I wrote Charles Lane a brief note in response to his piece and he was kind enough to respond. In responding to him further, this is what I wrote (adapted slightly for the blog format). Lane had observed to me that his critics had a material interest in this debate and that illustrates his point about the challenges of remaining objective and the perils of politicization (I’m paraphrasing). So my response proceeds from there.
On the question of politicization. Yes, it’s true that when the government funds any program, that program becomes politicized, in the sense that there’s political debate about it. In that context, beneficiaries of the program will usually defend it. That strikes me as politics-as-usual. Political scientists have to engage in this like anybody else. As one of my friends who studies lobbying once said, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”
The issue I thought Lane raised regarding politicization was whether the political beliefs of social scientists somehow contaminated their research. As Seth Masket pointed out, one’s values might drive your research questions or maybe inform a hypothesis, but any reputable scientist will let the data speak. If they don’t confirm the hypothesis, you report this and then think harder. In my experience, social scientists are as honest about this as any other scientist. Lane tweeted the story of the psychologist Diederik Stapel’s falsifications and wrote “read this and tell me whether psych is just like physics.” So does falsification happen in physics? The answer is yes. In medicine too—where double-blind randomized controlled trials are the gold standard—the same thing happens. See also this piece in Nature.
This speaks to the broader point: I’m not sure the distinctions Lane draws between the social sciences and “hard” sciences—in terms of methodology, values, etc.—are as sharp as he suggests.
One other question that I’d ask is: isn’t there some value—scientific, for policy, etc.—in research that isn’t experimental? Take a subject not particularly amenable to randomization, like civil war. And take this NSF-funded piece of research, which appeared in the flagship political science journal. Political scientists James Fearon and David Laitin find that civil wars are not more likely in countries that are ethnically heterogeneous or autocratic, but are more likely in countries that have mountainous terrain and low levels of economic development. Some of those findings are not intuitive. All of them are very useful to know if, for example, you work for the National Security Council. This is one reason why the Defense Department and others have doubled down on funding for the social sciences. Here is a longer discussion of federal funding of the social sciences and national security.
Another question concerns the support of the NSF for large-scale social science survey projects, such as the American National Election Study and the General Social Survey, which now span 60 and 40 years, respectively. These projects do include experiments within them—e.g., splitting the sample at random and asking different versions of a question—but that is not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose is to provide much more detailed information about public opinion, with significantly higher response rates, than can be obtained in a traditional phone poll. And, obviously, having Americans’ answers to questions asked the same way over a 60-year span of time is rare.
A final question concerns the NSF’s extensive funding of social science education—e.g., via research projects that employ undergraduate and graduate students as research assistants, or via dissertation grants to graduate students. Is that a valuable investment? Do we want to train good social scientists?
As I hope is clear, I believe that social science has no inviolable right to federal funding. Instead, I think it important to show that there is public value to the work that we do, and thus that the government’s investment in our research is worthwhile. Political scientists or other social scientists can undoubtedly do that better. I hope our critics are willing to listen to the defense, even if our motives are, in part, self-interested.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
John,
If you continue this conversation with Lane, you might remind him that citing instances of poor quality political science research does not help to support his claim. If he wishes to argue that political science is not a good investment, to make his case compelling he would need to offer a critique of the research that political scientists hold in the highest regard. If he were to dissect a paper of the same quality as, say, the Fearon and Laitin paper, then I think we can engage him in a meaningful discussion.
My reading of his column, however, is that his position is based on a caricature of political science research, and that he is simply unaware of the design and methods that the best studies use, or the standards we try to hold ourselves to. It is not the case that all research meets our highest standards. But there is a considerable amount of research that does, or comes awfully close, and this is the research he would need to attack as not meriting funding.
It is a common misperception for those outside of our discipline simply to assume that the work we do is similar to the work of pundits, but it seems to me that for Lane to premise an opinion column in a major newspaper on this misperception goes against basic journalistic ethics; it is just lazy reporting.
I think a useful illustration of what can happen when misinformed caricatures of NSF-funded political science research get scrutinized can be found in the “Out of Focus” response to Sen. Coburn’s “Under the Microscope” report. The “Out of Focus” report was authored by the Democratic staff of the House Science, Space and Technology committee, and can be found here:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/coburn%20memo.pdf
Best,
Kevin Esterling
From where I sit, at a small liberal arts college that has paid directly for my research, , I can’t work up a great deal of sympathy for the NSF needs of R1 profs, particularly those at institutions with billion dollar endowments. If it matters, and the Dean is sitting on a pile of dollars, let her pay. I also have a hard time imagining that most NSF-sponsored research from profs with modest teaching obligations at state institutions can be justified. Really? We are buying you down to one course or zero courses so you can do…what, exactly, that you couldn’t do if you had to meet a few more classes each year? If it takes you a little longer to produce your essential research…join the freaking club, where those of us teaching lots of students in heavy teaching loads toil. I think that Flake’s provision is over the top, but I think that some of the response here are embarrassing.
While I can’t speak for NSF as a whole, I can speak for the Political Science program with regards to buying off course time. The Political Science program usually does not pay for course reductions, but we do make two exceptions. First, if you have to do field work during the academic year, we will provide funds for course reductions. Second, if you are at an institution with a relatively high teaching load that makes it impractical to do research during the academic year, we will provide funds for course reduction.
Btw, there are over 70 institutions in the United States with endowments over a billion dollars. I taught at one of them, the University of Nebraska, and was very surprised to discover this given the lack of resources at that institution.
Ummm, I know plenty of professors at R-1 state schools teaching 4 classes a year, publishing in top quality presses, advising students, and having their research budgets slashed. Most do not have it easier than those at liberal arts schools. I’m sick of the whinning from these liberal arts professors.
Rhonda’s observation that questioning the structure of work in the profession from a post at a liberal arts college is “whining” (that isn’t “whinning”) is almost funny. I teach six classes a year, work with undergraduate students every day in teaching and advising, and I’ve even managed to publish with “top university presses” and in “major journals” without the benefit of taxpayer support for my work. I think I even won an APSA prize for an “important” book I wrote on my own time with a bit of support from my dean. Think of how good it could have been if I had an NSF to hire some grad students to gather my data. Please.