Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Bridging the Divide
There is an interesting article in the May/June issue of The Columbia Journalism Review that wonders why political scientists and political beat reporters don't seem to speak with one another? It begins with a sleight by Mark Ambinder's early review of the 2008 campaign book Game Change Ambinder apparently did not think that political scientists would like the book because it portrays politics "as it actually is" rather than in the numbers and theories preferred by political scientists. The author of the article, Greg Marx, goes on to describe the nature of the divide and some attempts at bridging it--by using the Internet and blogs written by political scientists for an audience of journalists and the general public. Though I am not mentioned (!), I was able to use this blog back in January 2006 to draw in reporters interested about the signing statement and the unitary executive, so I know just how useful the Internet has been to accomplish this very purpose.
There are a couple of things I would add to Marx's article not mentioned or understood in his analysis. First, this view that political science is all about numbers or theories could only be made by someone who has not dipped their toe into the research by political scientists in the last decade. Almost 10 years ago, there was a fierce debate, if not movement, that rebelled against the domination of numbers in our discipline to the detriment of qualitative research--interviews, case studies, etc. This movement lead to a new flagship journal--Perspectives on Politics--that seeks to highlight qualitative research over quantitative research/formal modeling. Furthermore there are far more journals that focus on particular aspects of political science, many with the mission to attract a readership beyond just those teaching at a university. For instance, in my research area--the US Presidency--there are three journals that focus in total or in part on the presidency--"Presidential Studies Quarterly" (the flagship), "White House Studies," and "Congress and the Presidency." These three allow more researchers the ability to get their research published, which has been a huge bonus given that prior to the offerings, the only thing that got published were quantitative pieces and those that agreed with the Neustadt hegemony. Furthermore, other premier journals made a deliberate attempt at attracting journalists as regular readers--"Political Science Quarterly," "Foreign Policy," and "Foreign Affairs" are a few that leap mind.
As to the relationship between journalists and political scientists--In addition to those mentioned in Marx's article as problems separating the two, I offer the following, mostly from personal experience:
First, journalists often are unwilling to look beyond the top tier institutions for comments or sources. When we do get attention, it usually comes from the usual suspects--Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Michigan to name just a few. This leaves a lot of us doing interesting research in the wilderness. And given how important attention from the press can be to our careers, reporters might find that we are more willing to spend time breaking apart complex ideals or walking a reporter through a process. Or we may have ideals not found at Harvard or Princeton. My own research on the signing statement for instance. Prior to the stellar rise of the signing statement in the Bush attention and the attention it received, there were only two of us doing any work on it at all--me, at Miami University, and Phillip Cooper at Portland State University. But even with this example, when the attention to the signing statement by everyone went white hot, journalists often turned to the usual suspects of political scientists for quotes about their significance--to people who had never even heard of the device prior to their use, thus in the end doing their readers a tremendous disservice because some of those quotes were inaccurate or just wrong.
Second, political scientists may be weary of speaking to journalists because of a lack of attribution after the interview. I know of a couple of instances where a political scientist spent a great deal of time sharing data and time with a reporter only to find their name written out of the final piece. I can also say from particular experience in 2006--where for a short period of time I spoke with dozens of reporters about the signing statement--often times for hours at a time--only to find when the final piece went to print or air I was nowhere to be found. It would be blasphemous for us to use information that came from elsewhere without attribution, thus we expect the same from other professions. I am sorry to say that it isn't always that way. That is not to say that all journalists behaved this way. In fact, I found some who went way beyond the pale to give me a lot of attention even after the attention subsided (Dan Froomkin, for example). But for some of us, once bitten...as the old saying goes.
Third, also from personal experience, reporters come to us with narrative already set in stone and with a script we're expected to read from--"All I need from you is a quote saying..."--is what I mean. Who wants that, particularly when you disagree with the statement and that narrative? This has happened to me on a number of occasions where I simply decline the offer to participate in the story. There is also a big negative to this because once you refuse to participate generally means you refuse to participate forever with that particular reporter since they will move on to someone else. It happens.
So I appreciate what Marx has written, in particular in a forum likely to be read by reporters. It is my hope that it actually helps in bringing political scientists of all stripes and at all locations closer with reporters covering politics, both domestic and international.
There are a couple of things I would add to Marx's article not mentioned or understood in his analysis. First, this view that political science is all about numbers or theories could only be made by someone who has not dipped their toe into the research by political scientists in the last decade. Almost 10 years ago, there was a fierce debate, if not movement, that rebelled against the domination of numbers in our discipline to the detriment of qualitative research--interviews, case studies, etc. This movement lead to a new flagship journal--Perspectives on Politics--that seeks to highlight qualitative research over quantitative research/formal modeling. Furthermore there are far more journals that focus on particular aspects of political science, many with the mission to attract a readership beyond just those teaching at a university. For instance, in my research area--the US Presidency--there are three journals that focus in total or in part on the presidency--"Presidential Studies Quarterly" (the flagship), "White House Studies," and "Congress and the Presidency." These three allow more researchers the ability to get their research published, which has been a huge bonus given that prior to the offerings, the only thing that got published were quantitative pieces and those that agreed with the Neustadt hegemony. Furthermore, other premier journals made a deliberate attempt at attracting journalists as regular readers--"Political Science Quarterly," "Foreign Policy," and "Foreign Affairs" are a few that leap mind.
As to the relationship between journalists and political scientists--In addition to those mentioned in Marx's article as problems separating the two, I offer the following, mostly from personal experience:
First, journalists often are unwilling to look beyond the top tier institutions for comments or sources. When we do get attention, it usually comes from the usual suspects--Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Michigan to name just a few. This leaves a lot of us doing interesting research in the wilderness. And given how important attention from the press can be to our careers, reporters might find that we are more willing to spend time breaking apart complex ideals or walking a reporter through a process. Or we may have ideals not found at Harvard or Princeton. My own research on the signing statement for instance. Prior to the stellar rise of the signing statement in the Bush attention and the attention it received, there were only two of us doing any work on it at all--me, at Miami University, and Phillip Cooper at Portland State University. But even with this example, when the attention to the signing statement by everyone went white hot, journalists often turned to the usual suspects of political scientists for quotes about their significance--to people who had never even heard of the device prior to their use, thus in the end doing their readers a tremendous disservice because some of those quotes were inaccurate or just wrong.
Second, political scientists may be weary of speaking to journalists because of a lack of attribution after the interview. I know of a couple of instances where a political scientist spent a great deal of time sharing data and time with a reporter only to find their name written out of the final piece. I can also say from particular experience in 2006--where for a short period of time I spoke with dozens of reporters about the signing statement--often times for hours at a time--only to find when the final piece went to print or air I was nowhere to be found. It would be blasphemous for us to use information that came from elsewhere without attribution, thus we expect the same from other professions. I am sorry to say that it isn't always that way. That is not to say that all journalists behaved this way. In fact, I found some who went way beyond the pale to give me a lot of attention even after the attention subsided (Dan Froomkin, for example). But for some of us, once bitten...as the old saying goes.
Third, also from personal experience, reporters come to us with narrative already set in stone and with a script we're expected to read from--"All I need from you is a quote saying..."--is what I mean. Who wants that, particularly when you disagree with the statement and that narrative? This has happened to me on a number of occasions where I simply decline the offer to participate in the story. There is also a big negative to this because once you refuse to participate generally means you refuse to participate forever with that particular reporter since they will move on to someone else. It happens.
So I appreciate what Marx has written, in particular in a forum likely to be read by reporters. It is my hope that it actually helps in bringing political scientists of all stripes and at all locations closer with reporters covering politics, both domestic and international.
