lecture 12 - relevance

Question 1

if the science is good it is relevant

Answer 1

• traditional position: relates to the (logical) positivist epistemology
• you can’t rely on normative reasons for relevance of theory: it is relevant if it is good science

good = precise, logical, rigorous, methodological, high quality
- not normative

to identify research object: not problem-solving, politically motivated or something, it should be method driven (neutral desire to fil gaps in knowledge, no matter where it will take us)

• enlightenment function = relevance is assumed, the relevance is in furthering knowledge

criticism: knowledge is power, producing knowledge for different reasons makes a difference (e.g. you can see scientists responsible for what they do/create: e.g. atomic weapons) = ethics plays a role
- perhaps more knowledge in certain circumstances isn’t good
- science can be used in an unethical way (question = how does enlightement function handle this)

Question 2

if political scientists communicated better

Answer 2

form of research: the way it is presented
it would be more relevant if polsci communicated better

solutions:
- free access to journals
- social media
- popular writing (opinion articles, newspapers, etc. to show results of research more widely)
- media engagement

barriers: jargon (sometimes necessary to capture a concept, but sometimes it only serves to exclude people from understanding), gatekeeping

CRITICISM on this: simplifying may hide complexity, will not include data and references -> doesn’t do research/knowledge justice

question: how do you balance these different concerns?
- you can’t do everything, it’s a trade-off in resources

Question 3

if polisci solved societal problems

Answer 3

problem-solving as priority
scientists shouldn’t look at random knowledge gaps, they should look at what has societal relevance/benefit

• e.g. problem of turnout: people aren’t voting, people find it to low -> scientists can research why there is a low turnout
• • providing solutions: e.g. mandatory voting, paid time off to vote

CRITICSM;
- it can become a tool for gov.
- who decides what a problem is? it’s not just scientists finding gaps, someone else is defining problems (do people with money become the main agenda-setting actors)
e.g. AI research: microsoft invested in openAI research
- who decides what research is being done?

Question 4

if political scientists designed policy

Answer 4

design thinking: designing particular policies

polsci coming together with other disciplines to design policy

problem: policy always good for some, bad for others. with what legitimacy do we decide how policy should work out?

also weird to say polsci should have no say in policy: empirical social science research helps determine what makes policy succesful

Question 5

if polisci research was co-production

Answer 5

production of knowledge should get out of universities, there should be more co=production: cooperation with civil society + firms

it needs to stop locking people out

criticism: universities are designed to be places where people do methodological work, they have the resources to do research for its own sake (result: becomes technical, difficult) -> ….

Question 6

ivory tower critique/metaphor

Answer 6

academics and universities are in aan ivory tower : far removed from society

• negative aspects: knowledge is locked away (behind/in the tower) while it should be shared + ivory towers are far away from the people (isolation researchers -> scientists may have wrong understanding of the world outside of the ivory tower = less realistic)
• positive aspects (you can also see it as a positive thing to isolating universities from society): isolates dangers from society (defensive structure), gives independence (protects from outside influence, you can choose what to work on (wouldn’t be the case in a market context)), it portrays science as something that has value, with a tower you can look really far (you have a good overview)

Question 7

if polisci contributes to democratic culture

Answer 7

• citizenship education
• political science to protect foundations of liberal democracy

= opposite of first approach (should be value-free, objective)

problem: not all social scientists agree that democracy is valuable or needs to be protected
+ risk of overstepping: there is academic freedom to DO defend or attack it

Question 8

other approaches to the relevance of polsci

Answer 8

• developing critical thinking
• clarifying concepts & public discourse
• demystifying politics
• speaking truth to power