The CDSN Summer Institute 2022 Meets in Person!

We inhabited the snazzy
Board of Governors room

 We have spent the past week in Ottawa with really smart, interesting people talking defence and security.  Most of the folks were participants in our Summer Institute, and some were presenters we brought to Ottawa ... in person or via zoom.  We were very excited about this, as this was one was one of the key early ideas that animated our grant seeking long ago, but we had to cancel the 2020 effort and had to go online for the 2021 SI.

 

Multidisciplinary Military Meetup: ERGOMAS in Lisbon

Opening session of ERGOMAS 2019 with host Helena Carrieras

I learned of ERGOMAS--the European Research Group on Military and Society--from Irina Goldenberg, who has since become one of the co-directors of the Canadian Defence and Security Network.  ERGOMAS consists mostly of sociologists and anthropologists with some psychologists and political scientists and others as well. So, I was very much in a minority.  I went to this meeting for several reasons: to present my work to a different sort of audience, to see what ERGOMAS is all about, and, once the CDSN got funded, to connect the CDSN with Europe and to find willing podcast interview subjects.

What did I learn?

Book panel focusing on Chiara Ruffa

1. Most folks have not done podcast interviews (and I am a rookie as an interview with only KCIS as some experience).  I interviewed five scholars: Norwegian, Italian (based in Sweden), South African,  Israeli, and, of course, Portuguese.  The topics varied quite widely from Special Operations Forces (the Norwegian is known as Dr. SOF, having embedded with her country's Marine Special Operations folks for 18 months) to the impact of military culture on how forces operate in places like Lebanon and Afghanistan, political transitions and the armed forces, integration of women into the armed forces, and more.  Each conversation was very interesting, and I could ask whatever questions I want, rather than only being able to ask one in a crowded panel room.  The interviewees were game and were supportive as I worked with the technology.
2. I can mostly get what sociologists and anthropologists are doing.  At least the ones attending here used similar jargon and methods, although much more focus on ethnography and learning multiple languages.  Their idea of fieldwork is a bit more intense than mine.  There may have been more discussion of the military and the judiciary this week than I have heard in my career.  Very interesting stuff.  Of course, I got only a narrow slice as each period had competing panels from different working groups--I tended to go the civil-mil sessions, the public opinion and the military sessions, and warriors in peacekeeping.  I didn't go to panels on veterans or on police or recruitment and retention.  
3. I did go to the book panels, which were mostly interesting. I am definitely going to buy Dr. SOF's book on Making Warriors and Kristen Harkness's book on ethnic politics and coups.
4. I did not stick around for the dancing after the conference dinner--I did not have enough alcohol to go along with that.  
5. Perhaps because it was a multidisciplinary crowd or perhaps everyone was interested in military stuff, no one wasted much time asking paper givers why their topic was interesting or relevant.  We all found the stuff being discussed to be instrinsically interested.
6. The fun part of ERGOMAS is its leadership selection--whoever gets to be the next President gets to host the next meeting in two years.  So, the contest was between a French person and an Estonian.  The French person was not so certain where the conference would be if held in France, so the Estonian and Tartu won by a slim majority.  I would have been on France... but I guess  Europeans have had enough opportunities to go there.
7.  ERGOMAS used to be restricted to Europeans and is still mostly, but it has South American, North American, and Asia-Pacific members.  
8. ERGOMAS seems to have ties to both the North American-based Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society (its Canadian branch is a CDSN partner) and the International Sociology Association's Research Committed on Armed  Forces and Conflict Resolution.  Their next meeting is next July in South Africa, so I am now putting that on my schedule.  

I am hoping that ERGOMAS becomes a CDSN member.  We will certainly be highlighting ERGOMAS this summer and fall as we sprinkle in interviews we taped during the week in Lisbon.  Now I am off to Barcelona for a few days since my conference in Paris (EISS) starts next Thursday).

Oh, and, yeah, I love my job:

ISA Tips: SF, Some Not

Given how often we have been to San Francisco lately for APSAs and ISAs, we probably should know by now all the places to eat and drink and such.  But my memory is lousy, so I will focus on mostly on some things to keep in mind as one gets on a plane or train or car or boat to get to the International Studies Association meeting.*

* When I was trying to get to Seattle last summer for a vacation, the planes did not go where they were supposed to, so we had to drive the last leg. As a result, I am open to all forms of travel as being possibilities these days.

I was inspired to write this as I saw a bunch of tweets fly by about presentations and discussanting and such, so:

Paper and Presentation Stuff:

• Aim for ten minutes if your chair says you have twelve, and aim for twelve if you have fifteen. It almost always takes longer to present than you think.
• If you have many words on your slides, have only a few. 
• If you have numbers on your slides, make them legible (bigger fonts always better than smaller ones), and use color to illustrate stuff, like blue for positive results and red for negative.  If it works here at the Semi-Spew, it might not be a bad idea.... ok, never mind.
• If questions are collected from the audience before you respond, you don't have to answer everyone nor should you.  Pick the ones that are least picky and most interesting. 
• If your panel answers one question at a time, don't filibuster.  Other folks will want to talk--either to ask questions or to answer them.
• If you don't know the answer, then you can say so--the ISA is a low risk environment.  It is not a job talk.
• Don't write an 80 page paper and expect the discussant to read it.  No more than 45 pages or 15k words or so.  Don't just hand over a dissertation chapter if you can avoid it.  
• But don't worry about the paper being perfect--the idea is to get feedback. Sometimes you get, sometimes you don't.
• If you can possibly avoid it, don't put "Don't Cite/Don't Circulate" on your paper.  Doing so is a great way to avoid citations.  Better to be cited wrongly or cited for something that you change your mind about than not to be cited at all.  One of my favorite moments in an audience was to see my different works in two different boxes of a 2x2 as I had produced over time conflicting results about federalism's impact on ethnic conflict.  
• If you haven't gotten your paper to your discussant by now, do so immediately.  Don't expect a discussant to read your paper at the conference--they have stuff to do.

