相关性:标准行辩护

描述

相关性是政治学的敏感话题。政治,作为一门学科,包括大量的知识,所以相关讨论的相关性。为了进一步发展这些思想,可以帮助识别,相关性是不固定的。它变化基于目前情况,甚至是观察者的观点。似乎是无关紧要的东西可能成为重要的政治形势或将环境。考虑你的同事工作在宪法或国家的一些晦涩难懂的部分,不是经常关注的焦点,然后突然发生,使这一努力有关。很难理解任何学术对象相关性的概念或纠纷,如果相关性的定义是,他们可能相关的创建准确、独特的知识。学者也应该坚定的站在自己的观点和更有信心在他们的知识项目。他们可以断言,系统系统。相比其他专业知识的方法,研究政治增加价值。 Academics who are fascinated with the practitioner world are too comparable to other knowledge providers to claim comparative advantages. Academics will have less influence in this sense since politicians and policymakers can access that kind of expertise.

学者专注于生产知识,而不是制定政策最终将接近决策者而不是相反。政治科学产生的坚实的知识传递,这样可以吸收那些花时间这样做。事实上,根据约翰,学者是有效的在网络的传播工作,创造他们的声誉,并确保困难的想法和结论是接受,和社交媒体的新的世界使这种横向的影响更加简单。第二道防线是很多政治科学已经证明交互和协作的意愿。这一观点可能会进一步精制声称政治科学交换其早些时候,更广泛的接触政策更加关注形式和技巧,暗示的数量直接相关的工作质量有所下降,但也增加了。雷竞技网页版然而,到1960年代初,从审查处方已经几乎完全消失,不仅反映出职业的变化达到决策者也困难。在国际关系中相关性的想法是非常核心的基础之间维持和平的解决问题或许言之成理实质性的和不断增长的差距已被确认为字符几十年的理论和实践之间的关系。复杂的因素是在工作中再一次,这就可以解释日益专业化和分离。尽管相关性的概念已经沿着行业的列表,它没有被没有显著的例子。手中的一些拥护者,第三道防线读起来更像是一个攻击。 Political science is unjustly accused as being irrelevant by the arguments that are agreeable and cover their trails. To the claim that political science fails the relevance test, here is a very strong response. There is too much policy significance in contemporary political science, not too little. Politicians simply do not like the policies that scholarly research supports and try to hide or ignore evidence-based research that supports such policies. When these same politicians apparently claim that political science provides no policy-relevant research, what they really mean is that, it does not provide any research that supports their own biases. None of these responses directly deny the importance of attempting to acquire relevance. They claim that the importance of attempting to achieve relevance is more important. Rather, they believe that determining the relevance of evidence is challenging. What actually counts is the precision with which knowledge is created. Political scientists are increasingly employing the tools given by social media and other sources to communicate their research. The difficulties are not with them, but with powerful policymakers who find proof that matches their preferences rather than using facts to guide their decisions.