top of page
Writer's pictureSorina I. Crisan, PhD

How a Peace Think Tank Works: Bridging Academia, Policy & Practice with Dr. Adam Lupel, VP & COO of the International Peace Institute

What is it like to build a career that bridges the gap between the theoretical world of academia and the solution-driven field of policy? In this insightful interview, Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the International Peace Institute (IPI) in New York City, reflects on his 18-year journey at IPI, his transition from academia to policy work, and the critical role of persuasion in today’s polarized global environment. As he explains, “IPI is a peace and security organization, and over time, there’s been a growing recognition of the need to think holistically about these issues.” To address this complexity, IPI works to connect various sectors and actors across the globe to develop comprehensive solutions to current peace and security challenges.


Lupel highlights IPI’s unique approach, which involves bridging sectors and geographical hubs like New York and Geneva, and fostering collaboration between civil society, policymakers, and international institutions. He emphasizes the importance of inclusivity and gender equality in multilateral organizations, discussing how IPI advances these issues through research and diplomacy. Additionally, he explores IPI’s work on global challenges like climate change and pandemic preparedness, demonstrating the institute’s role in addressing some of the world’s most pressing issues.


Reflecting on the tension between academia’s focus on theory and problematization and the policy world’s need for actionable solutions, Lupel explains how foundational academic skills—such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to focus for extended periods—translated well to the policy arena, though adapting to the different demands of policy writing took time and effort. He also underscores the need for deeper engagement in persuasion, noting that it’s no longer enough to present facts; effective persuasion now requires “getting inside” others’ perspectives, understanding how they see things, and “working to shift their viewpoint from within.” As always, the interview concludes with Lupel’s advice to junior professionals professionals, which highlights the importance of persistence, adaptability, and professionalism in building a successful career in peace and security.


Dr. Adam Lupel, VP and COO of International Peace Institute. Interview with Sorina Matthey de l'Endroit, Ph.D., Persuasive Discourse

Q1. As we start our conversation, can you please briefly describe: What is the International Peace Institute (IPI) and when/why did you decide to work with them?

 

Answer: The International Peace Institute (IPI) is an independent, not-for-profit think tank based in New York City, right across the street from the United Nations. We have a 50-year history working on the UN agenda, historically focusing on peacekeeping. Over the years, we’ve broadened our scope to cover several different areas.

 

We have five thematic programs: (1) one broad umbrella program focused on revitalizing multilateral cooperation, (2) the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations which covers peacekeeping, peacebuilding, and mediation, (3) a dedicated program on women, peace, and security, (4) a growing program on climate issues, and (5) some smaller work on humanitarian affairs and human rights.

 

As for when and why I joined, I have been with IPI for 18 years. I started in 2006 while finishing my PhD. I was waiting to defend my dissertation, and I was working as an editor, managing a quarterly journal. I joined IPI as the editor, working on publications.

 

To be honest, if you had told me back then that I would still be here 18 years later, I might have run for the door! At the time, I was mostly on an academic track. But the work was fascinating, it kept me engaged and growing, and I have not regretted a single day.

 

Q2. When transitioning from academia to the policy world, what transferable skills have you noticed between the two fields?

 

Answer: I will speak from my own experience, because I sometimes wonder how well it transfers to others. I was a theorist, studying political theory at the New School for Social Research in New York, focusing on globalization and the challenges it poses for democratic governance.

 

At the same time, I was working in academic publishing, as I mentioned. So, I came to IPI to work as an editor, and that skill set—understanding how to work with manuscripts—transferred very well. What didn’t, frankly, was the academic approach to writing versus policy writing; they’re very different. It took some time to adjust to that shift.

 

However, the work ethic of being an academic—cultivating determination and consistency, sitting down and concentrating for long periods—transfers very well. And knowing how to think through a problem is also an important academic skill that carries over effectively.

 

Q3. Who were some of the key influences or mentors that helped guide your transition from academia to policy work?

 

Answer: That’s a good question. In some ways, I had to throw myself into the deep end and figure things out on my own. But there were also a few important figures at the institution over the years who, if not mentors, were significant guides. Sadly, they have since passed away.

 

One was the late Edward C. Luck, a Professor at Columbia, a leading expert on the Security Council, and the first Assistant Secretary-General Special Representative on the Responsibility to Protect, at the United Nations. He worked at IPI during my early days here. He was my predecessor as vice president and straddled the academic and policy worlds very well. Watching how he did that influenced me.

 

The other was Warren Hoag [spelled Hoge], a legendary figure who passed away late last year. He came to IPI after a remarkable career at The New York Times. His ability to take complex information and present it in a clear, readable way was an important lesson for me.

 

Q4. Can you share an example of a project that highlighted the differences between academic and policy approaches? Additionally, could you briefly explain IPI’s role in making the aforementioned project a success and its overall approach to work?

 

Answer: This conversation about policy vs. academic writing reminds me of an early project that provided valuable lessons during my transition from academia to policy work. Briefly stated, it comprised of a workshop that focused on exploring transnational organized crime and peace operations, and was the first step that helped produce a volume titled: “Peace Operations and Organized Crime: Enemies or Allies?

