Some say that North American political is overly narrow. Well, check out this panel at this year’s ongoing APSA conference:
I was looking at the program of the upcoming APSA conference and I came across this:
I must say, this is not less informative or accurate than most panel titles…
Peter Mair has died. (Via SDL on FB.)
From a speech by David Foster Wallace:
Probably the most dangerous thing about an academic education–least in my own case–is that it enables my tendency to over-intellectualise stuff, to get lost in abstract argument inside my head, instead of simply paying attention to what is going on right in front of me, paying attention to what is going on inside me.
Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out.
Orgtheory has an excellent post in which several editors of leading journals in sociology explain what is a good review for them. Worth reading in full; everything applies directly to political science.
A small excerpt:
In my experience as editor, a common complaint among reviewers is that authors have not clearly articulated their work’s core contribution to knowledge. Many readers of articles in scholarly journals may not be reading with an interest in the particular empirical case, but are reading instead for the general ideas or the work’s theoretical argument.
This is a point that I make all the time when I give feedback on PhD projects (not so much when doing reviews for journals), but somehow I have the impression that it does not come across the right way.
In related news, the American Economic Association is abandoning “double blind” peer review. Reviewers will know the identity of the authors (but not vice versa). It seems that Political Analysis has similar plans.