国際関係に関する大学院について

Pocket

フォーリン・アフェアーズ最新号(July/August 2015)にThe Decline of International Studies: Why Flying Blind Is Dangerousというタイトルの論文が掲載されています。この論文でジョージタウン大学教授ののチャールズ・キング(Charles King)氏は、アメリカの大学で海外についての研究が衰退している理由や問題点について議論しています。

King氏の詳細は彼のブログサイトで確認してください。ちなみに彼が所属するジョージタウン大学のThe Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Serviceは国際関係に関するプロフェッショナル・スクールの中で全米ランキング1位を誇っています。

Charles King, Georgetown University

このエッセイで彼はアメリカの大学で海外研究の人気が下がっていることを指摘、その事実を憂えています。2013年10月に国務省は旧ソ連の研究を支援していたTitle VIII Programを中止します。大学からの反対の声が強いため、中止はすぐに取り消されますが、予算は半分以下に減らされます。

The Rise of International Studies

米政府が海外研究を積極的に支援し始めたのは第二次世界大戦中のことだが、冷戦が始めるとソ連研究を大々的に支援することになる。
During World War II, the U.S. government made attempts to train up linguists and instant area experts, but these initiatives quickly faded. It was not until the onset of the Cold War that private universities such as Columbia and Harvard devoted serious attention to the problem and opened pioneering programs for Russian studies. The Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations launched grants for scholars working specifically on Soviet politics, history, or economics.

さらに海外研究が重視されるきっかけとなったのが1957年10月のソ連のスプートニク打ち上げ成功である。翌年に国家防衛教育法(The National Defense Education Act of 1958)、1965年には高等教育法(The Higher Education Act)が制定され、関連大学院に対する地域研究と語学トレーニングの促進のための財政支援がスタートする。教育省管轄のTitle VI Programsやフルブライト・ヘイズ・プログラム(1961)が諸外国地域のエキスパートを育成するために尽力する。
The National Defense Education Act of 1958, followed by the Higher Education Act of 1965 and its successors, provided special funding for regional studies and advanced language training for American graduate students. Among other measures, the legislation created a network of National Resource Centers located at major U.S. universities, which in turn ran master’s programs and other forms of instruction to train the next generation of specialists. In 2010, the total size of this allocation, known as Title VI, stood at $110 million, distributed across programs for East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, Russia and Eurasia, and other areas. Along with the Fulbright-Hays scholarships for international academic exchanges, established in 1961, Title VI became one of the principal sources of funding for future political scientists, historians, linguists, anthropologists, and others working on distinct world regions.

米国では国際関係論を専門とするプロフェショナル・スクールが次々と開講され、その多くが世界的に高い評価を受けます。
On the face of it, that investment seems to have paid off. American universities have emerged as among the world’s most globally minded. No U.S. college president can long survive without developing a strategy for further internationalization. New schools for specialized study have sprung up across the United States—for example, the University of Oklahoma’s College of International Studies, founded in 2011, and Indiana University’s School of Global and International Studies, which opened in 2012. Older centers—including Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs—consistently top world rankings. The U.S. example has become the model for a raft of new institutions around the world, such as the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin and the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore, founded in 2003 and 2004, respectively, and the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University, founded in 2010.

ちなみにプロフェッショナル・スクールはアカデミック・スクールに対比されますが、後者の目的は研究者の育成であり、プロフェショナル・スクールは主に実務家の育成を目的としています。そのため研究者を目指す人は通常、アカデミックスクールに入学します。プロフェショナル・スクールは博士課程のコースもありますが、ほとんどの学生は2年間の修士号コースを終えれば、大学院を卒業します。修士号だけでは研究者にはなれないのでアメリカのアカデミック・スクールでは修士号コースがありません。日本国内で博士号を取得した研究者は修士号をもっていますが、アメリカのPh.D degree保持者の多くはMaster’s degreeを持っていません。このあたりは日米の大学制度のちがいですので注意してください。

The Decline of International Studies

しかし、米ソ冷戦が終焉し、米学生の海外熱は冷め、外国語を学ぼうとする学生も減ります。外国語コースの登録者数は2009年から2013年の4年間で 6.7%減少します。今やスペイン語とフランス語の次に学ばれている外国語は中国語でもなくドイツ語でもなく、アメリカン手話(American Sign Language)という始末です。
After a steady expansion over two decades, enrollment in foreign-language courses at U.S. colleges fell by 6.7 percent between 2009 and 2013. Most language programs experienced double-digit losses. Even Spanish—a language chosen by more U.S. students than all other languages combined—has suffered its first decline since the Modern Language Association began keeping count in 1958. Today, the third most studied language in U.S. higher education, behind Spanish and French, is a homegrown one: American Sign Language.

