via http://fathom.info/rocky/
Monday, December 9, 2013
Some Magic in the NFL
I never really like it when they introduce players by their colleges, as it just reminds me of how college football programs become the tail that wags the schools.
However, I have to say I liked how it played out last night--one of the players, Greg Hardy, gave his self-appointed nickname (he had named the defensive line after Monster's Inc, so he then had to nickname each player as a distinct monster) and then gave his school: Hogwarts.
Of course, a key difference between football and Quidditch is that it is far more difficult to hide and then deploy a wand in the former. Which might explain why the defensive line were unable to stop Drew Brees last night. Nary a Patronus was seen.
However, I have to say I liked how it played out last night--one of the players, Greg Hardy, gave his self-appointed nickname (he had named the defensive line after Monster's Inc, so he then had to nickname each player as a distinct monster) and then gave his school: Hogwarts.
Of course, a key difference between football and Quidditch is that it is far more difficult to hide and then deploy a wand in the former. Which might explain why the defensive line were unable to stop Drew Brees last night. Nary a Patronus was seen.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Double Standards Commercial!
Really, a hair product commercial does a better job of expressing gender biases than damn near anything else:
This reminds me of a classic page in Donald Horowitz's book on Ethnic Conflict that lists all kinds of words used to describe "advanced" and "backwards" groups, demonstrating how stereotypes and the logic of invidious comparison are close to universal. This ad sort of does the same thing.
This reminds me of a classic page in Donald Horowitz's book on Ethnic Conflict that lists all kinds of words used to describe "advanced" and "backwards" groups, demonstrating how stereotypes and the logic of invidious comparison are close to universal. This ad sort of does the same thing.
More Than One Way to Skin a Policy Cat
Ok, perhaps not the best title, but this op-ed in the Washington Post is going to get a heap of play (already has early on a Sunday morning). Such as:
First, I do think one basic premise is correct: given the number of graduate students flowing through existing programs, anyone should think a few times and even, dare I say it, do a real market analysis before starting a new graduate program in the 21st century. Sure, setting up MA producing programs is far better than yet more PhD programs (although the one can lead to the other), but given that governments (federal, state, municipal) have been downsizing, I find it hard to believe there is demand for yet more students with policy degrees.
Second, I don't think the rest of the argument really applies that much. Talking to Anne-Marie Slaughter might be helpful but not for evaluating if there is too much focus on the international level. When I was at Texas Tech, I learned that there are heaps of PP/PA programs (public policy, public admin) that do focus on the municipal level. So, perhaps some stats here would have been handy about the numbers of programs with their different foci and any real trends towards more International programs.
Third, I guess that the authors do not use any numbers is because they think that numbers may not be all that helpful given the middle of the piece. "The new emphasis on big data is reminiscent of the Progressive idea that if we just gather enough information, the policy conclusions will be obvious to all." Maybe not, maybe there is a bit of a fetish for big numbers, but perhaps it might be better to actually know what is going on and then figure out if there are good policy solutions than to just guess, right?
Fourth, yes, much policy research is written in ways that are hard to digest, but this entire article ignores the reality that there is something out there that is bridging this gap..... the internet. Twitter, blogs, facebook, and other internet stuff gives those in these schools a greater ability to sell their arguments in different ways. Communicating to politicians, interest groups, and voters via social media offsets these other trends at least somewhat.
The irony of this article is that it has as one main source, Anne-Marie Slaughter, a person who has greatly extended her reach and influence via twitter. Her engagement of all kinds of folks online is a good example of how to connect people to the research produced by those at policy schools. Dan Drezner (@dandrezner) and Roland Paris (@rolandparis) are excellent examples of people at policy schools engaging way beyond the traditional audiences to communicate their research and the research of others to interested folks. Monkey Cage is just one prominent example of a group of scholars doing much "translation" of jargon-filled academic pieces into stuff people beyond the academy can read and digest. Indeed, the authors of this op-ed apparently do not read the Washington Post, where both the Monkey Cage and Max Fisher (who does much of the same stuff as MC but from the perspective of a journalist) reside. Indeed, for an article about the present and future of policy stuff, it is strange to see that it touches on the internet only once (reference to Obamacare).
