In his presidential address to the American Political Science Association Robert D. Putnam challenges his colleagues in the discipline of political science to meet the obligations of a much overlooked aspect of discourse within the discipline; engaging the public. The past century has witnessed many evolutions throughout the fields of social science. Most notably is the scholarly and academic concentration on promoting the legitimacy of social science research via the incorporation of scientific methodology. Central to Robert Putnam’s concerns in the article are what he considers a scholarly preoccupation with scientific analyses and rigor, while ignoring the relevance of political inquiry driven by practical considerations. Specifically,
…show more content…
Putnam takes issue with the idea of allowing the science in political science to supersede the importance of addressing issues relevant to the public. The second ailment is the consistent insanity of talking to oneself and/or the creation and development of research that is generated for political scientists, written in political science “speak”, and is only disseminated in political science journals and publications. For Putnam a critical obligation for political scientists is contributing to society via our scholarly and vocational talents. The discipline of political science cannot make meaningful contributions to society if scholars do not share research that can be consumed and appreciated by the public. Putnam argues, “If we are to engage in civic deliberation with our fellow citizens, we need to learn to speak ordinary English” (p. …show more content…
The article does a good job of appealing to political scientists on both ends of the research spectrum, without overly scrutinizing proponents of either approach. However, it may have been helpful if Putnam offered a more descriptive discussion of how the APSA can improve, or at the very least re-order its list of professional political science objectives to meet the obligations discussed in the article. Also it may be helpful to include a short list of axioms along with the 10 professional political science objectives. Based on the article such a list would include, but should not be limited to the
Putnam takes issue with the idea of allowing the science in political science to supersede the importance of addressing issues relevant to the public. The second ailment is the consistent insanity of talking to oneself and/or the creation and development of research that is generated for political scientists, written in political science “speak”, and is only disseminated in political science journals and publications. For Putnam a critical obligation for political scientists is contributing to society via our scholarly and vocational talents. The discipline of political science cannot make meaningful contributions to society if scholars do not share research that can be consumed and appreciated by the public. Putnam argues, “If we are to engage in civic deliberation with our fellow citizens, we need to learn to speak ordinary English” (p. …show more content…
The article does a good job of appealing to political scientists on both ends of the research spectrum, without overly scrutinizing proponents of either approach. However, it may have been helpful if Putnam offered a more descriptive discussion of how the APSA can improve, or at the very least re-order its list of professional political science objectives to meet the obligations discussed in the article. Also it may be helpful to include a short list of axioms along with the 10 professional political science objectives. Based on the article such a list would include, but should not be limited to the