このアメリカ人の外国語下手は学生だけにとどまりません。国際関係の研究者においても3割が外国語を使えず、半数以上が英語以外の文献を引用することはありません。
Something similar has happened in the unlikeliest of places: among professional scholars of international relations. According to an annual survey conducted by the College of William and Mary, 30 percent of American researchers in the field say that they have a working knowledge of no language other than English, and more than half say that they rarely or never cite non-English sources in their work. (Forty percent, however, rank Chinese as the most valuable language for their students to know after English.) At least within the United States, the remarkable growth in the study of international relations in recent decades has produced one of the academy’s more parochial disciplines.

The Decline of Academic Studies

King教授は現実世界の問題に直面せずに、些末なパズル解きばかりに勤しむ研究者を強く批判します。
Part of the problem lies in the professoriate. An iron law of academia holds that, with time, all disciplines bore even themselves. English professors drift away from novels and toward literary theory. Economists envy mathematicians. Political scientists give up grappling with dilemmas of power and governance—the concerns of thinkers from Aristotle to Max Weber and Hans Morgenthau—and make their own pastiche of the natural sciences with careful hypotheses about minute problems. Being monumentally wrong is less attractive than being unimportantly right. Research questions derive almost exclusively from what has gone unsaid in some previous scholarly conversation. As any graduate student learns early on, one must first “fill a hole in the literature” and only later figure out whether it was worth filling. Doctoral programs also do a criminally poor job of teaching young scholars to write and speak in multiple registers—that is, use jargon with their peers if necessary but then explain their findings to a broader audience with equal zeal and effectiveness.

とは言いながらも、計量分析の擁護もします。
Still, the cultishness of the American academy can be overstated. Today, younger scholars of Russia and Eurasia, for example, have language skills and local knowledge that are the envy of their older colleagues—in part because of decades of substantial federal investment in the field and in part because many current students actually hail from the region and have chosen to make their careers in American universities. Even the increasing quantification of political science can be a boon when abstract concepts are combined with grass-roots understanding of specific contexts. Statistical modeling, field experiments, and “big data” have revolutionized areas as diverse as development economics, public health, and product marketing. There is no reason that similar techniques shouldn’t enrich the study of international affairs, and the private sector is already forging ahead in that area. Companies such as Dataminr—a start-up that analyzes social-media postings for patterns to detect breaking news—now track everything from environmental crises to armed conflict. Foreign policy experts used to debate the causes of war. Now they can see them unspooling in real time.

DataminrについてはAbout Dataminrを参照してください。

専門家育成のための予算削減の嵐

The suspension of Title VIII was only the latest in a series of cutbacks. The Foreign Language Assistance Program, created in 1988 to provide local schools with matching grants from the Department of Education for teaching foreign languages, ended in 2012. The previous year, Title VI funding for university-based regional studies fell by 40 percent and has flatlined since. If today’s Title VI appropriation were funded at the level it was during the Johnson administration, then it would total almost half a billion dollars after adjusting for inflation. Instead, the 2014 number stood at slightly below $64 million.

The same thing has happened with direct funding to undergraduates and graduate students, particularly when it comes to the National Security Education Program (NSEP), which offers students financial assistance for foreign-language study and cultural immersion. NSEP was established in 1991 on the initiative of David Boren, then a Democratic senator from Oklahoma, with the goal of training a new, post–Cold War generation of foreign affairs specialists. The program’s signature elements—Boren Scholarships and Boren Fellowships—offer grants of up to $30,000 to highly qualified undergraduates and graduate students in exchange for at least a year of federal government service in national security after graduation. For all its prestige, however, and despite nominal support among both liberals and conservatives, the Boren program offers fewer such awards today than it did in the mid-1990s.

Another element of NSEP is an innovative initiative for heritage speakers—American citizens who possess native abilities in a foreign language and wish to develop professional-level skills in English—and it, too, has shrunk. The initiative has never been able to fund more than 40 people per year, most of them native speakers of Arabic or Mandarin, and the number has been steadily falling, reaching just 18 in 2014. (This program is now housed at Georgetown University, where I teach.) In a somewhat encouraging sign, enrollment has been growing markedly in NSEP’s Language Flagship program, which gives grants to colleges to field advanced courses in languages deemed important for national security. But the raw numbers reveal just how small the United States’ next generation of linguists actually is. Last year, the total number of students enrolled in NSEP-sponsored courses for all the “critical languages”—Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Swahili, Turkish, Urdu, and Yoruba—was under a thousand.

