Search News


Browse Archives

News

Poli Sci Reformation?

September 4, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

TORONTO -- Consider this story: A political science department has a senior thesis program and has attracted a group of engaged undergraduates to pursue research projects that excite them. Then the department's professors have a fight and traditionalists take over supervision of the senior thesis program and "turn it into a statistical methods course." Many students, because the projects that drew them to the program had been wiped out, dropped out. The professor who told the story didn't name his college, but judging from the reaction here at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, the story rang true as something that could have taken place at many colleges and universities.

The anecdote came after a presentation Thursday by a special task force of the association, appointed to consider how the discipline should reshape itself -- in just about everything, including the undergraduate curriculum, the evaluation of faculty members and the subjects considered for research. The panel is about halfway through a two-year process to create a report on "political science in the 21st century," and used the association's annual meeting to share some of the ideas it is considering. The ideas include changing the way introductory courses are generally taught, shifting how graduate students are trained so they aren't being prepared only for research university jobs that are hard to come by, and making relevance (in courses and research) a key issue.

“Research should be problem driven rather than methodologically driven," said Lisa Garcia Bedolla, a member of the task force who teaches at the University of California at Berkeley.

Calls to make political science more relevant and less methodological are not new. In 2000, an anonymous e-mail calling the association and its leading journals out of touch and dominated by methodology set off a "perestroika" movement within the discipline (so called because of the pen name of the author of the e-mail and his not-so-subtle comparison of the discipline to the end days of the Soviet Union). The rallying cry of that movement was "methodological diversity."

That appears to be a major part of the way the new task force views political science. But the new reform effort is also very much about diversity in American society and colleges' student bodies -- which is notably not matched by the profession -- and how political science should change to reflect that diversity. And the vision of those on the task force is as much about teaching as it is about research.

Manuel Avalos of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington said that introductory courses typically try to cover bits of all of the "subfields" of political science -- an approach that may make sense for a traditional undergraduate at an elite college, who wants to go to graduate school and earn a doctorate. "But that is not how an undergraduate who is not going to graduate school views the world," he said. "How are we making this relevant to them?"

Another notable difference between this movement and the one that started the decade is that this one has backing from association leaders. The task force was created by Dianne Pinderhughes, the past president and a political scientist at the University of Notre Dame. The perestroika movement was very much from outsiders trying to have some influence (many say that they did, although many also say not enough).

Here are some of the issues raised Thursday -- not as final or even draft recommendations, but as concepts that the committee is exploring:

  • The real world. A theme of several of the panel members was that students sign up for political science courses because they want to understand what's going on around them, not because they want theory. "We have to emphasize the connections between the real world and the discipline," said Sherri Wallace of the University of Louisville. Several also noted that by failing to offer such material, political science risks losing students. Terri Givens, co-chair of the panel and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin (who does work on comparative political systems), said she is worried about "the rise of international studies and international relations" (operating outside of political science). "Students are looking for what they think is international relations and they often don't find it in political science," she said.
  • A true commitment to teaching. Members of the task force said that the discipline is dominated by an ethos that research is the most important thing and that research universities represent the key model for careers. "We are a bit elitist," said Wallace. Even if political scientists believe that research careers are the ultimate goal, several panelists noted that there are not nearly as many jobs at such institutions as there are at regional state universities or community colleges, and they suggested graduate programs should change to prepare people for jobs that they may actually get. "Most people do not get jobs at Research I institutions. They can't," said Juan Carlos Huerta of Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi. The contrast between the association's annual meeting and its annual conference on teaching, they noted, isn't just in the subject matter, but who attends. At this week's gathering in Toronto, the big names are from research universities and many teaching oriented professors don't bother to attend.
  • A broader research agenda. At a time when the student body is increasingly diverse, and issues of global inequities are front and center, several said that a much more diverse research agenda is needed -- with more attention to pressing social and political problems. Bedolla of Berkeley said that the discipline's focus on the state and state institutions has led the discipline to study those in power, at the expense of looking at those without power. Further, Givens said it was important for political scientists to be more willing to embrace other disciplines. She mentioned as an example an area she follows in European politics. German politicians, having studied the Internet techniques used by Barack Obama in his campaign, are now being surprised that they aren't as effective in Germany. Givens said that to understand why, political scientists need not just their own ideas, but knowledge about social networks and new media.
  • Understanding the tradeoffs of reform ideas. Luis R. Fraga of the University of Washington, co-chair of the task force, stressed that solutions to these issues are not simple. For example, he said that one idea about reforming graduate education might be to have doctoral programs create specific programs for those interested in teaching careers. But if that were take place, Fraga said, "I wonder which of our graduate students would be quickly tracked into teaching and teaching institutions, and whether that would exacerbate issues associated with access and inclusion," leaving a white male cohort to focus on research.

Behind all these and other questions, Fraga said, is a desire by the task force to promote a more rigorous analysis of many of the assumptions that go into how political scientists operate. Fraga said that the traditional ways of operating aren't necessarily wrong, but that adhering to them without evidence is. The profession, he said, "needs to be more self-reflective."

"We think it is important to ask more of those of us in the profession about whether we are doing the best job we can," he said. "To often, we just follow elements of whatever the dominant thinking has been."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Poli Sci Reformation?

  • Posted by Poli Sci Spouse on September 4, 2009 at 6:45am EDT
  • Methodological bigotry is a huge problem in political science, as is the idea that every good political science department must focus on research. Students/political scientists interested in political science aren't asking qualitative questions because they "don't like math". It's also the case that most universities don't have the resources to support a robust political science research agenda. Finally, it is the case that many gifted teachers and people who practice qualitative research methods are being forced out of academia.

    This is a big step -- sadly, most of the folks who really need to hear the message will discount it.

  • Political Science?
  • Posted by Bill Jacobks , Instructor/Social Science: History & Pol. Sci at Muskegon Community College on September 4, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Political science has forgotton that it is about the polis and the polis is people, not statistical entities. Statistical research is at best superficial and always has been irrelevant to most political decisions that human being make. The discipline, if it is to survive as a meaningful enterprise of research and teaching, must become more humanistic or it will will simply become as irrelevant as Economic modeling has become to economics: intellectual masturbation. Bill Jacobks.

