4 ms·

I received my political science degree from SUNY New Paltz (which has a killer polysci program) in 2008. And I knew then (as did most of my theory, comparative

by jMyles 8y ago

I received my political science degree from SUNY New Paltz (which has a killer polysci program) in 2008. And I knew then (as did most of my theory, comparative, and American professors I think) what the Chronicle of Higher Ed seems to just be discovering: > The problem, in a nutshell, is that scholars increasingly privilege rigor over relevance. I distinctly remember (and often retell the story) of Jeff Miller responding to a pragmatic observation by saying: "I understand how it works in practice - what I want to know is how it works in theory" - and while he was intentionally being funny, he wasn't kidding. Now let me ask this - and I think it's notable that the article doesn't answer this - even if a focus on rigor makes "the Beltway" less interested in academic political science, how does that make the discipline "less relevant?" Can you imagine a similar observation being made about another classic liberal art (philosophy, psychology, music, art, physics, biology, etc)? How did The Chronicle, of all publications, come to believe that relevance of an academic field is to be gauged by government? And by one particular government? The whole point of liberal arts is to develop a capacity for independent and critical thinking. If people are graduating with degrees in a liberal arts field and complaining that they can't find a job in their field (let alone a government job in their field) then I want to suggest that they got into the discipline for the wrong reasons. As our species embarks on this beautiful and bizarre transition into life with the internet, surely we need to accept that the impetus to seek education purely for self improvement and happiness is ever more relevant. I don't particularly give a hoot what the US Government thinks about my degree. In fact, if this ageing and increasingly useless entity thinks that my field of study is less relevant, that is perhaps evidence that I'm on to something.

ddingus 8y ago
You are. (And apparently are not alone. My conversations with poly-sci peers has trodden similar ground.) The field is as relevant as it ever has been. IMHO, money in politics, coupled with mass media consolidation has created an environment where emphasis on models is treated like a currency of sorts. Self reinforcing, regardless of outcome. Actually, outside observers keen on understanding this dynamic better will see outcomes that do not align with models framed as "threats to Democracy" and often conflated with other "bad elements." From the insular point of view, in the beltway, that is a true statement. In general, it is a "truthy" statement in the sense of control being validated by models, actions planned and executed successfully then confirmed by outcome and models, is breaking down. (Whether that is a threat or more ordinary advancement in the body politic is a matter of ones perspective.) That all worked, until it didn't, and it didn't about the time digital natives came of age and simply behaved differently. They are not the only ones, just an easy to point to example. Pre-Internet and post Internet politics are fascinating! Sorry to ramble. Yeah, you are entirely relevant. This is a matter of not being in the club, and said club panicking over what it sees as a serious and growing threat to it's base political power of legitimacy, and relevancy as more of the body politic becomes more distributed and difficult to manage. >surely we need to accept that the impetus to seek education purely for self improvement and happiness is ever more relevant. Absolutely. And that is increasingly possible for people to do, either through formal study to obtain a degree, or on their own terms as amateurs. That clash is as interesting as the traditional politicking vs what I can only describe as neo-politicking, increasingly seen with rapid adoption of Internet and aging in of people native to it.
chibg10 8y ago
In a vacuum, what you're saying sounds eminently reasonable and fair. However, being familiar with other academic fields, it's my observation that these shifts toward "rigor over relevance" are generally less driven by the supposed pursuit of intellectual- or self-fulfillment and moreso by perverse career incentives in academia. To be clear, this phenomenon is by no means limited to academia though.

by jMyles 8y ago

ddingus 8y ago

You are. (And apparently are not alone. My conversations with poly-sci peers has trodden similar ground.) The field is as relevant as it ever has been. IMHO, money in politics, coupled with mass media consolidation has created an environment where emphasis on models is treated like a currency of sorts. Self reinforcing, regardless of outcome. Actually, outside observers keen on understanding this dynamic better will see outcomes that do not align with models framed as "threats to Democracy" and often conflated with other "bad elements." From the insular point of view, in the beltway, that is a true statement. In general, it is a "truthy" statement in the sense of control being validated by models, actions planned and executed successfully then confirmed by outcome and models, is breaking down. (Whether that is a threat or more ordinary advancement in the body politic is a matter of ones perspective.) That all worked, until it didn't, and it didn't about the time digital natives came of age and simply behaved differently. They are not the only ones, just an easy to point to example. Pre-Internet and post Internet politics are fascinating! Sorry to ramble. Yeah, you are entirely relevant. This is a matter of not being in the club, and said club panicking over what it sees as a serious and growing threat to it's base political power of legitimacy, and relevancy as more of the body politic becomes more distributed and difficult to manage. >surely we need to accept that the impetus to seek education purely for self improvement and happiness is ever more relevant. Absolutely. And that is increasingly possible for people to do, either through formal study to obtain a degree, or on their own terms as amateurs. That clash is as interesting as the traditional politicking vs what I can only describe as neo-politicking, increasingly seen with rapid adoption of Internet and aging in of people native to it.

chibg10 8y ago

In a vacuum, what you're saying sounds eminently reasonable and fair. However, being familiar with other academic fields, it's my observation that these shifts toward "rigor over relevance" are generally less driven by the supposed pursuit of intellectual- or self-fulfillment and moreso by perverse career incentives in academia. To be clear, this phenomenon is by no means limited to academia though.