In tandem with these trends, scholarly research in global affairs, especially work funded by the National Science Foundation, has come under growing attack. The annual appropriation for the NSF is around $7.3 billion, of which a fraction—less than $260 million—goes to the behavioral, social, and economic sciences. Of that figure, only about $13 million goes to political scientists, and an even smaller amount goes to those doing research on international affairs. Still, these scholars now receive the kind of lambasting that used to be directed mainly against the National Endowment for the Arts.

The Foreign Language Assistance Program, Title VI, the National Security Education Program (NSEP) including Boren Scholarship and Boren Fellowship, and Language Flagship program, the National Science Foundationでの予算削減について語られています。

国防総省のMinerva Initiativeについて

But today, a substantial portion of assistance comes directly from the U.S. Department of Defense. The department’s Minerva Initiative provides support for research on “areas of strategic importance to U.S. national security policy” and for “projects addressing specific topic areas determined by the Secretary of Defense,” as the call for applications says. In the current three-year cycle, which runs until 2017, the program expects to disburse $17 million to university-based researchers in the social sciences. Millions more have been allocated since the first round began in 2009.

It was once the case that state-supported research was meant to give the United States an edge in its relations with other countries. Now, with programs such as Minerva, the temptation is to give government an edge over the governed. … Professors funded by Minerva work with project managers at U.S. military research facilities, who in turn report to the secretary of defense, who has by definition found the research topics to be matters of strategic concern. In an incentive structure that rewards an emphasis on countering global threats and securing the homeland, the devil lies in the definitions. In this framework, the Boston Marathon bombing becomes a national security problem, whereas the Sandy Hook massacre remains a matter for the police and psychologists—a distinction that is both absurd as social science and troubling as public policy.

The Minerva Initiativeはhttp://minerva.dtic.mil/参照。

最後に─国際関係の研究の重要性について力説

International affairs education and research are also part of a country’s domestic life. Democratic societies depend on having a cadre of informed professionals outside government—people in universities, think tanks, museums, and research institutes who cultivate expertise protected from the pressures of the state. Many countries can field missile launchers and float destroyers; only a few have built a Brookings Institution or a Chatham House. Yet the latter is what makes them magnets for people from the very places their institutions study. The University of London’s nearly century-old SOAS, for example, which focuses on Asian and African studies, is a beehive of languages and causes, where Koreans, Nigerians, and Palestinians come to receive world-class instruction on, among other things, North and South Korea, Nigeria, and the Palestinian territories.

All of this points to just how important international and regional studies can be when they are adequately funded, publicly valued, and shielded from the exigencies of national security. Their chief role is not to enable the makers of foreign policy. It is rather to constrain them: to show why things will always be more complicated than they seem, how to foresee unintended consequences, and when to temper ambition with a realistic understanding of what is historically and culturally imaginable. For more than half a century, the world has been shaped by the simple fact that the United States could look at other countries—their pasts and presents, their myths and worldviews—with sympathetic curiosity. Maintaining the ability to do so is not only a great power’s insurance policy against the future. It is also the essence of an open, inquisitive, and critical society.

国際研究と地域研究の主要目的は物事を単純化して考えて外交政策を追求しがちな政策決定者に、事の複雑さを認識させ彼らの行動を抑制することにある、とのこと。

最後に国際関係に関するプロフェッショナル・スクールのランキング(Foreign Policy版)を紹介します。ただし学費が毎年高騰していまや年3万ドル以上というのが普通なので、20年前よりもはるかに日本人学生の数は減っているようです。生活費も含めると2年間で一千万円くらいかかりそうです。これでは日本人留学生の数も減るでしょう。

Top Master’s Programs for Policy Career in International Relations
1. Georgetown University, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
2. Johns Hopkins University, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
3. Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government
4. Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs
5. Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs
6. Tufts University, Fletcher School
7. George Washington University, Elliot School of International Affairs
8. American University, School of International Service
9. London School of Economics, Department of International Relations
10. Stanford University, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
11. University of Denver, Josef Korbel School of International Studies
12. University of Chicago, The Committee on International Relations
13. University of California – San Diego, School of International Relations and Pacific Studies
14. University of Oxford, Department of Politics and International Relations

15. Yale University, Jackson Institute for Global Affairs
16. Syracuse University, Maxwell School
17. University of California – Berkeley, The Institute of International Studies
18. University of Cambridge, Centre of International Studies
19. University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs
20. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for International Studies
21. Sciences Po – Paris
21. University of Michigan, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
24. Graduate Inst. of Int’l and Dev. Studies
24. New York University, School of Continuing and Professional Studies
24. Texas A&M University, The Bush School of Government and Public Service

7月 14, 2015 · Pukuro · No Comments
Posted in: ☆国際問題

Leave a Reply