  • The real world
  • Posted by Sandy Thatcher , Executive Editor for Social Science and Humanities at Penn State University Press on September 4, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • As a strong supporter of the earlier "perestroika" movement in the profession, I applaud the efforts of this new task force to reconfirm the importance of political science paying attention to "the real world" and taking its cue about what to teach and do research about from actual political problems rather than the latest methodological and theoretical fads. One piece of advice I remember well from my earliest days in publishing came from Ed Tufte, who said that every political scientist writing a book should begin by talking about political problems in the real world rather than what the latest theoretical debates in the profession are. I think many of us publishers are very much in sympathy with the direction in which the task force is moving as we all like to publish books about politics that can usefully instruct people outside the field who care little about the tools that political scientists use to conduct their research. Political scientists for too long have emulated the worst parts of their sister social science economics, in giving more credit to elegant theoretical models than to their relevance to "the real world." There is certainly an important role for quantitative methods and modelling to play in analyzing political issues, but they can usually only get at half the truth of causality, which also needs qualitative analysis to flesh out the connections among political phenomena; ideally, what Evan Lieberman has called "nested analysis" seems the kind of approach most likely to generate true understanding of the complexities of "the real world." We publishers want to publish books that can speak to many audiences, not just the insular audience of political science professionals, and thus look askance at the kind of writing that fills the pages of the APSR. The problems are real, and no one is better positioned to illuminate their complexities than political scientists, but they need to keep in mind more than their immediate colleagues when they write their books if they care at all about helping contribute to a wider public understanding of political issues.===Sandy Thatcher, Penn State Press

  • Posted on September 4, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • From the outside, it's interesting to me that this issue has never been resolved. My undergraduate degree is in Political Science, and I was initially admitted to a graduate program in that field. I didn't go, because my great love was democratic theory. I couldn't have cared less about taking polls, and was richly warned by faculty that this put me out of step with the direction the discipline was taking. I went another way. That was 22 years ago. I guess I'm not surprised that it hasn't been sorted out yet, but it is interesting.

  • sad to see
  • Posted by Ezra Gilgh on September 4, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • It is sad to see a major discipline imploding, consuming itself over what are really phoney wars (methodology vs no methodology, quantitative vs qualitative, theory vs no theory, real world vs modeling, and so forth). I thought the main point of higher education was to teach new skills and expand horizons of students, not cater to the preferences and biases they bring with them. As an engineer, I well understand the importance of both modeling and application to real-world problems. Some of the gibberish going on here sounds like high-school stuff! I hope political science can get its act together. Do anyone really believe this is the first time departments in any discipline have had to negotiate disagreements and conflicts between Tier 1 and Tier 2 departments, between an emphasis on replenishing its professoriate and an emphasis on attracting students in sufficient numbers and then placing those who graduate, and so forth? It's inherent in the nature of higher education. And all the nonsense about "elitism": isn't part of the point to produce the very best we can, to help every student become the very best she or he can?--which means that some will leave much better equipped, more skillful, brighter, and so on, than will others. And what's with the push to beat up on economics? Its theories have better predictive power than those of other social sciences; and remember, even physics has far from a perfect record in that respect. Oh, yes, I forgot: the point isn't predictive power, it's relevance. Haven't you noticed that application is a form of prediction?

  • Study Politics or Political Science
  • Posted by Michael Roona at University of California - Merced on September 4, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I began my freshman year in college just a few weeks after Richard Nixon resigned. I went off to college with a strong desire to better understand my world and what was happening to it, but was horribly dismayed to find that political science had nothing to contribute to my understanding of politics and the major political events of my lifetime. From the time some form of political consciousness emerged until I went to college, I had lived through the assassination of a president and numerous other political/social movement leaders, the Tet Offensive, the Watts riots, the rise and fall of nonviolent civil disobedience in the struggle for civil rights and racial equality, the Church Committee hearings, the My Lai massacre, the American Indian Movement incident at Wounded Knee, the Watergate hearings, and numerous other events that as a draft age young man I very much wanted to understand. Having spent the summer listening to the Watergate hearings on the radio, I was genuinely excited about going to college to learn about government and politics. By the time I completed my first college course in political science, any hope I had of getting help from the academy in understanding my world was dashed. How many young people go off to college as I did hoping to learn about their world, only to find that academicians study and argue about theories of politics that have little or nothing to do with the formative life experiences that shape their political consciousness?

    I hope this APSA reform effort succeeds. I'd hate to see future generations as ill served by the academy as I was.

  • futurity, in the social sciences
  • Posted by david inkey, UNpoet@aol.com , president at aantarctica university on September 4, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
  • what i have written for antho seems to apply equallly to poli sci...peace, david 90409

     

     

    David Inkey’s Program of United Nations Studies, PUNS! September 17, l996

     

     

     

     

    THE FUTURITY, ¿OF ANTHROPOLOGY?

     

     

     

    Anthropology remains intriguing and creatively diverse, iconoclastic

     

    and breathtaking in sweep and perception, profound in scholarship, yet

     

    it is also integral and even leading in addressing the complex challenges

     

    of a transnational yet grounded humanity.

     

     

     

    James Peacock, l995

     

     

     

    I am fortunate to have in hand, in my left hand, a copy of James Peacock’s l995 American Anthropological Association Presidential Address, “The Future of Anthropology.” I have read this visionary text with both intense interest and quintessential Quixotic queries... There is, indeed, something auspicious about an association president having the verve and vitality to express “the” future as if he/she could speak for some 11,000 dues paying client-members and uncounted drop outs and opt outs such as myself. Despite my Rip Van Winkle siesta away from the AAA, I have kept my friendship with Jim Peacock and I appreciate the politics of concertization (a UNESCO term) that elevated my friend to the highest office in the officialdom of anthropology in the United States of America. I find it not at all surprising that Jim’s text and testament have had critics and I join their ranks, but my criticism is leveled in respect and revelry.

     

     

    JP commences with crescendo clarity, “My assumption, perhaps idealistic, is that those who give will ultimately receive. More practically, anthropology must receive what it deserves, not just in funding or jobs, but also in position and respect in society and culture.” With those two sentences I believe JP passes sentence on our profession. I left academia because I could neither work nor play effectively and efficiently as an academic anthropologist. For me, anthropology’s past was too taxonomic; the present, too cautious, too unimaginative to nourish my curiosity. The future of anthropology is still too insignificant, lacking in signs and cosines. I wish James had declared himself “invariably idealistic.” Generously, JP gives us three future scenarios, “Gotterdammerung, we go up in flames.” Since I like Eliot’s poetry better, I suggest that we disappear with a whimper... JP’s second try or trial is that we “hang on as living dead.” I reject this prospect because I am a Charter Member of The Live Poets’ Society and thus I have no patients nor patience with the living dead. Scenario Three in the President’s Address is cited above. Would that this were a contemporary reality rather than a not so simple sophisticated speculation... JP believes that to make Scenario Three a reality we must “press outward: mobilize our work and ourselves to make a difference and to make a mark beyond the discipline and beyond the academy.” Goodness, gracious ME! I experience recurrent deja vu, having departed from academia in l972 to mobilize population awareness in the UN System...

