Planned Irrelevance

I am irrelevant.

At least that’s what Joseph Nye says, who happens to be an influential Harvard University professor and Dean, and a former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration. According to Nye, political scientists are increasingly becoming more and more irrelevant to the policy-making world. In an opinion essay published in last week's Washington Post Nye opines that political science academics are too interested in jargon-filled mathematical models, new methodologies and theories that are unintelligible to most policy makers. To write articles on policy issues is not only unrewarded in most political science departments, but can also be the kiss of death to aspirations for career advancement. Few academics serve in policy making positions. Academics have only themselves to blame if their ideas have little impact on the policy world, Nye says.

Well, yes and no.

First, I’d like to suggest that there are in fact some ways that political scientists contribute to policy debates in ways other than publishing research on policy issues. First of all, we teach students policy relevant topics. We don’t just teach theory, we also teach policy, current events, and most importantly, critical thinking and writing skills that (we hope) transfer to the job market and citizenship at large. Political scientists are also frequently called upon to comment to the media, give talks to audiences large and small, host and participate in debates, usually on policy-related issues. We prognosticate, debate and try to guess the motivations of leaders’ moves on the chessboard. Much of what we do other than research is quite relevant to Washington.

Also, it is important to note, that not all research needs to be (or should be) directly policy relevant. The value of research should not be measured by purely instrumental means. That was the entire purpose of academia – to provide a place where academics can pursue the study of some things deemed without value by the free market economy – like the study of philosophy or literature – but that a civilized society believes should be pursued for its own intrinsic value.

In my opinion, comparative politics theory is just plain interesting, but the study of labor relations is not. Is one more important than the other? The “soaking and poking” involved in getting to know a foreign country intimately is enormously fun! It can also provide a lot of the background knowledge necessary to form some of the “expert” opinions about a country or region. Policy analysts actually need that sort of information.

However, on the whole, Nye is correct in his assessment. It is an uncomfortable position to be in to be told you and your line of work is “irrelevant.” Even worse, to largely agree. Even though most jargon-filled articles have some degree of relevance to the real world, that relevance is often tangential. The greatest measure of the worth of research, in most academics’ eyes, is its contribution to “theory building.” Admirable, yes, but overblown in importance by far.

And to fight against that tide is a losing battle. Particularly as junior faculty. One must follow the “dominant culture” for the most part, if one is to get tenure. Play the game, play well, and play nice. This means many things, but in research it means careful attention to theory more than policy relevance.

This problem has been discussed before (see Larry Diamond’s article here, and Robert Putnam’s APSA address here), but it seems that changing the dominant culture is like turning a gigantic oil tanker on a dime. Change must be initiated by a critical mass of the “powerful” in academia, a trend not likely to appear any time soon.

I’m not one of the powerful. The revolution will not start with me.