An interesting collection of pieces in Foreign Policy today look at the TRIPS work. Some good stuff here in general. But I take umbrage with one brief article entitled "The Beltway vs. the Ivory Tower". I obviously reside in the Ivory Tower. In my previous career my behaviors were dictated by people residing inside the Beltway. So you can take my two cents about this article and the issue it raises for whatever you decide it is worth.
The article notes that both scholars and practitioners want greater linkages. The article notes that both scholars and practitioners believe that more qualitative research from academics is more likely to be useful for practitioners. But then the article points out that most of our research work that is published in International Relations is quantitative, and heavily theoretical.
Where the article goes wrong is in saying that because academics want to be helpful to the policy world and realize what research would help the policy world, that we "don't always practice what they preach" because we answer our "professional incentives" in our published research. What the authors are overlooking is that most of our scholarly journals are not intended to aid policy makers, these journals and their content are aimed at furthering our own academic conversation.
Note that 49% of academics said that academics should be "informal advisors" only 24% said we should formally participate in the process of making policy. The academic's formal work is to add to the body of empirical knowledge, a work that is done by holding conversations in writing based upon what has already been offered to which we offer some additions. When I want to "advise" policy makers, I do not write them an article, I take my article and make that information accessible to them orally or in writing.
So, we in the Ivory Tower are practicing what we preach.
The article notes that both scholars and practitioners want greater linkages. The article notes that both scholars and practitioners believe that more qualitative research from academics is more likely to be useful for practitioners. But then the article points out that most of our research work that is published in International Relations is quantitative, and heavily theoretical.
Where the article goes wrong is in saying that because academics want to be helpful to the policy world and realize what research would help the policy world, that we "don't always practice what they preach" because we answer our "professional incentives" in our published research. What the authors are overlooking is that most of our scholarly journals are not intended to aid policy makers, these journals and their content are aimed at furthering our own academic conversation.
Note that 49% of academics said that academics should be "informal advisors" only 24% said we should formally participate in the process of making policy. The academic's formal work is to add to the body of empirical knowledge, a work that is done by holding conversations in writing based upon what has already been offered to which we offer some additions. When I want to "advise" policy makers, I do not write them an article, I take my article and make that information accessible to them orally or in writing.
So, we in the Ivory Tower are practicing what we preach.
No comments:
Post a Comment