     

     

    I will not comment upon JP’s sorrows concerning support and non-support of academic anthropology, but I scream with delight that JP cites Thomas Wolfe, that as “Americans worry about our culture--(there is) an opportunity for us anthropologists to deploy our wisdom and experience.” I challenge JP and his entire cabinet to catalogue for themselves and all of us what is that wisdom and experience and how, when, why and where the wit and wisdom of anthropology will be relevant to prepare our societies and selves for two, perhaps too pervasive, “psychically polarized(?)” PCs, Planetary Culture and Personal Commitment. Upper Class American Society used to number itself as The 400. JP observes that we may be similarly exclusive with only a scant 400 departments or programs of anthropology in the United States. Activation will be in the essence of the challenge. We have perhaps 30 years before the planetary people count reaches l0 billion... so let us act while we have the simpler task of “reaching” just 6 billion fellow beans... While we are “at it” we may help demographers and medical personnel confused with what they call “the population explosion,” to realize that the 20th Century “is” indeed THE HEALTH CENTURY, with our numbers changing from a guesstimate of l.5 billion in l900 to a projected 6.3 thousand million for our end of millennium, New Year’s Eve, December 3l, l999. (I should also like to know how equitable on gender are our 400... I would like the count to be THE PEOPLE COUNT!)

     

     

    In what might be, must be, James Peacock’s most telling sentence about and sentencing of anthropology, he asserts ... “It is not known to be crucial to society.” I like the JUDICIAL PROCESS (a duo JP) that we are given a life sentence, not a death sentence. Further on in his treatise, JP reports on a recent Presidential Symposium, which I have not known about, studied, nor reviewed , but which I will. The Whither Report recorded “WE ARE STILL THE INVISIBLE DISCIPLINE.” JP would bore me with his forte recital of the failings of anthropologists and anthropology, with dismal de-composition of how totemic rewards are usually reserved for soloists, with certain irrelevancies in classic professional behavior, and with glorification of fieldwork, but because I have been long absent from the functions and malfunctions of academic anthropology, I am not bored, I am informed, albeit sadly, by the similitude to what I left twenty-four years ago.

     

     

    JP creatively waxes Mosaic in a central section of his testament, trying to unify the various “tribes” he has served. He gives us a decalogue of suggestions of what we anthropologists can do to enhance our visibility and perhaps guarantee credibility... Should I suggest guaranteeing visibility and enhancing credibility? He wants us to enrich general understanding of anthropology’s understanding of Natural History, Cultural Pre-History and the Humanities. Two, he insists that “Anthropology must move to shaping policy.” I look up and down, forwards and backwards, to the right, left and center, with all my characteristic, undiluted enthusiasm, to learn about the AAA’s Institute for Human Policy. Would that the AAA would challenge the institute to develop humane policy. In “Leadership,” President Peacock suggests that anthropologists must amplify their contribution to leading (emphasis added). Concerning “Human Issues,” my friend asks, “Can we not effectively be public intellectuals?” JIM, HELP ME! My experience with public intellectuals is that many of them tell us what they think we should do. I prefer the nascent field of public scholars who are participatory students and coworkers in determining what we might do... In his discussion of human issues, JP touches what I believe our primate, prime factor, human rights: IT is a tragic public constraint, another one of my PCs, insufficient awareness of human(e) rights. (Given my druthers, I would give every person on Earth and in Space a printed or audio copy of THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. If every ten of us would each give ten people copies and they in turn would do likewise, we could with 1010th “reach” 10 billion beings, virtually double our current bean crop... Knowledge of basic humane rights is, to me, as essential as the PC, population concept, I have spent thirty-five years promulgating, “Every Child, A Wanted Child.” Undoubtedly, without any doubt, I am virtually an incurable optimist... It is not for nothing that I claim, ‘I am not a champion of lost causes, I am a champion of causes that have not yet been won.’) For his Fifth Column, JP suggests that we have an arts responsibility to help everybody see everybody, most engagingly.

     

     

    As a Sixth Sense, James would have us spread our area studies, languages and knowledge of particular places. A Seventh Pillar of Potential Wisdom is our ability in fieldwork. The Eighth Effort is fomenting appreciation of the comparative method. (While I spend hours faulting parts of my anthropological training, I never suffered from under-exposure to “the comparative method.”) Late, in ninth place, James eulogizes OPENNESS... He praises vectors that “connect dynamically the polarities which energize our intellectual life and society.” Finally, JP pleads for “Synergy between theory and practice.” My miserable summary of anthropology, long since I was joyfully introduced into the Nez Perce Nation, when I was a tender four-years young, is that more anthropologists of my acquaintance concern themselves with theory than with practice, while I believe that it is in Practicing Community that we create Planetary Culture.

     

     

    JP speculates “In focusing outward, do we not risk losing our inner soul, our identity? The greater risk now is excessive focus inward.” I believe that we lose our soul(s) by not risking, not risking the creation of Planetary Culture. One of our ethnologists recently reported that we have 6,170 cultures and that we have the virtually insuperable task of making the world safe both from and for ethnicity. I would rather be an anthropologist of futurity, contending even unto contentiousness, that we have a very fragmented mosaic of one culture which we have neither pieced together, nor peaced together...

     

     

    WHAT IS THE FUTURE,

     

     

    ¿ OF ANTHROPOLOGY?

     

     

    I want to believe that anthropology with all the social sciences, sciences, philosophies, and all of religion and skepticism, has a future of planning, programming and practicing love of wit and wisdom. It is no accident that my mentor Henry David taught me how to conduct drum corps and another, Einstein, showed me that Imagination is more important than Knowledge. Never did Albert contend that Knowledge is not important, he simply and not so simply contended that without Imagination we would never know how to employ any Knowledge... One of my contemporary friends graciously describes me as “a reformed Harvard anthropologist.” I treasure the appellation because among many virtues this seal of approval weighs in with the cheerful challenge that I should always be reforming from that early formalistic training of theoretical anthropology to own anew some of the ease of my CHILDNESS, the anthropology when most innocently I delighted in the caring, arts, music, dance, food, and community of the Nez Perce...

