the-evolution-of-international-security-studies

the five driving forces as general analytical categories 61Table 3.1. The driving force of institutionalisationINSTITUTIONALISATIONOrganisational Dissemination Researchstructures Funding of knowledge networksAcademicUniversities-Undergraduateandgraduate programmes/degrees- Departments andpositions in SecurityStudiesAcademic/policyResearch centresPolicy/advocacyThink-tanks- Governments- Foundations- Universities- Think-tanksAcademic-Publications(books,journals, etc.)-ConferencesPublic-Expertappearances-Publicintellectual-Conferences- Digitalnetworks- Visitingpositions-PlacementofPhDsresearch centres to think-tanks with a more explicitly political agenda.Policy research may be carried out by all organisations, but tends toplay a stronger role in think-tanks and research centres. Beginning withacademic institutions, ISS is concretely influenced by the way in whichdepartments educate, grant degrees, conduct research and fill positions ona given subject. The very fact that courses on Strategic Studies were taughtfrom the late 1960s onwards institutionalised ISS within academe as wellas in the policy world. Tenured professors make decisions on what futurestudents learn and they decide which graduate students are accepted andon what topics. Successful graduate programmes are characterised by theability of graduating PhDs to find jobs at respectable universities and policyinstitutes, and hiring policies at universities are thus extremely centralto institution building (Betts, 1997).In contrast to academic institutions which are presumed to be adoptingan objective, analytical stance, think-tanks – and the foundationssupporting them – are often mapped according to political–ideologicalcategories: the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundationand the Hoover Institution are considered Conservative; the Center forStrategic and International Studies is centre-right; the Council on ForeignRelations and RAND are centrist; the Brookings Institution and the