 

At the time, we brought together a diverse group—including academics, researchers, policymakers from Geneva and New York, and field personnel—to discuss the aforementioned topics. What struck me during the workshop was how these different sectors were talking past each other. Academics were asking, ‘What’s the problem?’—they like to problematize things. Policymakers were saying, ‘We know the problem, we need solutions.’ Field personnel, on the other hand, were focused on, ‘We know the problem and solutions, but the question is how do we implement them with the resources we have?’

 

Everyone was discussing the same topic, but from very different perspectives. I realized, in some respects, one of IPI’s roles, as a think tank that bridges different communities, is to present research and policy recommendations that address those three key questions: understanding the problem, determining what needs to be done, and figuring out how to do it.

 

This approach informs much of our work. More generally, all of IPI’s work across the five programs I mentioned is built on three pillars: we conduct research and produce publications, we hold events—some public, some private—and we engage in quiet diplomacy and advising.

 

In everything we do, we strive to bridge the gap between communities from different sectors, each asking different questions. We incorporate all three pillars—research, convening, and advising—into our efforts.

 

Q5. Could you elaborate on IPI’s role as a metaphorical ‘bridge’ between Geneva and New York?

 

Answer: Well, I wouldn’t say we’re ‘the’ bridge, but we are working to better connect the institutions and approaches in Geneva and New York. One area where this is relevant is humanitarian affairs.

 

For example, an older project we worked on involved Security Council Resolution 2286, which reminds member states of their responsibility to protect medical workers in conflict zones. When we first started on this in New York, we often heard, ‘That’s a humanitarian issue—it should be discussed in Geneva.’ This was about 10 years ago, but as the issue gained relevance in New York, we realized the way these topics were discussed in both cities was very different. Geneva tends to be more open to civil society and field perspectives, while New York is highly political.

 

To address humanitarian issues in New York, it’s crucial to incorporate Geneva’s perspectives from civil society and the field. We try to bridge this gap by convening diverse groups and ensuring civil society voices are heard in high-level, ambassadorial discussions in New York. In doing so, we help foster openness to new ways of thinking about these issues.

 

Q6. How does IPI approach peace and security in a more holistic way, and why is it important to connect various pillars of the UN system?

 

Answer: IPI is a peace and security organization, and over time, there’s been a growing recognition of the need to think holistically about these issues. Historically, the Security Council focused on maintaining peace and security through hard security—armies, soldiers, and war. But in the last 10 years, as seen through the Sustainable Development Goals and other processes, it’s clear that sustaining peace requires more than just the absence of war.

 

You need to consider what makes peace possible, which includes sustainable development, environmental policies, and health. All of this contributes to a more positive understanding of what the world needs for peaceful societies. To achieve this, we must connect the various pillars of the UN system—peace and security, development, and human rights.

 

But not all of this work happens in New York. Humanitarian issues are discussed in Geneva, the World Health Organization is based in Geneva, and tech issues also have a presence in Geneva. To make progress on these issues, we need to link the different processes within the UN system in a more efficient and cooperative way.

 

Q7. Can you share examples of recent IPI projects that demonstrate its role in addressing global challenges?

 

Answer: Two recent projects best illustrate this. One is our work on climate change. Over the last four years, IPI has been actively involved in the climate negotiations through the COPs (Conference of the Parties), particularly as part of the Maldives and Palau delegations. We advised the Maldives on their efforts to establish the Loss and Damage Fund, which will provide funding to developing countries suffering from climate-related losses. This effort was led by Small Island Developing States, and IPI worked closely behind the scenes to support the Maldives.

 

The second area is our work in Geneva on the INB (Intergovernmental Negotiating Body) process, aimed at establishing a new international instrument for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The approval was delayed at the World Health Assembly due to significant divisions around issues related to equity. In the last few months, IPI has been quietly convening informal meetings in Geneva, working with Costa Rica and other member states to help bridge these divisions.

 

Q8. How did you initially become interested in the field of international relations?

 

Answer: My interest in international relations started back in my university days. I didn’t really know what I wanted to do, but I knew I wanted to understand how the world worked because I didn’t. So, I began taking international relations courses, not because I planned to work in the field, but because I was curious and had questions.

 

I ended up getting a degree in international relations with a focus on Latin America, since I was also studying Spanish. After university, I wanted to step away from formal IR and get hands-on experience, so I volunteered in Nicaragua in the early ’90s. We did what is now called micro-development, working with internally displaced people, though we didn’t use that term back then.

 

I wanted to understand both how the world worked and the real-life consequences of big power policies on the ground, especially as Central America was emerging from its conflicts. When I returned after that year, I still had questions, so I applied to graduate school to continue exploring them and spend more time reading.

 

In hindsight, I never consciously decided to work in international relations—I was simply driven by curiosity and the questions I wanted to pursue. That curiosity led me to where I am today.