     

     

     

    I admire the polite composure, the purposeful composition, of James Peacock’s testament for the American Anthropological Association. I have fewer clients than he, so I need not be so politically constrained in my suggestions... I want any and all anthropologists and non-anthropologists interested in humane behavior to entertain, examine, and contribute “answers” to some fourteen points that puncture my persona... As soon as I have established contact with the AAA’s prospective Institute of Human(e) Policy, I will proclaim my profoundly meaningful meta-anthropologic metamorphosis as S.I.R. DAVID (Spy In Residence, dubbed by UN colleagues for superlative interagency collaborationist work), as THE UN SANTA, and dauntingly and undauntingly as THE UNITED NATIONS PHILOSOPHER! No academic position I know of could have rewarded my anthropological service as superbly as did my UN colleagues, appreciating my direct, pragmatic, culturally sensitive, humane works...

     

     

    Whether we, then or now, could implement Wilson’s Fourteen Points or not, is to me now an irrelevant question. Bosnia and her neighbors are a contemporary counter-case in our general inability/ability to effect or permit “self determination of peoples.” My Quixotic Quest(ions) come(s) from an important lesson I learned from the ageless Don and his stalwart companion, Sancho, that we must dream all the possible dreams we can imagine:

     

     

    a. Did traditional sovereignty die on April 5, l991, when, with Resolution 688, the Security Council of the United Nations authorized international intervention to protect the Kurds in Iraq? Do KURDS IN NEED constitute a new KIN which anthropologists will study as assiduously as they have structured innumerable other relational paradigms?

     

     

    b. How should or should not the UN System protect Antarctica as the only peaceful continent on Earth and how can the UN work for eco-responsibility (response-ability) for such a planetary park? What role can A.U. (pronounced “awe”)--the nascent Antarctic University play and work on with regard to “protecting” Antarctica from human degradation? How many anthropologists do we wish to have work and play in Antarctica? What role can AU anthropologists create for “the futurity of anthropology” and correlate concerns? (Can I successfully combine the opportunities and obligations of being AU’s First President and First Anthropologist and First Filanthropist?)

     

     

    c. What opportunities for international and interspecies understanding and protection emerge from the June l992 UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (UNCED)? How many anthropologists have ever read our global Magna Carta, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS? How many anthropogs and anthropoids have even seen THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS? Not all our current totems have been carved on totem poles...

     

     

    d. How can each of us contribute to equity?

     

     

    e. Why do so many of our politicians and journalists believe we should have a peace dividend from the greatest war in “his” story, The Cold War, when “his”storically wars have not paid peace dividends? Have any anthropologists studied peace profits and peace prophets in contemporary societies? Do any of our linguists have peace lexicons?

     

     

    f. What kind of “World” would we like to live in and what kind of work are we willing to do to contribute thereto? Anthropologists have for eons been students of warfare, some ethnographers have recorded welfare, who are the scholars of peacefare? Will it be feasible for 3300 anthropologists to participate in The Planetary Peace Fair of 2031 CE, to celebrate the 3300th Anniversary of the Peace Treaty of Ramses II of the Egyptians and Hattusilis of the Hittites (1269 BCE)? I will be most pleased to guide tours of THE ICONS OF PEACE in the UN and to show the exquisite replica of our first known peace treaty....

     

     

    g. What kind of world do we have the likelihood of having during the remainder of this century and in the first century of our new millennium? Would it be preferable to return to Bishop Ussher’s chronology and begin this year Our Seventh Millennium. According to our 17th Century scholar and divine, Planet Earth was created at 9:00 am on Monday, October 23, 4004 BC.

     

     

    h. How does each of us contribute to warfare, to peacefare and potentially to THE PEACE FAIR OF 2031 CE? Do you celebrate the third Tuesday of September as International Peace Day? The UN does...

     

     

    i. If we wanted to, how would we design PEACE CURRICULUM, PC?

     

     

    j. How do we participate or fail to participate in cultural processes and planetary identity?

     

     

    k. How do we hinder or promote the Lifeness principles of the l990 Galapagos Interspecies Peace Conference (GIP-C)? (Lifeness is the relation of all beings one to another.)

     

     

    l. How might we commemorate the 3300th Anniversary of The Peace Treaty of Ramses II and Hattusilis, 1269 BC - 2031 AD, and should the coincidental event of my centenary influence our celebrations?

     

     

    m. What have we learned in anthropology to contribute to conflict resolution? Can we make the world “safe” from humans...

     

     

    n. How can we—as individuals, members of non-governmental organizations and as citizens of member states of the UN—participate in owning the response-ability of being the United Nations. How often must we chant “We The People(s)” and how many times must we lament that “We” are mentioned only once in THE CHARTER?

     

     

    ¡14! Fourteen Questions are not meant to replace, place or pre-place “14 Points” of an earlier era. My quest(tions) constitute(s) simply and not so simply my didactic developmentalism. My Quixotic Quirks are a folk doctor’s kit and caboodle in which I keep some magical toys, tools and techniques. I use my ANSWER MARK--an eight rayed star--to disguise the frustrations I have frequently with commas, periods, question marks, exclamations, dashes, semi-colons, colons, pluses and minuses... I have a little crystal ball to divine any doubts and to prove to all doubting Janes and Jameses that I have all my marbles. And I have a purple crayon which I use to emulate Harold’s creativity, as reported in HAROLD AND THE PURPLE CRAYON. I honor MAGIC, for MAGIC is, before all, the work, art and artfulness I learned from a troika of ancient wise-guys, The Magi, who taught me that our faults are not in star gazing and supernova....)

     

     

    * * * *

     

     

    I should finish with a prologue to epilogue, because it is too early for me to write an epilogue to my futurity of anthropology. Suffice it to note here that in another incarnation, whether that is the “carnal” of meat or, weather permitting, we harvest bountiful botanic booty beauty, “carnations,” I wish to become A CLOWN PRINCE OF PLANETARY CULTURE! I will not act as an actor, for actors must play the parts written by others. I will be a clown because clowns create their own roles.

     

     

    I dream by day and by night: We will form a great circle and as we step or stumble counter-clockwise you will be my leader and as we reverse ourselves, you will follow or fall in my steps... Whoever called the clock wise?

     

     

    I owe a debt of gratitude to Henry David for giving me the word “futurity.” Why don’t we ask in the futurity of anthropology how we are to evolve from being human to becoming humane?

     

     

    --WHAT DID YOU DO TODAY—

     

    ¡ INTERNATIONAL PEACE DAY!

     

     

    ===

     

     

     

    ¡A REFORMED(?) HARVARD ANTHROPOLOGIST!

     

    an almost modern man...

     

     

    Sticks and stones may break my bones,

     

    Names can certainly harm me!

