Prof. Emeritus Patrick James is the Dana and David Dornsife Dean’s Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the University of Southern California (PhD, University of Maryland, College Park). Prof. James is the author or editor of over 30 books and more than 200 articles and book chapters. His honors and awards include the Louise Dyer Peace Fellowship from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, the Lady Davis Professorship at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Thomas Enders Professorship in Canadian Studies at the University of Calgary, the Senior Scholar award from the Canadian Embassy, Washington, DC, the Quincy Wright Scholar Award from the International Studies Association (ISA) (Midwest), Beijing Foreign Studies University Eminent Scholar, Eccles Professor of the British Library, Ole R. Holsti Distinguished Scholar of the ISA (West), Official Visitor at Nuffield College of Oxford University, the Governor-General’s International Award in Canadian Studies, and the Albert S. Raubenheimer Award for outstanding teaching, scholarship and service at USC. Prof. James has been a Distinguished Scholar in Foreign Policy Analysis for the ISA, 2006-07, a Distinguished Scholar in Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Migration for the ISA, 2009-10, a Distinguished Scholar in Active Learning and International Studies for the ISA, 2021-22, and Distinguished Scholar in Political Demography and Geography for the ISA, 2023-24. Prof. Emeritus Patrick James has also received the Deborah Gerner Innovative Teaching Award and the Susan S. Northcutt Award from the ISA for actively working towards recruiting and advancing women and other underrepresented scholars in the profession. He served as President of the Iowa Conference of Political Scientists, 1998-99, President of the ISA (Midwest), 1999-2000, President of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States, 2007-09, President of the International Council for Canadian Studies, 2011-13, President of the Peace Science Society, 2016-17, and President of the ISA, 2018-19. Prof. James is the Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford Bibliographies in International Relations and also served a five-year term as editor of International Studies Quarterly.

The following is an interview with Prof. Emeritus Patrick James:

1. Could you share what drew you to your research field and what motivated you to take on the role of an Academic Editor for Social Sciences?
Well, when I was very young—I was five at the time—the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. I remember it made me very curious because the adults were trying to keep children away from the television and the radio. In other words, they didn’t want us to hear how frightening it was. That inherent secrecy made me even more curious, and I did eventually find out what was going on. I was living in Toronto at the time, and just as importantly, it also made me think about where I was. I hadn’t really considered where Toronto was before that. I was a very small child, just five years old, and this sparked a curiosity about the world—what we might now call the global system, many years later. As a child, it was something you might look at on one of those globes you could spin around. So I started having this curiosity at a very young age, and a much longer story could be told.
I also decided at a young age that I wanted to be a professor. Once I found out what that meant, I wanted to teach other people and do research. And eventually, of course, I did become a professor and focused on international relations. So all of this evolved, and with the social sciences, it became a really interesting part of my career—especially being involved with academic journals.
You found me, and one of the reasons I suspect you did is that I’ve done a fair amount of editorial work. For example, I was previously an editor, working with a team of co-editors at International Studies Quarterly, which is the official research journal of the International Studies Association. So I have a history of working in that capacity, and I’ve also served on other Editorial Boards.
When you reached out, I was absolutely delighted, especially as I learned more about the whole concept of open access—making research and publication opportunities available to many people, not just those fortunate enough to be at elite universities, particularly in the United States or elsewhere. I thought this was a great thing, and I’m very glad to be involved.

2. You have spent a big part of your career studying Canadian politics. For our readers who might not be Canada specialists, why is Canada such an important country to understand?
In fact, it goes back to my earlier story, which introduces a major theme. Take a look at either a map that projects the top—what is usually depicted as the top of the world, the Arctic—or a globe of some kind (of course, you can now view them in 3D very nicely on your computer). Canada is positioned right next door to what has been, objectively, the most powerful country in the world since probably the 1870s or 1880s—that is, the United States. It is also positioned adjacent to the Arctic and claims sovereignty over parts of it. Throughout history, climate change has always been present, and this brings me to the real point about Canada and the Arctic.
To some degree, there is now greater open access within the Arctic, particularly through what has historically been called the Northwest Passage. If you look at various countries and their interests, the opening of an Arctic passageway—especially if it becomes navigable year-round—dramatically changes, and is already changing the strategic importance of the Arctic. And, as we know from the controversy over Greenland, strategic minerals have become a major priority in international relations among the great powers. China has abundant access to these minerals; the United States does not, at least in comparison. Hence, Canada—which has Arctic territory, is adjacent to Greenland and the United States, and is part of the Arctic as a whole—is becoming even more important over time.
Even before climate change became a major issue, Canada possessed enormous amounts of territory and natural resources. In particular, as migration increases around the world, Canada becomes a quite vulnerable country. If you look at countries with large territories and very few people, Canada is arguably at the top of the list for low population density. Other countries might look at it in a predatory manner. So in the 21st century, Canada’s geostrategic importance is rising—and I'll get to another resource in a moment. It is also rich in what will become, I think, an increasingly major strategic commodity: fresh water. Very few countries can come close to Canada in their supply of fresh water. In other words, Canada becomes a target.
Its safety becomes less certain over time, given the fractures and issues within the coalition led by the United States, as well as changes within the United States itself. From a U.S. standpoint—and here we get to some unpleasant realities—Canada is generally regarded as a security free rider. This is objectively true: Canada does not spend much on its own defense, especially compared to the United States, even on a per capita basis. This will become a greater issue over time. No matter who is president, it is not going away.
Canada also faces other issues, and I’ll introduce a bit of controversy here. Canada has a multiculturalism policy embedded within its constitution, with the most important recent document being the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into being in 1982. The reason I mention it is that it refers to “rights” frequently, but the word “freedom”, as far as I recall, appears only in the title. Canada has ongoing issues with unity and coherence. There is some controversy here, and I’m not necessarily going to take a side, but there are continuing secessionist movements in the francophone province of Quebec. There is also alienation in Western Canada, which is arguably more serious now than in the past. I think much of this stems from ongoing arguments and bickering in Canada about what its identity is—what does Canada actually mean? This kind of existential debate doesn't happen as much in some other countries. So, in some ways, I believe Canada has a perilous future, due to its internal conflicts and the fact that it is a very large country with many valuable resources that does not focus much on its own defense.