Finally, this piece underestimates our products--our students. We train them to think about implementation, policy evaluation, analysis, new issues, lasting institutions, and all that so that when they get government jobs (my school has an excellent record of placing folks in government ... when it is hiring), they use these tool and this education for the rest of their careers. This means that we have a lasting impact on policy--not just via folks who read our stuff but via the folks making policy.
I moved to Ottawa for many reasons, but one key element was to be more policy relevant--to write stuff that speaks to policy makers, to train the next generations of policy analysts, and to engage with the policy community. Thus far, 1.5 years into it, I have no regrets. Many of my students already have some kind of government gig--co-ops, internships, real jobs. I am having heaps of interactions with the policy community--I have presented the Dave and Steve book to multiple policy audiences just in the past month--not to mention heaps of beers in the Byward Market. And when I have these interactions, folks indicate that they have read my stuff. But my story is just one. We need to get a few more to have anecdata.
Again, the article does have some value, especially to spur debate and induce people to provide some data (!) to see what the trends really are. But the reality is that the folks at policy schools are doing their jobs (training, research, disseminating) far better than this article contends.
The tell that Piereson & Riley are out of their depth is they're unaware economists dominate public policy schools. http://t.co/2xZpwRvhqrBefore I go on, I should clarify that I teach at a kind of a policy school--one focused on International Affairs, and not a "Public Policy" school but the basic points in the piece speak to me one way or another. Plus I live in Canada, which might mean we don't have quite the same challenges ... but we do with a recent proliferation in policy schools including those that focus on International stuff.
— Daniel Drezner (@dandrezner) December 8, 2013
First, I do think one basic premise is correct: given the number of graduate students flowing through existing programs, anyone should think a few times and even, dare I say it, do a real market analysis before starting a new graduate program in the 21st century. Sure, setting up MA producing programs is far better than yet more PhD programs (although the one can lead to the other), but given that governments (federal, state, municipal) have been downsizing, I find it hard to believe there is demand for yet more students with policy degrees.
Second, I don't think the rest of the argument really applies that much. Talking to Anne-Marie Slaughter might be helpful but not for evaluating if there is too much focus on the international level. When I was at Texas Tech, I learned that there are heaps of PP/PA programs (public policy, public admin) that do focus on the municipal level. So, perhaps some stats here would have been handy about the numbers of programs with their different foci and any real trends towards more International programs.
Third, I guess that the authors do not use any numbers is because they think that numbers may not be all that helpful given the middle of the piece. "The new emphasis on big data is reminiscent of the Progressive idea that if we just gather enough information, the policy conclusions will be obvious to all." Maybe not, maybe there is a bit of a fetish for big numbers, but perhaps it might be better to actually know what is going on and then figure out if there are good policy solutions than to just guess, right?
Fourth, yes, much policy research is written in ways that are hard to digest, but this entire article ignores the reality that there is something out there that is bridging this gap..... the internet. Twitter, blogs, facebook, and other internet stuff gives those in these schools a greater ability to sell their arguments in different ways. Communicating to politicians, interest groups, and voters via social media offsets these other trends at least somewhat.
The irony of this article is that it has as one main source, Anne-Marie Slaughter, a person who has greatly extended her reach and influence via twitter. Her engagement of all kinds of folks online is a good example of how to connect people to the research produced by those at policy schools. Dan Drezner (@dandrezner) and Roland Paris (@rolandparis) are excellent examples of people at policy schools engaging way beyond the traditional audiences to communicate their research and the research of others to interested folks. Monkey Cage is just one prominent example of a group of scholars doing much "translation" of jargon-filled academic pieces into stuff people beyond the academy can read and digest. Indeed, the authors of this op-ed apparently do not read the Washington Post, where both the Monkey Cage and Max Fisher (who does much of the same stuff as MC but from the perspective of a journalist) reside. Indeed, for an article about the present and future of policy stuff, it is strange to see that it touches on the internet only once (reference to Obamacare).