     

     

    I have been described, much to my amusement, beyond the wittiest and wisest bounds and bonds of my pleasure, and curiously, comically, courageously, strikingly to the inner core of my consternation, as “a reformed Harvard anthropologist.” My great mentor, Thoreau, inadequately but inadvertently asserts that most men (people) live lives of quiet desperation... I have greater problems with that simplistic summary of Life than I can explain today... Be that as it may be, suffice it that I say, here, many of us who profess, pretend and perform, professorially, live in such an academented world, and that is not at all amazing, IT is quite astounding, that this nomination, this prosaic proclamation, occurred in my 64th year, just, only, scarcely 32 years after I had earned, or otherwise had had conferred upon me, a doctorate in social anthropology from the summitry of academic, imperial pridefulness, from Harvard University. Forty years ago, forty revolutions around our morning star past, I was quite delited and daunted to gain admission to the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and a giddy group of us adopted a credo of self-explanation (expiation) and public, degrading apology, “What respect can we have for Harvard if WE were admitted?” As TIME passed and most of us moved toward our ultimate academic degree goals, WE changed our chant, “What respect can WE have for Harvard if WE get our doctorates?” Was it “graduation” or “commencement,” or both and something else besides, on that beautiful day in June when I grasped a paltry piece of parchment, a rich or poor exchange for tortured and triumphant years of pathetic and passionate patience and impatience... Our parting patois beyond the gated commencement “theatre” was “What respect can WE have for Harvard if it ever offers us a job...” Some functionary, before I learned in France how functionary many functionaries can be, proclaimed words which challenge the best and worst of any gender identity the graduates had, “I welcome you to the company of educated MEN.” (I learned recently that the newer vintners suggest, “We welcome you to the company of scholars.”)

     

     

    When I was but a teasing toddler of two, my Mother tautly taught me a Quixote Question to fill the text of A LIFE MANUAL... “What in the World do you want now?” I wanted to understand Life... I want to understand Life... Curiously and imaginatively, I believed or thought I believed that I could utilize the arts and artifices of anthropology to gain humane understanding, though my mentors and would-be mentors all spelled, somewhat dyslexically, “human” without any ease... eeeeeeeeeeee’s... [Would that they would think and spell "humane..."]

     

     

    I was going to be an Africanist because there seemed to me to be some promise that the second half of the 20th Century was going to be a great era for post-colonial achievement on that Dark Continent of the 19th Century.... Fortune baked and broke other cookies all around. Fortune played other cards for me and I became something more of a Latin Americanist, not to my regret, but always to my unfulfilled longing of wonderment, wonder of how different I would be had I spent as much time in Africa as I labored, enjoyed and gave in Latin America... Harvard did not teach me to ask questions of PC! Harvard was perhaps so occupied with being Harvard, that one professor was more concerned with seeing ancient values in Chiapas than contemporary change, another was more fixated on “need for achievement” than need for comprehension, another was quantifying more than qualifying...

     

     

    I left Harvard to teach in a small, poverty-stricken, rich, vibrant country in Central America...and I was within six months of being in El Salvador to “discover” that population issues are one of the pre-dominant themes of the 20th Century... Instead of learning to explain custom and constraints in culture, I had the opportunity to learn such iconological issues as, “Why did you save my Life?” I learned to counter the conventions of aid from the colossus of the North, and during the First Development Decade, I learned to be response-able to “development for what...”

     

     

    I have had a patchy “career,” and I am sometimes saddened to think that I never achieved any of the academic dreams I spent nights and days with when I was chronologically a more tender age... Yet, yet, yet, I am profoundly pleased, to the furthest stretches of my Being, that I am still, yet, just, ever and always, an academic activist... It does not embarrass me that I never go on a tenure track, it does not please me that the Academy is at war with itself, trying and very trying...to figure in and out what should be done with tenure... I frequently wonder whether “tenure” is not some permutation of indentured servanthood... Occasionally, but rarely, I like to refer to myself as a United Nations anthropologist....but the UN has never, to my knowing, been accepted in the canon of cultures, as a “legitimate” field of study... Culture and cultures is another “problem” which, I believe, anthropology has not yet solved or resolved...

     

     

    Now, as I enter what is probably the last third of my terrestrial time, I speculate, inquire, imagine that the arts (and sciences) of anthropology would be well served by a transcendental, triumphant post-tribal testament of PC! PLANETARY CULTURE would be the greatest humane discovery of our feeble two million years of human “being....” We would trash such tacky twaddle as political correctness and find planetary consciousness, mixed with cosmic clowning and political consciousness and the "ultimate" PC, Personal Commitment....

     

     

    I think that my Mother must have asked me the question, "What in the World do YOU want?" about as many times as I have ever been able to count... In my sixth summer when I was in bed for three days with the worst sunburn any redhead should ever suffer, I decided to count to ten thousand, by tens. (It took many years to learn to count by the power of ten.) My Mother--may she rest in Peace as fully as she worked for Peace--may have tried to keep count of how many times she repeated her best question, but I suspect that even she lost the tally about the time I was testing my account-ability of ten to the fourth , before I knew much about power and powers... I suppose that I have been asked this question with more different tones of voice than most people can even imagine. I used to have very simple answers and my unassuming, undemanding needs were easily met with pop corn, or an extra story--I loved to have my Mother read me stories beyond my own literary skills, or to take me to a movie, to give me an extra piece of fudge, homemade fudge, the only kind we new in those eras, and to treat me to ice cream and other sundries. Then, through the years, the question was expressed with certain exasperation and my replies were sometimes considered quite unreasonable. Finally, I discovered a global answer. That was when I discovered what a good friend Imagination has been during my entire life.

     

     

    I did not choose to come to Planet Earth. The great French Jesuit anthropologist, Pierre, said so long ago that it seems only yesterday, “We are not human beings seeking a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings seeking a human experience.” I would prefer that Monsieur Pierre Teilhard de Chardin had been less wobbly in his spelling, that he could assert the “humane.” I came to Earth on a cold winter night, naked, hungry, speechless, homeless. In the Cosmos, I was before all and after all quite content so far and fully as I can remember, member and premember, to being something of a Cosmic Clown. Yet, I was painfully brought into this life in a condition of limited responses, in a state of infinite innocence, fully dependent, helpless, proverbially “wet behind the ears,” all wet and slimed, and perennially blinded by fellow humans’ inhumanity one to another. Through years of tutelage, I have been rigorously both dragged and driven from dependence to be independent, only, just, ultimately, to learn that interdependence is the favored state! On a pilgrim’s voyage to the Enchanted Isles, in mysteries beyond my-stories, puzzlingly in an hour-story of our stories, I have learned Lifeness, lifeness being the relation of all beings one to another. All histories have only been versions of his story. All of herstories have been rarely expressed, yea, often muted or not yet written. Ourstory is only, just, scarcely pre-dawning. Our birth and death certificates proclaim, as if they are diplomas:

     

     

    ... When philosophers become clowns ...

