tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post3522412725756941694..comments2024-03-27T19:01:21.504-06:00Comments on Enik Rising: Linking political science and politicsSeth Maskethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17178036016555722068noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-41573151494670691472010-06-08T21:49:34.049-06:002010-06-08T21:49:34.049-06:00This is a big question. Some small thoughts:
1) y...This is a big question. Some small thoughts:<br />1) yes, it would be great if some political scientists hosted blogs. Heh.<br />2) It would also help if poli sci research was accessible. "Accessible" means a minimum of jargon (though sometimes it is necessary to use precise words) and the simple and visual explanation of statistical results. I think the discipline has been moving in this direction. But to do so means balancing the desire to look smart to our colleagues (esp. reviewers) and our collective interest in engaging outside audiences.<br />3) But why blogs? Blog entries make their points in short blasts. Politicians (and probably journalists) don't want to invest the time to read a full book or 20-page article. It has to be worth our while to present our work in variable lengths, e.g. executive summaries or, of course, blog posts. <br />4) It would help if there was some sort of centralized aggregation of political science wisdom. Much of our research makes incremental improvement to existing research so that, if I wanted to actually understand the body of research on an issue, I would have to carefully identify ALL the work on that topic and then sit down and read for a few months.<br /><br />It would be nice if we had some authorized wiki (oxymoron alert) that collected the best wisdom of political science so a reporter could easily find out what we think we know--and maybe even suggest hypotheses to test.Gregory Kogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09050792102219948356noreply@blogger.com