Finally, this piece underestimates our products--our students. We train them to think about implementation, policy evaluation, analysis, new issues, lasting institutions, and all that so that when they get government jobs (my school has an excellent record of placing folks in government ... when it is hiring), they use these tool and this education for the rest of their careers. This means that we have a lasting impact on policy--not just via folks who read our stuff but via the folks making policy.
I moved to Ottawa for many reasons, but one key element was to be more policy relevant--to write stuff that speaks to policy makers, to train the next generations of policy analysts, and to engage with the policy community. Thus far, 1.5 years into it, I have no regrets. Many of my students already have some kind of government gig--co-ops, internships, real jobs. I am having heaps of interactions with the policy community--I have presented the Dave and Steve book to multiple policy audiences just in the past month--not to mention heaps of beers in the Byward Market. And when I have these interactions, folks indicate that they have read my stuff. But my story is just one. We need to get a few more to have anecdata.
Again, the article does have some value, especially to spur debate and induce people to provide some data (!) to see what the trends really are. But the reality is that the folks at policy schools are doing their jobs (training, research, disseminating) far better than this article contends.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Cold Possible War Reminds Me of Cold War Possible War
Whenever folks start to raise the possibility of combat in the Arctic, all I can think of is this cheesy 1982 television movie: World War III [See here for short NY review]. I mentioned it last night on twitter, and folks were surprised not to have seen it. Of course, they didn't, it was a one time mini-series. But it made an impression, burned into my head, so that many of the images in the trailer resonate today.
I forgot that Boomer of the original Battlestar Galatica was in it, but it looks like he gets killed early. [No, I am not posting Spoiler for something that is more than thirty years old]. But David Soul facing down the sympathetic Soviet officer while the apparatchik's back home refuse to back down in this game of chicken served cold? That I remember. I also remember the ending--WWIII. Ooops.
I had forgotten that there had been a break down in civil-military relations on the Soviet side, and I had also forgotten that random Colonel (in this case, Soul) got to speak on the phone with the President (Rock Hudson!). So much cheesy goodness in a 2 minute trailer. It is not worth the 200 minutes, however. I can assure you of that.
Anyhow, that is the flashback TV tale of the weekend.
I forgot that Boomer of the original Battlestar Galatica was in it, but it looks like he gets killed early. [No, I am not posting Spoiler for something that is more than thirty years old]. But David Soul facing down the sympathetic Soviet officer while the apparatchik's back home refuse to back down in this game of chicken served cold? That I remember. I also remember the ending--WWIII. Ooops.
I had forgotten that there had been a break down in civil-military relations on the Soviet side, and I had also forgotten that random Colonel (in this case, Soul) got to speak on the phone with the President (Rock Hudson!). So much cheesy goodness in a 2 minute trailer. It is not worth the 200 minutes, however. I can assure you of that.
Anyhow, that is the flashback TV tale of the weekend.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Why Quebec Is So Very Frustrating
It has such great people governed by such awful people. Check out this short doc by Dawson College students about protesting the Charter of Values a.k.a. the Charter of Xenophobia:
Of course, it is not just the politicians as there are folks who fear and worry about that which they do not understand. There are folks who hate and are intolerant. It is the responsibility of politicians not to pander to the worst instincts that exist in society. So, the Parti Quebecois is, among its various sins, incredibly irresponsible.
Of course, this is not surprising, and one of the reasons I moved was to get out of Quebec before the PQ came back into power. I knew what was coming, I just did not know what it would entail. Exit or voice are the options, loyalty certainly ain't available right now. I exited, but I am glad to see these folks expressing some voice.
Of course, it is not just the politicians as there are folks who fear and worry about that which they do not understand. There are folks who hate and are intolerant. It is the responsibility of politicians not to pander to the worst instincts that exist in society. So, the Parti Quebecois is, among its various sins, incredibly irresponsible.
