This workshop brings together Principal Investigators involved in national security relevant projects funded through the 2008 DoD Minerva Research Initiative; the NSF National Security, Conflict and Cooperation (NSCC) competition; Minerva Research Chairs; and Fellows funded through the RCUK Global Uncertainties Programme. The objectives of the workshop are to investigate the commonalities between research programs, determine whether there are interesting opportunities that may build or bridge between differing research methodologies and identify potential breakthroughs, and barriers to advancement in the evolving field of security research, particularly longer term, transformational opportunities.. The intellectual merit and broader impacts of the workshop are significant. The activity will produce insights into what methodologies or combinations of methodologies are most appropriate to address security questions of direct policy relevance, may spawn collaborations the outcomes of which will have direct implications for security policy and practice, and will encourage cross-Atlantic collaboration in security-related efforts
Since 9/11 academic research on security has undergone an infusion of new scholarship spanning multiple fields. Funders expressed a shared interest in evaluating that new research with an eye to identifying where resources can best be allocated. This project conducted a two-day workshop held at the National Science Foundation (NSF) offices in Arlington, Virginia with 37 participants. The workshop was a collaborative effort between NSF, the Department of Defense (DoD), and the UK Research Councils (RCUK). Each of these groups have invested in research aimed at understanding ideas, behaviors and beliefs in a security context. The workshop compared diverse approaches in this research and sought synergies by bringing together researchers funded through the DoD Minerva Research Initiative; the NSF National Security, Conflict and Cooperation competitions; Minerva Research Chairs; Fellows funded through the RCUK Global Uncertainties Programme; and scholars from both countries conducting related research. Intellectual Merit Despite common intellectual traditions, social science research communities in the UK and US follow broadly different methods on security-related topics. The participants from the US and UK represented a variety of research disciplines, including Arabic and Islamic Studies, Anthropology, Economics, Evolutionary Biology, International Development, International Relations, Law, Middle Eastern Studies, Political Science, Public Affairs, Sociology, and War Studies. Research in security studies is currently engaged in a productive debate over methods. The discussion highlighted the usefulness of particular methodologies in their appropriate contexts. Both countries face consequential and expensive choices in security policy over the coming decade, which evoke open questions including the feasibility of nation building for conflict-cursed countries, cost effective approaches to controlling international terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, and more. This diversity of approaches, both within and across communities spurred the cross-pollination of ideas. The researchers investigated the commonalities between their research programs, explored opportunities to bridge between the differing methodologies, and identified potential breakthroughs and barriers to advancement in this evolving field, particularly longer term, transformational opportunities. A summary report was written that highlighted the concepts and methods that could transform the future of security research. Broader Impacts The workshop also emphasized policy-relevance. In addition to academic researchers and representatives from the three partner organizations, participants also included a former British Ambassador to the U.S., an Army Colonel (now General) and former Dean at West Point, and the Counselor to the National Intelligence Council. The British Embassy also hosted a reception attended by workshop participants (at no cost to NSF), at which the current British Ambassador and an Assistant Secretary of Defense addressed the group on the topic of policy relevant research. Participants were reminded of the importance of making any new insights intelligible so that they can be grasped by policymakers and fed into decision-making processes or else can be picked up so as to help shape and inform a wider public debate. At the same time, it is of note that most participants had experienced the difficulties of getting their findings used appropriately if at all, given the many pressures on the policy process. This led to a suggestion that the relationship between the scholarly community and government is an area that in itself requires further consideration. There is bound to be pressure on governments to take initiatives in the face of a new challenge. Academics can show the value of ensuring the best possible diagnosis, that the "problem" to be "solved" has been properly identified, and can offer a framework for evaluating alternative solutions and their possible consequences. For example, those imposing coercive sanctions on a "rogue" state also need to consider how the rogue governments of such states might actually be strengthened through opportunities provided by sanctions to control smuggling and rationing. Academics can also offer a different perspective to that of government, considering issues as seen by the objects policy rather than those devising it (worm’s eye rather than bird’s eye). This can not only help inform wider political debates but also alert policymakers to unintended negative consequences of well-intentioned efforts. A summary report was produced and posted on the website of University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (http://igcc.ucsd.edu/assets/001/504706.pdf) and distributed to participants, NSF National Security, Conflict and Cooperation grantees, Minerva Research Initiative grantees and Minerva Research Chairs.