3. What broader lessons about how diverse societies hold together or face challenges can the rest of the world learn from the Canadian experience?
I think one of the reasons these problems have not become more severe—though I would argue they are quite serious now—is that they were held at bay for a long time, and Canada may yet successfully cope with them. There is no reason to think the country will collapse anytime soon, or ever. But it will evolve.

Its strengths in dealing with these challenges include an extremely educated and effective population. Canada now has over a century of democratic experience. Its Confederation in 1867 marked the beginning of an evolving process of independence from Great Britain; until then, it had been a full colony. But unlike the United States, Canada did not have a revolution. Instead, it experienced gradual evolution—for example, slowly gaining control over its own foreign policy, not right away in 1867. I mention this because Canada has what might be called a culture of gradualism and evolution, as opposed to revolutionary change.
Why is that helpful in some ways? Canada does not have a history of civil war. There were events some time ago—the Riel Rebellion in the West and the Northwest—and there have occasionally been secessionist referenda in the francophone province of Quebec. But the population is educated, not entirely prosperous, but with a very high standard of living. Canada is part of all the elite clubs that lead the world. It always gets invited to everything—every party that matters, figuratively speaking—and it participates. So it is a country with many accomplishments.
On one hand, it is prosperous, and its people are highly educated and skilled. On the other hand, it faces significant unity-related problems and has a culture that tends to reject military spending on national defense. So while I am optimistic on the whole, I think there will be difficult times ahead for Canada as it adjusts to a rapidly changing world. Because Canadians have a more evolutionary than revolutionary culture, this period of adjustment is likely to cause stress and unhappiness within the country. It already has, particularly as relations with the United States have become very difficult. But overall, I remain optimistic that the basic capabilities of the country are strong enough to cope with these challenges.

4. You have served on the Editorial Board of Social Sciences for many years and have guest-edited two Special Issues. From your vantage point, how have you seen the journal evolve, and what do you see as its unique contribution to the broader social science landscape?
Overall, I would say that having been a participant in this process, I have been delighted to see it happen. The journal is rising. I think Social Sciences has moved from their point of origin to a significant level of visibility, and because of the way the world is changing, there is a clear movement toward open access. Within the MDPI collection, Social Sciences is ahead of its time—and has been since the beginning. I believe we will continue to see a shift toward this type of journal.
The two things I like best about the journal, I think, largely explain its success: it publishes good work that is interesting to read. And I believe there are two reasons why people are increasingly drawn to Social Sciences.
First—and this is a particular favorite of mine within my own career—I am attracted to it, and I would be paying attention even if I weren't directly involved, even if I hadn't guest-edited Special Issues or sat on the board. It is highly interdisciplinary. Often, people say they value interdisciplinarity, but in practice, they continue to work strictly as a sociologist, historian, political scientist, or whatever their discipline may be. In Social Sciences, there is genuinely strong interdisciplinary content. In terms of my own involvement through the Special Issues, I advocate for a visualization approach that is highly interdisciplinary. While it originated in philosophy, the systemist approach does not really belong to any one discipline. It isn't rooted in a particular social science the way various theories might be rooted in economics, anthropology, ecology, or any other field. If you look at any issue of Social Sciences, you will see multiple disciplines truly represented. It is not dominated by any single one. I think this is becoming increasingly valuable because so many of what are sometimes called the "wicked problems" of the world—the most significant challenges we face—demand attention and cooperation from multiple disciplines. No single discipline can help us fully address issues like the potential for great power war, the use of weapons of mass destruction, or changes in our biosphere. The list goes on. I believe Social Sciences is well equipped to serve as an outlet for work on these kinds of problems, as well as more specialized issues, precisely because it is truly interdisciplinary.
The other aspect I appreciate—and I think this also accounts for the journal's success—is that the review process is solid, fair, and academic. It is much better, more honest, and more equitable than at other journals I know. There are certainly other journals that handle this well, but this is one of the calling cards of Social Sciences. No matter who you are, when you submit your article, you will receive prompt responses. I want to mention junior scholars in particular—people working on their PhDs or assistant professors who do not yet have promotion and secure employment through tenure. They are eager to have their research reviewed promptly, whether in article format or book form (though that is a separate story). Social Sciences does not lag in this regard; it has a very good reputation. If you submit, you will be reviewed promptly, fairly, and competently. I am sorry to say that one reason Social Sciences is prospering is that the sheer volume of material to review has become so large that many journals are struggling. In other words, they are performing poorly, and authors are waiting far too long.
So I would highlight two things: the interdisciplinarity of the journal and the quality and efficiency of its review process. As someone on the Editorial Board and as a Guest Editor of Special Issues, I have experienced this firsthand. My own Special Issues were reviewed promptly. The Social Sciences editorial team does its work in a thoughtful, deliberate, and effective way. I think these strengths will continue to help the journal rise.