Of course, this is not surprising, and one of the reasons I moved was to get out of Quebec before the PQ came back into power. I knew what was coming, I just did not know what it would entail. Exit or voice are the options, loyalty certainly ain't available right now. I exited, but I am glad to see these folks expressing some voice.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Share Your Damn Data: Converging Logics
One of the recurring subjects
among folks using data is: why does person x not share their data with
me? Mostly because they are fearful and ignorant. Fearful? That their
work will get scooped and/or their data might be found to be
problematic. Ignorant? That they don’t know that they are obligated to
share their data once they publish off of it and that it is in their
interest to share their data. There is apparently a belief out there
that data should be shared only after the big project is published, not
after the initial work has been published. I will address this as well
as the the converging logics of appropriateness and consequences here.
Let me address first this new belief. The idea that one can hold onto one’s data after publishing an article because one has not yet published the book is not the norm. The norm, the obligation imposed by the National Science Foundation and expected from the discipline, is that when the first piece is published, then the data for that piece is supposed to be accessible. That way, people can replicate that study. If the larger study is years later (and it almost always is), that means that we would have to wait years to replicate initial article Not only that but there are no guarantees that the scholar will finish the book project AND find a publisher.
Ok, let’s move from the specific myth to the broader logics of replication. It has become clear over the decades that providing access to data is the right thing to do from the standpoint of a logic of appropriateness. The discussions make it clear that scholars need to be transparent about their research and make it easy for others to replicate one’s findings. This is the basic expectation for doing any research but especially quantitative research. Providing interview notes can be problematic due to confidentiality issues (although the NSF is funding a project to figure this out), but providing data that one has created/collected is the standard expectation of social science. Many journals now have replication policies and store data at their websites. The question these days is not the obligation to share data but to share the “do” files, macros, or programs that are used to analyze the data.
Sharing data is clearly right from an appropriateness standpoint, but it is also right from a rational self-interest perspective as well. People worry that citations are over-rated, and they may be so. But if you want to get cited, one of the best ways to do that is to share your very useful dataset. According to the ISP symposium linked above (p. 21): “An author who makes data available is on average cited twice as frequently as an article with no data.” If you check out the various lists of who gets cited the most, those who create datasets and share them get cited more. Will Moore shared with some folks a story at a recent conference, saying how he got pretty famous in the discipline long before he published much because his name was attached to the Polity dataset. He had no idea that this was going to happen. One of the requirements of new grant applications is to show how one plans to disseminate one’s research. Sharing data is one basic and very important strategy.
We are in the business of creating public goods–knowledge. Not just the findings but the data we develop along the way. It does mean that some folks may free ride, but it also means that the collective enterprise moves forward. Holding onto data is not only selfish but short-sighted. Having others work on the same dataset is likely to lead to feedback, which mean your work gets better, and to broader imaginations of what is possible. When Ted Gurr developed the Minorities at Risk project, he really had no idea how others would use it. Those that followed him used it in a variety of ways, adding bits and pieces of data (I took some of the IR data they had collected but not coded and used that to test some stuff that Gurr never intended to ponder), asking different questions and developing some very interesting findings.
Yes, folks along the way also discovered problems with the dataset, but Gurr and the larger MAR team (which I subsequently joined) worked on ways to improve the data (and, hey, we got NSF money do that–the next batch of papers will address the improvements and then the revised data will become available with better instructions). This is how social science works. Keeping the data to oneself, if even only for a few more years, is completely contrary to our enterprise.
Let me address first this new belief. The idea that one can hold onto one’s data after publishing an article because one has not yet published the book is not the norm. The norm, the obligation imposed by the National Science Foundation and expected from the discipline, is that when the first piece is published, then the data for that piece is supposed to be accessible. That way, people can replicate that study. If the larger study is years later (and it almost always is), that means that we would have to wait years to replicate initial article Not only that but there are no guarantees that the scholar will finish the book project AND find a publisher.