     

    ... And when clowns become philosophers ...

     

    ... We shall indeed be humane beings ...

     

     

    All my life I have wanted to be a child when I grow up. Would it help me (us) understand anthropology and me if I confessed to becoming an anthropologist at the advanced age of four years young, when my parents introduced me into the Nez Perce Nation. Perhaps , it is just make believe. When I use all of my Imagination, I can be the Clown Prince of Planetary Culture. Long, long ago, about as late as yesterday and as early as tomorrow, and far, far away, about as close and gentle as the waves of the heliopause and as distant and lost as my cradle, extremely early on the morning of the Sixteenth of December in The Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty One of Our Common Era, my monitors declared that I fully possessed all five of my senses... “They” were so unschooled in the sense and nonsense of censuses and censure that they little realized how many senses I need to create Planetary Culture. Why couldn’t they know that I would need both common and uncommon sense? What have they done with the senses of faith, fun and foolishness, despair, pain and hope, Love and lust, wit and witness and wit-less-ness, wisdom, humor, grief, joy, play, punnery, prudence, art and awkwardness, worship, service, childness, Lifeness and Awe.... If I ever die I want it said of me, ¡HE LIVED! HE LIVES! Yes, I am A REFORMED HARVARD ANTHROPOLOGIST... What in the World do I want, now? I have modest wishes,

     

     

    I want a world with three dimensions, of Peace...

     

     

    Inner, Communal, Universal...

     

     

     

  • A complex world
  • Posted by Susan Sample , Associate Professor at University of the Pacific on September 5, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • There is much food for thought in this article, and I feel I must respond to a couple of points.

    First, the implication that theory is not relevant is...creepy, to say the least. The world has plenty of people who are willing to give shallow pop policy suggestions that they have effectively pulled out of their asses, without ever thinking through the deeper implications--practical and ethical. Theory offers us the tools to understand the world, not just play with the pieces like so many pawns on the board. Students who don't want to delve deeply into complex issues, which invariably means consideration and comprehension of theory, should be encouraged to take up gardening.

    Second, there are more than 6 billion people in the world who organize themselves into a large number of different social organization. The world is marvelously, gloriously complex. There are political choices, political patterns, and political stories. I have always been stunned at the arrogance of both sides of the "quant/qual" debate--I can't even believe there IS such a debate. In such a complex world, what sort of fool would argue that understanding of political reality cannot be advanced through large-n statistical, replicable studies of political phenomenon for which there are indeed a large number of cases. And what madman would believe that understanding cannot be advanced through careful qualitative comparison or tracing carefully through the details of a single case? And what boor would actually believe that careful and thoughtful humanistic studies cannot give us insight into political reality? It would seem to me that only a person with a narrow and incomplete comprehension of reality him/herself would assume that only one method is sufficient to understanding the infinity of important questions out there about political reality.

    Third, in contrast to the impression of one of the comments above, I am certain that students often ask "qualitative" questions because they fear math. I blame it on crappy K-12 education, frankly. Furthermore, the mistakenly believe that qualitative methods are easier. Students should learn statistical methods in college so they have all the tools in the toolbox and aren't forced to choose questions based on the methods they can "fall back on," and fake their way through. I most definitely do not assume that professional political scientists choose questions on the same motives.

    Finally, when I realize that people still assume that those who use methods different then there's aren't doing "real" political science (or "politics" or "government", whatever), I am appalled at the shallowness involved. I must thank heavens that I am at a school where intellectual and methodological diversity is considered legitimate and right, and that I hold a joint position in the Department of Political Science and the interdisciplinary School of International Studies. I get to teach and use statistics, which I love, AND I get to teach a comparative politics and literature class now and then.

  • Posted by sloney on September 5, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • The problem, it seems to me, is that political science has tried too hard to emulate the "hard" sciences. That's why poli-sci textbooks (and other of the discipline’s publications) are exercises in quantification and classification rather than explanation. "Here are the five conditions you need to achieve direct democracy. . . " "Once these 10 subsets are fulfilled than. . . " It's drivel and too abstractly analytical - here poli-sci would be better off drawing from the more straightforward (and relevant)explanations used in history.

  • Reforming Poli Sci
  • Posted by Leonard Williams at Manchester College on September 5, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Thanks for the interesting piece. Those of us whose primary vocation is teaching, yet still care about doing research, share many of the sympathies expressed in the article. Political science (much like any other discipline) does indeed need to remain relevant to real-world problems and the concerns of today's students. I hope that the task force emerges with useful recommendations that could redirect political science teaching and research, but I have my doubts ... no one on the task force comes from the very teaching institutions where the grunt work of the discipline is done.

  • Economics as a model?
  • Posted by Sandy Thatcher at Penn State University Press on September 5, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
  • To Ezra Gligh who said "And what's with the push to beat up on economics? Its theories have better predictive power than those of other social sciences," I would reply that economics does not in fact have a very good track record at predicting events. Not that political science does either: how many predicted the outcome of the Cold War? Partly the reason is the simplifying assumptions in the models, which may make for formal elegance but simplify so much that they do not end up capturing the full complexities of "the real world," which then have a nasty habit of proving theories wrong. This is one reason that modern economics has finally begun to add more complexity--witness the growth of behavioral economics--at the expense, of course, of some formal purity. Years ago economists would not have given the time of day to a concept like "irrational exuberance"; they certainly give it much more credence today. So, too, political scientists who emulate the formal modelling of mainstream neoclassical economics, or make the simplifying assumptions inherest to rational-actor approaches, are more apt to find their theories betrayed by reality, or able only to represent limited aspects of it. Give me an economist like Albert Hirschman, or political scientists who emulate his kind of writing, and then you will get a deeper appreciation for all the complexities of human phenomena.

  • Posted by PoliSci student on September 5, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
  • Like it or not, quantitative analysis is an important part of PoliSci. It is what separates all social sciences from philosophy. Our ability to be more than just people who "think wise thoughts." Speaking as an Undergrad, I hate math, I hate anything with a mathematical approach, and even i take a close look at the formulas, models and statistical analysis that led to the conclusion of an article.

    there is a push to remove the hard science part of political science and make it more of a philisophic razzle dazzle, i suggest that we could do without the hobbes, the aristotle and the marx, and focus more on that which can be quantitativly backed up.

