4.11
3.86
4.08
4.27
4.77
3.63
3.60
3.50
4.03
4.68
3.54
3.63
3.25
4.93
3.59
5.09
4.63
4.66
79
Due to a coding error, respondents received options on a scale of 0 to 10, rather than 1-10 as suggested by the
question. We report the actual results that we received them. Some respondents did select “0” as their answer. All
numerical responses were averaged to obtain the displayed results.
87
80:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest influence, how much influence will
the United States have in the world in 2020?80
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Ranking
5.68
5.97
5.33
5.58
5.56
4.36
4.73
5.74
4.52
5.00
5.28
4.89
6.05
4.94
5.88
5.67
4.73
4.95
6.25
5.13
5.24
80
Due to a coding error, respondents received options on a scale of 0 to 10, rather than 1-10 as suggested by the
question. We report the actual results that we received them. Some respondents did select “0” as their answer. All
numerical responses were averaged to obtain the displayed results.
88
81:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the greatest influence, how much influence will
the China have in the world in 2020?81
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Ranking
5.28
5.33
5.03
5.21
5.00
5.25
5.18
5.48
4.27
4.40
4.50
5.00
5.89
4.71
4.88
4.00
5.73
5.00
6.12
6.10
5.86
81
Due to a coding error, respondents received options on a scale of 0 to 10, rather than 1-10 as suggested by the
question. We report the actual results that we received them. Some respondents did select “0” as their answer. All
numerical responses were averaged to obtain the displayed results.
89
82:
Would you approve or disapprove of the use of U.S. military forces in the following situations?
All US UK Can
War between North and South Sudan
Approve
20
15
27
23
Disapprove
81
85
73
77
If Iran produced a nuclear weapon
Approve
21
20
22
20
Disapprove
80
80
78
80
If extremists were poised to take over Pakistan
Approve
34
37
29
32
Disapprove
66
63
71
68
Support democratic transition in Syria
Approve
23
21
26
27
Disapprove
77
79
74
73
To support democratic transition in Yemen
Approve
18
16
23
23
Disapprove
82
84
77
77
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den Fin Nor Swe Isr Tur HK Sin SA Arg Col Mex
23
77
0
100
29
71
15
85
31
69
20
80
28
72
50
50
47
53
26
74
50
50
42
58
12
88
5
95
10
90
10
90
17
83
18
82
10
90
20
80
23
77
20
80
22
78
27
73
63
37
18
82
38
63
33
67
35
65
9
91
24
76
19
81
41
59
20
80
14
86
48
53
38
62
20
80
33
67
27
73
78
22
27
74
25
75
25
75
24
76
14
86
10
90
15
85
30
70
11
89
29
71
33
68
42
58
20
80
24
76
26
74
33
67
17
83
50
50
33
67
12
88
5
95
10
90
8
92
24
76
11
89
33
67
15
85
31
69
20
80
22
78
23
77
35
65
19
81
38
63
33
67
12
88
5
95
7
93
10
90
90
83:
Changes in the Middle East associated with the "Arab Spring" will be:
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Asia
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Good for
Country X
41
42
41
42
25
25
35
28
63
50
41
59
16
59
38
50
24
41
44
17
22
Bad for
Country X
9
13
4
5
3
8
0
5
4
0
0
0
37
9
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
Will not have
much effect
22
11
26
29
50
33
61
19
11
33
29
15
5
17
63
33
59
36
42
66
64
91
Don't
Know
20
25
23
16
19
17
0
42
11
0
18
24
32
7
0
17
18
18
7
10
9
Other
8
10
7
7
3
17
4
7
11
17
12
3
11
9
0
0
0
5
5
3
3
84:
Will changes in the Middle East associated with the "Arab Spring" lead to lasting
improvements for people in the region?
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Yes
No
47
50
49
46
42
25
48
32
54
33
39
53
26
53
63
36
24
50
35
46
33
9
9
5
6
6
25
0
2
4
0
6
0
32
15
0
9
12
5
13
21
16
Will not have
much effect
15
12
17
17
16
0
35
20
19
0
28
9
16
19
25
27
29
18
21
7
22
92
Don't
Know
22
23
22
24
28
25
17
34
12
50
28
26
21
5
13
18
18
27
24
21
28
Other
7
6
8
7
8
25
0
11
12
17
0
12
5
8
0
9
18
0
7
4
2
85:
It has been more than 20 years since the end of the Cold War. In your opinion, is the
world now:
All
US
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
France
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Israel
Turkey
Hong Kong
Singapore
South Africa
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
More dangerous
for Country X
25
31
21
14
11
17
14
9
15
17
12
6
37
26
25
17
13
14
14
25
50
Less dangerous
for Country X
44
45
42
51
37
25
24
27
44
83
71
63
32
41
38
42
56
36
52
25
16
93
About as dangerous
as 20 years ago
27
21
31
28
41
42
48
51
33
0
18
23
32
29
38
42
25
45
25
50
34
No Answer
5
3
6
7
11
17
14
13
7
0
0
9
0
4
0
0
6
5
9
0
0
86:
What is the most important military innovation in recent years?
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Drones and other
unmanned technologies
47
53
41
46
32
42
33
59
52
20
61
35
42
48
29
42
41
33
25
36
30
Cyber
warfare
27
24
22
26
34
33
38
18
16
60
28
27
42
31
29
50
18
29
46
39
30
Improvised
explosive devices
4
4
8
4
6
0
0
0
4
20
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
5
3
7
4
94
Precision
weapons
8
8
9
10
5
8
5
7
0
0
6
19
16
3
29
0
0
5
9
11
18
Stealth
technology
3
3
4
3
6
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
5
5
0
11
Suicide
terrorism
7
5
6
8
10
8
14
9
12
0
0
15
0
9
14
8
35
5
6
4
7
Other
4
3
9
4
6
8
10
2
16
0
6
4
0
1
0
0
6
19
6
4
2
87:
If the Country X government had an additional one billion dollars to spend in the next
fiscal year on an international problem or initiative in one of the following areas, to which of
the following areas should it devote these resources?
All
US
UK
Can
Aus
NZ
Ire
Fra
Den
Fin
Nor
Swe
Isr
Tur
HK
Sin
SA
Arg
Bra
Col
Mex
Greenhouse gas emissions
and climate change
43
45
48
55
48
57
48
37
63
50
28
56
16
29
38
67
35
18
21
21
27
Economic development
assistance
34
30
28
20
24
21
29
42
22
17
17
21
79
55
50
8
59
73
64
71
56
95
Global health
initiatives
23
25
25
25
28
21
24
21
15
33
56
24
5
16
13
25
6
9
14
7
17