the-evolution-of-international-security-studies

institutionalisation 91involving the endless debates about NATO and how to make extendeddeterrence work (Liddell Hart, 1946; Blackett, 1948, 1956; Gallois, 1961;Beaufre, 1965), as did some strategic analysts (Noel-Baker, 1958; Aron,1965; Hassner, 1968; Howard, 1973, 1976, 1979, 1981; Pierre, 1973; Freedman,1981a, 1981b, 1981/2, 1988; Joffe, 1981). But regardless of whichside of the Atlantic they were on, most of those involved in StrategicStudies followed the ‘S-curve’ described above and faced the same crisisofrelevancewhentheColdWarended.InstitutionalisationThe story of how a new field, ISS, arose and became established is not ‘only’one of great power politics, technology, events and academic debates. Itis also crucially a story of how the field became institutionalised, howit achieved a standing and a legitimacy that allowed it to build researchprogrammes, get funding, find outlets for the dissemination of its resultsand make researchers self-identify as ‘security scholars’. Institutionalisationcan thus be seen as a driving force that is at first produced throughthe successful interplay of the four others, but which also, once the processof institutionalisation gains ground, becomes a driving force in itsown right. A field which is strongly institutionalised is one with goodchances of succeeding in the competition for funds, policy influence andprestige. Institutionalisation may be a conservative force, but it may alsobe a driving force that pushes ISS in new directions.A general idea of how this institutionalisation occurred can be gainedfrom looking at five different aspects of it: the establishment of ISS coursesand institutes within universities; the creation of specialist sections withinacademic associations; the development of specialist ISS journals; thefounding of ISS think-tanks; and the setting up of funding programmes(by government and foundations) aimed at promoting ISS. It is notwithin our resources to tell this story comprehensively, particularly atthe level of how concrete research networks were formed, but we cancertainly demonstrate the general pattern. Here we focus mainly on theinstitutionalisation of Strategic Studies itself: the story is of how a newfield arises and becomes established.Prior to the formation of a field of ISS there had, of course, been along tradition of studying war that security scholars could draw upon.The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) was founded in 1831 on theinitiative of the Duke of Wellington to study naval and military science,and its journal dates from 1857. The US Army War College is more than