Replication Data for: The Cult of the Relevant: International Relations Scholars and Policy Engagement Beyond the Ivory Tower

Over the past fifteen years, a narrative has developed that IR scholars have become a “cult of the irrelevant,” with declining influence on and engagement with policy debates. Despite these assertions, the evidence for limited policy engagement has been anecdotal. We investigate the extent of policy engagement—the ways in which IR scholars participate in policymaking processes and/or attempt to shape those processes—by surveying IR scholars directly about their engagement activities. We find policy engagement is pervasive among IR scholars. We draw on theories of credit claiming to motivate expectations about how and when scholars are likely to engage with practitioners. Consistent with our expectations, much of this engagement comes in forms that involve small time commitments and provide opportunities for credit-claiming, such as media appearances and short-form, by-lined op-eds and blog posts. However, sizable minorities report engaging in consulting activities not for attribution/publication and writing policy briefs, and a majority of respondents indicate they engaged in these activities several times a year or more. We find only small differences in engagement across gender and rank. Our results demonstrate that for IR scholars policy engagement, rather than sitting on the sidelines, is the norm.

过去十五年来，逐渐形成了一种论调，认为国际关系（International Relations, IR）学者已然沦为“无关紧要的群体”，其对政策辩论的影响力与参与度均呈下滑趋势。尽管存在此类论断，但关于政策参与度不足的相关证据仅为传闻轶事，缺乏系统性支撑。本研究通过直接向国际关系学者调研其政策参与活动，探究政策参与的广度——即国际关系学者参与政策制定进程、或试图影响该进程的具体方式。研究发现，政策参与在国际关系学者群体中极为普遍。
本研究援引功劳索取（credit claiming）理论，构建关于学者可能以何种方式、在何时与政策实践者展开互动的研究预期。与研究预期相符，此类参与多以耗时较少且能提供功劳索取机会的形式开展，例如媒体出镜、短篇署名专栏评论（op-eds）以及博客文章。不过，仍有相当比例的受访者表示参与了不追求署名或发表的咨询活动，以及撰写政策简报；且多数受访者称其每年至少参与此类活动数次。
研究发现，不同性别与学术职级的学者在政策参与度上仅存在细微差异。本研究结果表明，对国际关系学者而言，政策参与并非置身事外的边缘行为，而是学界的常态。