5. You have held leadership positions in nearly every major professional association, including the Presidency of the International Studies Association (ISA). From this high-level perspective, what do you see as the most critical opportunities?
Yes, and you're very kind. I have served in various association presidencies over my career within academe. I served as president of two different kinds of associations, and I want to mention an example of both. One is the International Studies Association, and I am also mentioning it because it is area-studies-focused—served as president of the International Council for Canadian Studies. So why am I mentioning both?
The International Studies Association (ISA) is highly interdisciplinary, but it is generally associated with political science. The International Council for Canadian Studies, on the other hand, is exactly what it sounds like: anyone and everyone—from A to Z, if you will, anthropology through zoology—is welcome to participate. So I have been involved in leadership with both types of associations: discipline-based and interdisciplinary.
I think it is important to staple these two things together figuratively when talking about opportunities for Social Sciences to become even better than it is now. Here is something that applies to both area studies scholars—someone who says, “I'm in Canadian studies”—and international studies scholars, who would most often answer that they are grounded in political science. I will be very careful about how I say this, but many journals are perceived as having a particular subset of scholars who are more welcome than others. In other words, particular kinds of research are more welcome in a given journal than others. This has been studied, of course, by philosophers of science in terms of what are known as paradigms—a paradigm in its basic meaning being a way of proceeding.
So, for example, if you were an international studies scholar, you might be an adherent of something called realism, which is associated with thinkers going back thousands of years—Thucydides, Machiavelli, and onward, as well as, in what we now call the Global South, figures like Sun Tzu, Kautilya, and so on. Where am I going with this? Let me use one example of a journal. I am not picking on this journal, but it has a strong identity. Within the field of international security, International Security is a very good journal, and people are desperate to publish in it. But it has a pretty strong identity. It is not necessarily the case that other kinds of work could not be published there. However, if you asked most people what the identity of International Security is, they would say, “It is the place where people working within generally traditional, conventional boundaries for security studies tend to publish their work”.
Now, let's circle back to both area-based scholars and discipline-based scholars. One advantage of Social Sciences is that, as someone involved with it, I cannot imagine the journal saying, “No, your work is not welcome because we don't do that kind of work” or “That's not our identity”. I think Social Sciences can be as strong as it is now—and become even stronger—by essentially refusing to have a narrow identity. In other words, it does not say, “We never publish work that seems too anthropological” or “We just won't publish something that uses data science because we don't think our readers would like it”. So paradoxically, one strength of Social Sciences is that it welcomes any competently performed social science. But isn't that a rather huge umbrella? I think it simply makes the journal interesting. In a sense, because so many journals have a niche of some kind and have established identities, by being so inclusive, Social Sciences is making that inclusivity its identity.

When I think of my affiliation with Social Sciences, we circle back now to interdisciplinarity. One of the best things about it is that if you have a competently executed project viable for journal space, your topic and your approach do not matter. You will be treated fairly here. I think that is the mindset that Social Sciences is successfully cultivating. I believe this is a win for the journal, and the more that becomes established—the more that identity gets out there—the better things are going to become.
Yes, in one sense, for example, International Security is not exclusively realist, but more realist-type work will tend to appear on average. If you were trying to predict what International Security is going to publish in its next issue, you might say, “I don't know exactly what it will be, but it will tend to be identified with the realist paradigm, or at least arguing about whether the realist paradigm is a good thing”. Whereas with International Organization, to give another example of a really high-profile journal, you might think the rival paradigm of liberalism would have a higher representation.
In the area studies journals, it is simpler and has more material. When I mentioned The China Quarterly, or I could have mentioned the Journal of Canadian Studies—a major Canadian studies journal—no article that had nothing to do with Canada would be reviewed there. It would be desk-rejected. Again, that is not a criticism. Journals do tend to have either paradigmatic identities or, if you will, topical identities like a country or region.

