<commit_before>---
layout: default
title: The Relevance of Social Science
---


# The Relevance of Social Science #

Over the last two years, political scientists of all stripes have engaged - with one another, members of Congress, and journalists - about the *relevance* of the discipline. I've largely stayed out of the debate, especially during the period last year when [the Coburn Amendment](http://www.apsanet.org/content_85560.cfm) put a direct assault on the funding of political science by the U.S. National Science Foundation. But now I think it's time to put my two cents out there.

The question of relevance is an important one. If a discipline is irrelevant, it will eventually cease to exist - there will be no demand for its research, for its experts, or for its students. When the relevance of a discipline is questioned, it is unsurprising that those embedded within it will try to defend their work and that of their peers. And political scientists have been quick to defend the relevance of the discipline on a number of fronts, most prominently in terms of how interesting, normatively important, and perhaps influential political science research should be. 

Reactions to outside criticism seem to have come largely in the form of [a defensive response that adopts the dominant frame imposed by the critics](http://themonkeycage.org/2012/05/10/what-nsf-funded-projects-have-taught-us-about-national-security-issues/). Namely, when told that political science is not an economically valuable discipline, political scientists have responded on those same terms, arguing that the particular research projects funded (e.g., [by the NSF](http://themonkeycage.org/2012/05/15/what-has-the-nsf-wrought/)) constitute economically and politically valuable expenditures. This response, I believe, is flawed. And the willingness of political scientists to adopt the imposed frame of reference reflects both (1) a failure to act according to the findings of our own research, and (2) a somewhat narrow definition of relevance. I address both of these in turn.

[<NAME>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Eric_Schattschneider) once wrote that "Every fight consists of two parts: (1) the few individuals who are actively engaged at the center and (2) the audience that is irresistibly attracted to the scene." When political science research - indeed all scientific research - is politicized by journalists and politicians, we (the scientists) and the critics are at the center. But Schattschneider also reminds us that "If a fight starts, watch the crowd, because the crowd plays the decisive role." His point is that one cannot win a fight by defeating the opponent, but instead by drawing the audience to their side. When political scientists argue to critics - be it <NAME>, <NAME>, or anyone else - we waste our energies in a fruitless battle.

To construct a slightly different metaphor, think of the KKK. Social scientific research shows that this hate group is among America's least liked groups and has held that status for decades. Yet other social scientific research shows that the KKK and similar hate groups continue to be tolerated by society despite their racist, hateful, and violent tendencies because their activities appeal to higher-order social values that are broadly held: namely, the widespread support for unrestricted freedom of speech. An abundance of experimental research shows that when hate groups are threatened with restrictions on their activities (e.g., to hold public rallies deemed potentially violent), the most effective response is for them to appeal to free speech values rather than argue that their activities are non-violent. Reframing the debate, not responding, is what protects the group, even though it is widely disliked.
<commit_msg>Update 2014-04-11-engagement.md<commit_after>---
layout: post
title: The Relevance of Social Science
categories:
 - political science
tags:
 - political science
 - engagement
 - communication
 - teaching
---


# The Relevance of Social Science #

Over the last two years, political scientists of all stripes have engaged - with one another, members of Congress, and journalists - about the *relevance* of the discipline. I've largely stayed out of the debate, especially during the period last year when [the Coburn Amendment](http://www.apsanet.org/content_85560.cfm) put a direct assault on the funding of political science by the U.S. National Science Foundation. But now I think it's time to put my two cents out there.

The question of relevance is an important one. If a discipline is irrelevant, it will eventually cease to exist - there will be no demand for its research, for its experts, or for its students. When the relevance of a discipline is questioned, it is unsurprising that those embedded within it will try to defend their work and that of their peers. And political scientists have been quick to defend the relevance of the discipline on a number of fronts, most prominently in terms of how interesting, normatively important, and perhaps influential political science research should be. 

Reactions to outside criticism seem to have come largely in the form of [a defensive response that adopts the dominant frame imposed by the critics](http://themonkeycage.org/2012/05/10/what-nsf-funded-projects-have-taught-us-about-national-security-issues/). Namely, when told that political science is not an economically valuable discipline, political scientists have responded on those same terms, arguing that the particular research projects funded (e.g., [by the NSF](http://themonkeycage.org/2012/05/15/what-has-the-nsf-wrought/)) constitute economically and politically valuable expenditures. This response, I believe, is flawed. And the willingness of political scientists to adopt the imposed frame of reference reflects both (1) a failure to act according to the findings of our own research, and (2) a somewhat narrow definition of relevance. I address both of these in turn.

[<NAME>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Eric_Schattschneider) once wrote that "Every fight consists of two parts: (1) the few individuals who are actively engaged at the center and (2) the audience that is irresistibly attracted to the scene." When political science research - indeed all scientific research - is politicized by journalists and politicians, we (the scientists) and the critics are at the center. But Schattschneider also reminds us that "If a fight starts, watch the crowd, because the crowd plays the decisive role." His point is that one cannot win a fight by defeating the opponent, but instead by drawing the audience to their side. When political scientists argue to critics - be it <NAME>, <NAME>, or anyone else - we waste our energies in a fruitless battle.

To construct a slightly different metaphor, think of the KKK. Social scientific research shows that this hate group is among America's least liked groups and has held that status for decades. Yet other social scientific research shows that the KKK and similar hate groups continue to be tolerated by society despite their racist, hateful, and violent tendencies because their activities appeal to higher-order social values that are broadly held: namely, the widespread support for unrestricted freedom of speech. An abundance of experimental research shows that when hate groups are threatened with restrictions on their activities (e.g., to hold public rallies deemed potentially violent), the most effective response is for them to appeal to free speech values rather than argue that their activities are non-violent. Reframing the debate, not responding, is what protects the group, even though it is widely disliked.

{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.047118380062305294, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007528556593977154, 'mean_word_length': 4.75, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 9, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 9, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 2, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '6622208', 'n_tokens_mistral': 1794, 'n_tokens_neox': 1663, 'n_words': 1116}