Anne Marie-Slaughter has written an inspiring piece about what at first sounded like another call for bridging the policy-accademic divide, but instead turned into an appeal for greater investment in producing an ethos of "care" in our society and abroad. She writes, "Common purpose creates the trust and empathy that reveal us as individual human beings, not as statistics and stereotypes." Of course, she leaves it up to academics to come up with the great ideas to institute a policy of care and compassion. :)
Making sense of movements, rebellions, and revolutions (with occasional comments on East Asia, North Korea, and military bases!)
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Monday, September 9, 2013
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Political Science: Methods and the Policy-Academic Divide
In light of Senator Coburn's mission to end NSF funding for political "science," a friend/colleague decided to start an open forum on his f.b. The debate revolves around 1) the usefulness of political science research to the real world and 2) the types of methods we use. This debate was featured in a NY Times article. In addressing issue #1, my friend writes:
I also think Political Science could do more to address relevant policy questions and make our findings more accessible to the general public. My friend suggests the academic rules of the game should slightly change in the following ways:
Since I'm at a DC-based university, I've thought quite a bit about these questions - especially as I apply for research fellowships. Joseph Nye's op-ed in April on about the lack of policy relevance in poli-sci research was particularly apt. I am largely in agreement with my friend, but at the same time, we need not always look for convergence...even in the natural sciences and engineering, there is both basic and applied research. the "big picture" theoretical questions in the social sciences are equivalent to basic research. Some researchers will be more interested in basic, others in applied. And then there are those who connect the bridge. it's this middle category that our discipline could promote.
I also think Political Science could do more to address relevant policy questions and make our findings more accessible to the general public. My friend suggests the academic rules of the game should slightly change in the following ways:
1) Graduate students should be encouraged to take classes in policy analysis and media communication in which they learn to write concise and jargon-free memos. Such exercises will help them explain their research to both media representatives and policy makers;
2) Graduate students in Political Science should be encouraged to do policy relevant research;
3) Faculty should positively value the media and policy outreach of assistant professors and include achievements in these areas in the tenure review process;
4) Departments of Political Science should welcome back both assistant and tenured professors who temporarily depart from academia to pursue public service in government and other important work with international organizations, since they bring valuable experience to both teaching and research.
Since I'm at a DC-based university, I've thought quite a bit about these questions - especially as I apply for research fellowships. Joseph Nye's op-ed in April on about the lack of policy relevance in poli-sci research was particularly apt. I am largely in agreement with my friend, but at the same time, we need not always look for convergence...even in the natural sciences and engineering, there is both basic and applied research. the "big picture" theoretical questions in the social sciences are equivalent to basic research. Some researchers will be more interested in basic, others in applied. And then there are those who connect the bridge. it's this middle category that our discipline could promote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)