Ok, let’s move from the specific myth to the broader logics of replication. It has become clear over the decades that providing access to data is the right thing to do from the standpoint of a logic of appropriateness. The discussions make it clear that scholars need to be transparent about their research and make it easy for others to replicate one’s findings. This is the basic expectation for doing any research but especially quantitative research. Providing interview notes can be problematic due to confidentiality issues (although the NSF is funding a project to figure this out), but providing data that one has created/collected is the standard expectation of social science. Many journals now have replication policies and store data at their websites. The question these days is not the obligation to share data but to share the “do” files, macros, or programs that are used to analyze the data.
Sharing data is clearly right from an appropriateness standpoint, but it is also right from a rational self-interest perspective as well. People worry that citations are over-rated, and they may be so. But if you want to get cited, one of the best ways to do that is to share your very useful dataset. According to the ISP symposium linked above (p. 21): “An author who makes data available is on average cited twice as frequently as an article with no data.” If you check out the various lists of who gets cited the most, those who create datasets and share them get cited more. Will Moore shared with some folks a story at a recent conference, saying how he got pretty famous in the discipline long before he published much because his name was attached to the Polity dataset. He had no idea that this was going to happen. One of the requirements of new grant applications is to show how one plans to disseminate one’s research. Sharing data is one basic and very important strategy.
We are in the business of creating public goods–knowledge. Not just the findings but the data we develop along the way. It does mean that some folks may free ride, but it also means that the collective enterprise moves forward. Holding onto data is not only selfish but short-sighted. Having others work on the same dataset is likely to lead to feedback, which mean your work gets better, and to broader imaginations of what is possible. When Ted Gurr developed the Minorities at Risk project, he really had no idea how others would use it. Those that followed him used it in a variety of ways, adding bits and pieces of data (I took some of the IR data they had collected but not coded and used that to test some stuff that Gurr never intended to ponder), asking different questions and developing some very interesting findings.
Yes, folks along the way also discovered problems with the dataset, but Gurr and the larger MAR team (which I subsequently joined) worked on ways to improve the data (and, hey, we got NSF money do that–the next batch of papers will address the improvements and then the revised data will become available with better instructions). This is how social science works. Keeping the data to oneself, if even only for a few more years, is completely contrary to our enterprise.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
The Tyranny of Terrible Terms
Lots of people complain about jargon in academia. I tend to focus on conceptual stretching--that a term gets used to apply to more and more stuff so that it loses its essence. My favorite example is imperialism--what is and is not imperialist? Damned if I know.
I had a sudden realization when reading this piece that has a similar take on neo-liberalism what is a larger dynamic that separates useful phrases embodying bounded concepts from overly stretched labels that have lost their meaning: when a word is hurled as an insult by one set of intellectuals at others, the term has lost its value.
I am not sure what neo-liberal means because it already had different meanings depending on whether one was talking about International Relations Theory, economic policy, and whatever else. But now it is a way to label folks with whom one disagrees. And poof, whatever use of the concept is gone.
Another kind of example is how the "War on Poverty" and such has now become the war on everything, where it is mostly value-less (war on Christmas).
What are other examples of formerly useful words/concepts that gone down this path from useful to insult to meaningless?
I had a sudden realization when reading this piece that has a similar take on neo-liberalism what is a larger dynamic that separates useful phrases embodying bounded concepts from overly stretched labels that have lost their meaning: when a word is hurled as an insult by one set of intellectuals at others, the term has lost its value.
I am not sure what neo-liberal means because it already had different meanings depending on whether one was talking about International Relations Theory, economic policy, and whatever else. But now it is a way to label folks with whom one disagrees. And poof, whatever use of the concept is gone.
Another kind of example is how the "War on Poverty" and such has now become the war on everything, where it is mostly value-less (war on Christmas).
What are other examples of formerly useful words/concepts that gone down this path from useful to insult to meaningless?
Academic Forecast
Sometimes Phd Comics can be a bit bitter:
It is a good gig, but we can whine with the best of them (and it is very tough for those trying to enter, of course)
Your Academic Forecast (new comic!) http://t.co/nDuR32lcoX pic.twitter.com/JiThjtJM4Q
— Jorge Cham (@phdcomics) December 4, 2013
It is a good gig, but we can whine with the best of them (and it is very tough for those trying to enter, of course)
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Canada and NATO: BFF's?