  • predictive power
  • Posted by Ezra Gilgh on September 5, 2009 at 10:30pm EDT
  • Yes, Ms Thatcher, the predictive power of economic theory is far from perfect. My point was that it is higher than the predictive power of theories in any other social science. And, yes, the narrow theories that dominated until the past decade or so are too narrow; and , yes, expansion to include more of the complexity is a good thing, so long as it involves explanatory principles and not merely description. That's the way theory works in the sciences and in engineering. If you want description, you can describe to every dotted i and every crossed t; but that is not explanation. On the other hand, your account of economic theory falls short in one important respect: most of the time, macroeconomic theory has performed remarkably well in prediction. Sometimes it goofs, such as the recent past, and when it goofs, as with the recent events, everybody notices. These have been unusual events (fortunately). In fact, even these unusual events were predicted (e.g., Robert Schiller, N Roubini, etc.; forgive me if I am misspelling names; this is not my field); and guess what?--the predictions were based on economic theory, admittedly recent economic theory that has been incorporating elements of "bounded rationality" theory and various insights from experimental psychology as well as experimental economics. One more point: so-called rational actor theory has not been thrown out the window; it is still point of departure; but its assumptions have been relaxed, so as to incorporate other principles which modify, sometimes strongly, the rather simple assumptions of earlier rational actor theory. The models that have been built from that expanded theory have been pretty succesful (witness Shiller), and I am confident they will continue to be improved. The point of that process is not to reproduce all the so-called real world detail, which is the domain of description, but to explain how events happen and to some extent why they happen as they do. Description simply reproduces description of what happened. Some of us would also like to know how events happen as they do, rather than in some other way, and (to the extent possible) why, either in terms of causes or in terms of reasons or some mixture of the two. By the way, I read Hirschman on "voice, loyalty and exit" many years ago, at the suggestion of Robert Lucas, an economist, and I was quite impressed. Suffice to say, some of his insights have been incorporated into mainstream economic theory (e.g., the behavior of labor markets), and some of them have also been useful in engineering (e.g., designing human spaces in terms of traffic patterns). I do not see that Hirschman's work is at all contrary to sound economic theory, and I would imagine it has been useful in political theory as well.

  • It was fine as long as it was problem-based,
  • Posted by DFS on September 7, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • But then diversity raised its ugly head and demanded another teat to suck on.

    My God, must we always couch any problem in the context of diversity?

    That is the presentday synopsis of 'methodological.'

    Why don't we just act as scholars and let diversity fall by the wayside. If it's that important, then it will appear as a necessary part of the hypothesis in some actual solution.

    If not, let it be just the not.

  • david inkey
  • Posted by DFS on September 7, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Please, dude, just issue us all the required amounts of hallucinogens -- failing that, just enough pot -- in order for us to not skip over all of your 'marvelous' spaced-out paragraphs.

    And, I do mean "spaced-out" paragraphs.

    But, I'm operating out of an infinitely-dimensioned universe, dude, while still bringing in all of the peace and love you can handle.

    If you're not tripping, anthropolically speaking, that is.

  • Utility of Quantification in the Real World
  • Posted by Megan Reif , PhD Candidate at University of Michigan on September 14, 2009 at 9:15pm EDT
  • The idea that work that is quantitative is not "real world" is ridiculous. For all the complaining that some qualitatively-biased, area studies people do about quantitative work, they are as likely to invent and use jargon and talk only to specialized audiences as are "quantitative people". I have found that people who are often deemed subjects of fieldwork studies (which are often still qualitative in political science) are tired of being interpreted and of giving information to qualitative researchers without receiving anything tangible in return. In my experience doing both quantitative and qualitative field work, quantitative skills have proven more useful in gaining rapport and long-term relationships with both gate-keepers and research respondents/"subjects" than have my applications of qualitative methods. I have been faced with local people who were at first reluctant to help me because of previous qualitative soakers and pokers by whom they felt used.

    Even if one aims primarily to do qualitative work, many local partners are demanding something in return for the considerable aid they give to outside researchers, who in turn often publish based on those relationships without building skills in the field. While it is unrealistic to "give back" to every research respondent in either quantitative or qualitative work, increasingly, many countries are becoming so saturated with researchers and have fatigue. Most good field work now requires partnerships with institutions and academic partners abroad, who are eager to learn interviewing techniques, theory-building, sampling, statistics, sotware tools, and other methods. The demand for methods training and access to resources such as GIS software from people in other cultures studying topics some commenters here so readily characterize as difficult to quantify suggests that the marketability for those who have both qualitative and quantitative skills is increasing rather than decreasing. Furthermore, the more all kinds of methods are taught and shared, the more likely those we study (e.g., "ordinary people" or "elites") can decide for themselves whether certain questions are most feasibly answered by quantification, qualitative research, or a combination of both. As H. R. Bernard writes in his excellent book, RESEARCH METHODS IN ANTHROPOLOGY, which advocates mixed methods, "Methods belong to all of us." There are not "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" questions.

    Public health is a good example where both sophisticated quantitative and qualitative methods and tools are needed and used. They are more often shared, however, with subjects, local partners, etc. at the lowest level of technology possible to ensure quality mass data collection and, often, implementation of programs. Epi-Info, for example, the CDC's free database platform, is fantastic, easy to use, has free support, and is designed to run on the oldest PCs. It can also perform relatively sophisticated analysis.

    Qualitative and quantitative research on Trachoma transmission in Sudan revealed that adoption of public health education materials' guidance to brush flies away from the face was slow in some parts of the country because flies are associated with cattle, and therefore wealth and status). Slow adoption would not have been discovered WITHOUT quantificiation, but it took an anthropologist to discover WHY and to help design education materials that took local attitudes and practices into account.

    The truth is, as a discipline we need both quantitative and qualitative work, and no one person can master all methods. Interpretive work is very hard, and I echo an earlier comment that the assumptions that good qualitative work is not "real" political science and that quantitative work is less "real world" are equally absurd. Many research questions that quantitative researchers pursue emerge from puzzles and content unearthed by historians, journalists, anthropologists, etc., and qualitative researchers make assumptions and causal arguments in their work that are implicit and often untested. Making those assumptions explicit, and citing quantitative work that may have tested or established systematic evidence for the assumption would strengthen that work.