6. You have received awards for graduate mentorship. Reflecting on the many scholars you have guided, what gives you the most hope about the next generation of social scientists, and what is the one piece of advice you find yourself giving them most often?
Let me start with an anecdote. There is a very interesting movie called Deep Impact that featured, in a major role, the late Robert Duvall. He plays an older astronaut, and the younger astronauts are very skeptical about his involvement in the highly important team they are part of. At one point, he says to them, “You are all better trained and educated than we are”. That is how I want to begin. He acknowledges their excellence, but also, quite diplomatically, their lack of experience. Their great strength, however, is their superior training.
Now, let me transfer that to the world I live in as a social scientist. The young people I am seeing have better and more advanced methodological training—for example, in data science. They have access to fantastically powerful computer software programs like Python or R that can do amazing things. So my hope for the next generation is that, unlike me—the figurative older astronaut—their strength lies in introducing these new methods and approaches. We could say the same thing about qualitative research. For example, anthropologists now have access to textual analysis tools that allow them to do more interesting research than ever before, building on the past.
Now, here is the positive side. First, they have this wonderful training. Someone like me, educated in the late 1970s and early 1980s, did not have these tools. Our tools were of inferior quality compared to what is available now. You might say we had a hammer and nails, and now they have a power drill. Think of it that way.
Here is what they do not have, and here is where people of my generation can be helpful. As we live through the digital revolution, things are speeding up. I notice that younger people tend to prefer shorter, more compact formats. Students, to give you a concrete example, are less willing to read long books. They are less willing to read extensively at all, and they prefer very short, compact formats that resemble what they encounter on social media—Instagram, TikTok, or the like. This matters enormously because, on one hand, they have these wonderful methodological tools. On the other hand—and I mean no disrespect to anyone—on average, they tend not to have as much context and reflection for what they do, because so much of their time is spent engaging with very compact formats like Instagram or TikTok.
So what is the piece of advice I find myself giving them most often? Now I come to something personal. I believe the future of scientific progress is grounded in better visualization and graphics. In a world where younger cohorts—and this effect is getting stronger with each new generation—are increasingly oriented toward compact formats, we need better ways to communicate with one another. Think of the next cohort coming into college and university. The new cohort is always more compact in its orientation than the one it replaced.
I have developed a visualization technique. I invite others, of course, to build a better mousetrap. If you can do better than my Visual International Relations Project, please do. But I have been very fortunate to work with Social Sciences on Special Issues featuring visual approaches—exploring how we can use pictures, graphics, and diagrams to communicate in ways that address the compactness issue, the fact that so many scholars now want information quickly and concisely. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I think there is some truth to that. It may even be nearly true in a literal sense. If younger age cohorts are more resistant to absorbing large amounts of text, then one way for younger and older generations to communicate more effectively—indeed, for everyone to communicate more effectively—is through graphics.
My approach is just one. Someone tomorrow could come up with something better than my systematic approach. It is based on a particular school of thought in the philosophy of science, and the idea is that we should create single-page diagrams that essentially function like a language—extremely easy to understand and adopt. We can draw diagrams in such a way that your diagram and mine, or any other pairing, can be compared to one another. In essence, they would be speaking the same visual language.
So, to wrap up with the advice I would give: since so many in the younger cohorts prefer compact formats to long texts, let us all try to do better than I have. Either build on my particular approach or develop other approaches that are superior, so that we can speak to one another graphically. Otherwise, I fear that because we have such a gigantic amount of research underway, so many different ways of conducting it, and so many topics being explored, we are becoming increasingly unable to communicate effectively. I think that problem is aggravated by the fact that younger people want really compact formats of communication.
Let me just build on that for a moment. As programs like Google Translate have become even more powerful and accurate in their translations—they may not be perfect in context, but they are improving rapidly—diagrams that contain a limited amount of text would be relatively easy to translate into any one of thousands of languages and dialects, much more easily than text that has to be translated manually.

Related Special Issues:

• “The Visual International Relations Project”;
• “Systemism and International Studies”. 

Highlights:

1. Both adopt systemism as their core research methodology and focus on its visual application;
2. Beyond the core themes, they extend into areas such as religious discrimination, political demography and geography, global development education, regional integration, and moral polarization—integrating perspectives from sociology, geography, education, ethics, and other disciplines to transcend conventional disciplinary boundaries.