 

Q9. What are your thoughts on the role of persuasion in today’s polarized world and on your overall work within the field of IR?

 

Answer: It’s an interesting question. Today, it’s a difficult time to think about persuasion in the classical sense. With polarization and the fragmented information marketplace, traditional tools of persuasion—rational argument, rhetoric like logos and pathos, or even appealing to authority—don’t seem to work as well. Everyone is in their own bubble, seeking confirmation bias, so we end up speaking to like-minded people rather than trying to persuade those who think differently.

 

This challenge is present in the international context, the national context, and even in personal relationships. Persuading someone today requires more than just standing on the outside and presenting your view. You need to get inside their perspective, understand how they see things, and work to shift their viewpoint from within. It’s not easy, but making that effort can build trust and create a foundation for changing mindsets.

 

You can see this in international debates, like those around Ukraine and Gaza. For example, early in the Ukraine conflict, the U.S. and Europe were surprised that African states and countries like Brazil or India didn’t immediately side with them against Russia. The ‘with us or against us’ approach was a mistake because these countries have different perspectives and interests. Instead of trying to see things from their viewpoint, the focus was on pushing them to join the Western stance.

 

I think there’s been a gradual shift toward understanding the independent positions of these countries, but it’s not complete. To truly persuade, you have to start by understanding the perspective of the person or country you’re trying to reach, rather than just pushing your own stance.

 

Q10. How has women’s participation in multilateral institutions evolved, and what challenges still exist in achieving gender equality in leadership positions?

 

Answer: It’s interesting because one of IPI’s current projects is the Multilateralism Index, which measures participation, performance, and inclusivity across five domains: peace and security, human rights, global public health, trade, and climate action. One of the trends we see is the increased participation of women in multilateral institutions, which is a positive development. However, this increase isn’t sharp enough to correct for decades of inequality, especially in senior leadership roles.

 

While there is more inclusion, it’s not yet enough. At IPI, we’ve always been an open organization, and many of my senior colleagues are women. For me, it’s obvious—this space cannot remain male-dominated.

 

Q11. Based on IPI’s work portfolio, what trends have you observed in incorporating a gender perspective within multilateral institutions, and what challenges do you foresee?

 

Answer: At IPI, our commitment to incorporating a gender perspective is central to everything we do. We have a dedicated Women, Peace, and Security program, which not only conducts research on issues related to the Security Council and gender and security but also ensures a gender perspective is applied across all our work.

 

This has been an institutional priority, and while we’ve led in this area, we’ve also seen an increasing demand for this approach over the 18 years I’ve been here. However, despite this progress, I think there’s a real risk of backlash. The advancements on gender issues are not guaranteed, and we must remain vigilant.

 

Q12. What excites you most about working in the field of international peace, especially given the current challenges? And what does a typical day look like for you?

 

Answer: Well, it’s hard to define a typical day because my work is so varied. I manage people, do research, and work on different projects, so no two days are the same. When I tell people I work at the International Peace Institute, I often get the response, “Well, that’s not going very well,” and it’s true—right now, the international peace and security environment is very difficult.

 

That said, just like a doctor might find a complex pathology interesting, I find the complexity of the world today both challenging and exciting. The world is changing rapidly, and while that change can feel chaotic and scary, it also creates opportunities to influence the direction of that change toward a more positive and peaceful future.

 

Q13. What advice would you give to young professionals aiming for a career similar to yours?

 

Answer: I get asked this question often, and honestly, I’m not sure because nothing ever happens exactly according to plan and I think that one has to recognize that. My journey here came from pursuing interests rather than following a strict career path. Unless you’re going into a profession like law or medicine, where there’s a concrete track, I think it’s important not to chase a job but to cultivate interests and expertise—and then the job will follow.

 

Early on, I was given advice I didn’t realize the importance of until much later: always maintain a sense of professionalism, no matter the task. For example, when I first joined IPI, I didn’t fully know what I was doing. I was tasked with writing a memo and organizing the library—small tasks. But I told myself, ‘I’m going to do this as professionally as possible.’ I even learned the Dewey Decimal System to organize the books. Nobody told me to do that, but I took ownership and treated it with care.

 

That professionalism, no matter the task, has served me well, and I always tell young professionals to do the same. Don’t save your best efforts for only the ‘important’ tasks. Build a reputation for getting things done, whether big or small. But also, don’t just settle for those mundane tasks—be ready to jump when the opportunity comes because those doors don’t always stay open.


Thank you for reading.


Remember to subscribe to our newsletter, to receive updates about upcoming interviews.




***


Adam Lupel, PhD, IPI. Interview by Dr. Sorina Crisan Matthey de l’Endroit. Persuasive Discourse. Interview. Career.


Vice President and Chief Operating Officer



*Note: This interview was recorded on May 30, 2024, and has been edited for clarity, ease of readability, and length.

 

**Illustrations by: The main photo was provided by Dr. Adam Lupel. The profile photo shown in this interview may be found on the website of the International Peace Institute.

Comments


bottom of page