It used to be taken for granted that Canada and NATO were best friends forever, right? Not so much anymore. Despite tremendous sacrifices in and near Kandahar and the street cred Canada earned there and in the skies over Libya, NATO folks are pondering Canada's commitment. Canada has pulled out of a few smaller NATO programs: the Airborne Warning and Control System and Alliance Ground Surveillance program.
This topic arose today during the Q&A after my talk at the Conference of Defence Associations, which is a Canadian institution that represents defence contractors and holds roundtables to address foreign policy and defence issues. I was presenting the findings and implications of the Dave and Steve book on NATO. The topic of Canada's commitment to NATO came up a few times and perhaps most pointedly by a defence attache from one of Canada's best friends in NATO who noted that one has really read Canada's last defence white paper, the Canada First Defence Strategy, to see NATO mentioned anywhere.
I have heard whisperings that this government is not a big fan of NATO despite its decisions to extend the mission twice in Afghanistan (although readily agreeing to an early departure), the training mission (my reference to the Hotel California fell flat today), the Libyan mission, and so on. There are other strangenesses over the past few years--justifying the F-35 based on Arctic Sovereignty makes far less sense than alliance interoperability, for example.
Why would Harper and his folks be less than fond of NATO? I could not really explain why Canada was tossing away some of the credits it had won by pulling out of two relatively inexpensive NATO programs and not taking advantage of other opportunities (NATO centres of excellence). Likely alternatives include:
NATO has been a force and diplomatic multiplier for Canada. Despite the criticisms of NATO and its members that Dave and I raise in our book, we find that NATO is better than the alternatives. This government does not have to salute everytime NATO calls, but it probably should not needlessly fritter away hard won credits either. Sure, one can save a few dollars by opting out of a few NATO programs, but such cuts are mostly symbolic, kind of like the cuts made into academic research into defence issues. At least that latter effort makes sense if one's focus is on message management (we academics are a pesky bunch). But the former? I am still kind of mystified.
This topic arose today during the Q&A after my talk at the Conference of Defence Associations, which is a Canadian institution that represents defence contractors and holds roundtables to address foreign policy and defence issues. I was presenting the findings and implications of the Dave and Steve book on NATO. The topic of Canada's commitment to NATO came up a few times and perhaps most pointedly by a defence attache from one of Canada's best friends in NATO who noted that one has really read Canada's last defence white paper, the Canada First Defence Strategy, to see NATO mentioned anywhere.
I have heard whisperings that this government is not a big fan of NATO despite its decisions to extend the mission twice in Afghanistan (although readily agreeing to an early departure), the training mission (my reference to the Hotel California fell flat today), the Libyan mission, and so on. There are other strangenesses over the past few years--justifying the F-35 based on Arctic Sovereignty makes far less sense than alliance interoperability, for example.
Why would Harper and his folks be less than fond of NATO? I could not really explain why Canada was tossing away some of the credits it had won by pulling out of two relatively inexpensive NATO programs and not taking advantage of other opportunities (NATO centres of excellence). Likely alternatives include:
- Harper just is opposed to multilateralism. Given other foreign policy stances (IRAN), this makes some sense.
- Harper opposes anything that the Liberals supported/built/identified with.
- NATO is a pain in the ass, having to bargain with a bunch of whiners. Well, yeah.
NATO has been a force and diplomatic multiplier for Canada. Despite the criticisms of NATO and its members that Dave and I raise in our book, we find that NATO is better than the alternatives. This government does not have to salute everytime NATO calls, but it probably should not needlessly fritter away hard won credits either. Sure, one can save a few dollars by opting out of a few NATO programs, but such cuts are mostly symbolic, kind of like the cuts made into academic research into defence issues. At least that latter effort makes sense if one's focus is on message management (we academics are a pesky bunch). But the former? I am still kind of mystified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)