    Quantitatively-oriented political scientists could learn, however, from the humility of sciences that are more dependent on structures of data collection requiring human beings and are held accountable for the real-world implications of their findings. When you rely on people in villages to generate your large-N data, and understand all of the complex factors that generate that data, not only do you have humility in your own role in the research but also you will probably find that you need a method more sophisticated than cross-tabs, linear regression, etc. to account for the very non-linear ways in which diseases diffuse, affect different populations in different ways, and depend on changes in behavior that may be contrary to cultural norms (as in the Trachoma exampl above).

    Qualitative knowledge of specific topics in political science, in fact, may be part of the drive for increasingly sophisticated quantitative methods, as one discovers that relationships are not simply linear.

    If all of us used and taught political science in the same way, it would be a disservice to the discipline and the real world. It seems those dismissing quantitative approaches as "out of touch" are not really calling for methodological diversity at all. A Democracy needs an academy that is not just beholden to what is seen as trendy and important in the "real world" and policy makers, or driven by donor priorities. The academy should consist of people doing "pure science" not subject to the influence of non-specialists who may not understand its immediate importance, as well as people doing "applied science", who by the nature of their goals should probably aim to make their work more accessible to a general audience. As Bernard writes, "In a democracy, researchers and activists want the freedom to put their skills and energies to work on what they think is important. Fortunately, that's just how it is."

    With respect to graduate and undergraduate education, regardless of the "Tier" of a school, I question the argument that quantitative political science is useless to undergraduates, whether or not they are thesis-writers. They may grumble at the time, but since most undegraduates probably will not go on to graduate school of any kind, chances are they will get a better job with some theoretical & quantitative skills than substantive knowledge about a particular area that many people possess and/or is entirely forgettable after a couple of years. As someone who had my undergraduate training in a department that, at the time, consciously chose to be a "Department of Politics" rather than political science, I was relieved when business recruiters on campus chose me for interviews because I had taken Statistics and economics courses. In a dismal economy, such skills are sure to be in higher demand and produce higher-paying jobs than the ability to speak eloquently about inter-subjectivities in cross-cultural business interaction. Being informed by the latter, however, might make you successful in less tangible ways.

    Donors to non-profit organizations are also increasingly demanding program evaluation approaches that can quantify outcomes, and not just "process indicators". This requires better monitoring and evaluation design that approximates experiments. Both the donors and the non-profits are hiring PhDs as staff or consultants to do this kind of work precisely because they possess quantitative skills. Undergraduates with such abilities will find themselves more competitive with some quantitative skills whether they pursue business or more "touchy feely" activism that may require more measurement and analysis than they expect. Even lawyers who work with trade, patents, pollution, etc. need quantitative skills that allow, at a minimum, interpretation of statistical information, whether DNA match probabilities or the effect of foreign subsidies on competition of imported steel.

    I suspect that many undergraduates who grumble about the theory or quantification they acquire in political science later find it to be quite useful and to have trained their intuition and thinking in ways that apply to many subjects. Presuming that students, institutional gatekeepers or partners, and research subjects are not capable of understanding, learning, and applying quantitative methods infantalizes them, as does assuming that if something is difficult to learn an unexpected part of a class or subject, we should change our curricula to please knee-jerk criticisms based on short-term criteria. It would be an important and interesting study to assess utility of quant vs. qual political science courses in long-term earning potential, job satisfaction, and other measures of "real world" applicability of poli sci degrees among undergraduates.

    On the other hand, I think it is important for those using complicated methods (hopefully driven by a substantive question that happens to have a complex data-generating process requiring organizing one's thinking to account for interactions and non-linear relationships) make both their findings accessible and transmit the methods in ways that demystify them rather than maintain the tokenism/"coolness" factor that specialization in a given method often represents. It is also important to acknowledge where our theories come from, and how theoretical explanations and thus the quantitative and qualitative models we generate often lie outside of the model and research method at hand, and that whatever method(s) we use, the answers we get are always imperfect and could benefit, if we had unlimited time and resources, from a combination of all methods.

    Since no one social scientist can possibly do this, we can be relieved that our work is cumulative and that some of our insights come from qualitative work and some from quantitative work.

    We all depend on literature of various kinds using various methods, and gain insight from quality work done with a variety of approaches. At the same time, it is impossible in the course of one's career to read every work in every discipline on a particular subject and to ensure that it informs one's own work, but perhaps a greater effort should be made on both sides of those for whom this debate seems to be one between polarized "sides" to read and take seriously each others' findings and incorporate the best of both.

    In a wonderful book about the role of imagination and creativity in science, Science, Order, and Creativity, physicist David Bohm and F. David Peat point out that this polarization undermines science, with "pressures within society toward colluding to defend one's own group and ideas" (239). This does not lead to anything creative or constructive. "Science is," they write "...dedicated to seeing any fact as it is, and to being open to free communication with regard not only to the fact itself, but also the point of view from which it is interpreted." They go on to point out that "any society that restricts its knowledge merely to information that it regards as useful would hardly be said to have a culture, and within it, life would have very little meaning."

    Both this dialogue and the notion of "real world" utility in what we do and what is useful are barriers to the real diversity that science embraces. The "rigid and fragmentary nature of our basic assumptions...keep us from changing in response to the actual situations and from being able to move together from commonly shared meanings" (Bohm and Peat 247). I am a recovering post-modernist who conducted her first fieldwork paralyzed by hyper-consciousness of my subjectivity and the notion of Truth itself. At UM, I was surprised to find that my teachers and mentors who use quantification and teach quantitative methods acted and taught in a humble manner and were the first to acknowledge EXPLICITLY in their own work the limitations of any particular model or empirical study used to test it. I found the humility, openness, lack of dogmatism, and diversity I had been seeking in the qualitative literature and conferences (like AAS) in my quantitative, rather than my qualitative, training.

    The airs of superiority, jargon, condescension, and exclusion used the minority on both sides of this debate who are dogmatic and defend their "camp" too rigidly should not be attributed to a particular type of approach as a whole. The attitudes of activist scholars on both sides have clouded what can and should be a creative dialogue across methods and approache and acknowledgement that while we do not have time to master one anothers' methods and literature, both have value.

  • NY Times: "For Today's Graduate, Just One Word: Statistics"
  • Posted by Megan Reif , PhD Candidate at University of Michigan Department of Political Science on September 22, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • I received this article from a colleague. It is quite timely to this discussion and is further evidence that the quantitative turn in political science reflects the real world perhaps more accurately than a more traditional approach. Undergraduates taking political science in hopes of avoiding math may grumble, but they may be better served in the long run in an increasingly competitive job market. That is not to say they would not also benefit from studying Political Philosophy and learning about other cultures at the same time, but demonizing one approach does not serve our students well. See the article here at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/technology/06stats.html?_r=1