Discussant (I have said some of this before):

• Don't be cruel.  It should go without saying, but, well, sometimes it needs saying
• If the papers are entirely unrelated, don't spend too much time drawing false connections
• But if you see connections, tell the authors how they talk to each other--they may not have realized it.
• Don't just list the negative stuff--find a positive thing or two to say.  
• Treat the papers fairly--don't focus on just one and don't exclude just one.
• Oh and about fairness, try not to engage in the one habit we all have--think about how you would have done the project.  Instead, try to figure out how the person can do a better job of executing their vision.

Chair:

• There really is only one job requirement here: stopping the long winded.

What else is there to an ISA?

• The Hilton lobby can get super-crowded, so if you arrange to meet someone, especially someone you have never met before, mention a specific spot.  The pre-dinner mess of people can make it hard to find the person you are looking for.
• If you are a grad student or junior faculty person who does not know many people, go to a business meeting for a section close to your interests.  Volunteer to help out.  These usually are modest service requirements, but help you get to know people and be known.  These meetings are usually easier for meeting new people than receptions, which are often very loud, very crowded and more than a bit intimidating.
• Speaking of receptions, go to the Online Media Caucus's (Friday night, 7:30), as the Duckies (the awards presented to best work in online media) are fun, and the folks are pretty welcoming.  If you follow people's blogs or twitter accounts, then I think it is easier to approach them as you already know something about them.  I don't think there will be an organized tweet up for twitter folks to meet each other, so let the OMC reception serve that role. 
• I always advocate networking sideways and down partly because I am shy (really) and don't feel comfy approaching the big names but also because the old stars are not going to be around that much in 10 or 20 year.  On the other hand, the younger folks you hang out with now will be your pals 20 years down the road.  I used to roam conferences looking for people that I might now.  Now, I just have to stand still.  I like it much better that way.  
• While you may want to go to all of the panels, do get out of the hotel and its immediate area.  It is, alas, on the edge of some of the less nice parts of SF (the city reeks of awesomeness but our area also reeks of pot and poo and pee).  The city is not large so it is not super expensive to uber or taxi to the waterfront, to the Presidio, to Chinatown, or wherever.  I hear the town has a pretty bridge or two. Yes, cable cars are really cool, but it is easiest to get on it a bit up the hill than at the base station.  

I am sure there is other stuff to think about, so remind me what I have forgotten.  If you have good SF tips, share them. 

Canadian Institute For Military Veteran Health Research

Blogging is light this week--partly due to travel, partly due to burnout.  But I did want to mention what I was doing yesterday.  I was attending a meeting of the CIMVHR (see title for the full name), as Carleton is a partner in this network.  It is doing amazing work, seeking to advance research on a variety of issues affecting both active military people and veterans. 

This week's meeting was chock full of announcements related to new sources of funding to make this partnership sustainable.  The network demonstrates the power of harnessing academic institutions across Canada along with government ones.  Not only are they supporting research, they are essentially creating political heft.

How so?  I think it is no accident that the Minister of National Defence announced new commitments for military mental health care, $200 million over three years, the day before the conference kicked off.  The network's big event served as a focal point for both media and politicians as they must confront the well-being of the people put in harm's way. 

Thus far, the network has focused on medical/therapeutic/hard science kind of stuff.  I don't do health care policy kind of research, but I am sure that the next iterations will have more work on the politics and policy of this stuff.

Anyhow, I was most impressed by how the organizers, Alice Aiken and Stephanie Bélangér, have been able to build this organization so very quickly and to make a big impact.  So much for academia being irrelevant.  And so much for the idea that women cannot lead and make a difference in important areas of policy.  I am proud to be part of this network, if only as an observer and hopeful imitator.

Pondering Universal Arrogance

My post on networking in academia got some fire from an unexpected direction: Will Moore.  He suggested that I (and a few others) was tone deaf about networking.  Will is a friend and a sharp person (not all my friends are sharp, not all sharp people are my friends)* so I take his concerns quite seriously.  Also, I am self-aware enough to know that I can be oblivious if that makes any sense.

* Will's post makes me want to qualify everything I write.

His essential argument is that my experience (and the other folks listed in his post) is not universal, and I should probably not offer unsolicited advice that ignores my privileged position.  So, let me first consider the advice I offered to see if it is universal-ish or not and I will ponder my privileged-ness in another post (since this one is long enough)  Of course, explaining any of my thinking risks man-splaining, but I am a man and I explain.  Crap, I am so screwed.  Alas, I am not because I am privileged.  Oh, double crap.

My post at the Duck developed what I had written here and at PSR just a bit.  The major points are:

1. Networking with peers and with juniors can be as/more rewarding than networking upwards to the stars.
2. Go to the receptions thrown by the department that gave you your PhD and talk to the next generation of folks, not just the profs and your friends from grad school.
3. Go to business meetings of the various sections at APSA/ISA.  
4. Poker and other activities.
5. I was mostly looking for interesting interactions and not being very strategic.

Ok, would I advocate these things any differently if I was behind a veil of ignorance where I didn't know who I was and where I came from (trying to shed all of that pesky privilege for a moment in an amateurish Rawlsian way)?