tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post6158470258480928784..comments2024-03-28T16:15:19.319-04:00Comments on Saideman's Semi-Spew: Big IR QuestionsSteve Saidemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-34298643784450764412010-07-04T20:55:45.184-04:002010-07-04T20:55:45.184-04:00There's a lot wrong with the scholasticism art...There's a lot wrong with the scholasticism article in PoP, most of it stemming from its poor research design. But that's besides the point. <br /><br />I get what Walt's trying to say, but the solution that he and the Katzenstein wing propose actually contributes more to the pursuit of small questions and divisions within the discipline. If everyone wants to study their own little pet issues that are tertiary to the big questions, you end up with plenty of "eclecticism" but very little actual progress in research (particularly if you're using poor research design in these studies). On the other hand, using the dreaded rat choice (read: MATH) approach to study these big questions results in some very strong research agendas that are continually refined and can actually engage each other. <br /><br />Perhaps I've been brainwashed after just one year, but I think that the real challenge is finding ways to explain the research being done on these big questions to non-academics, not to change the research methods.Chris C.noreply@blogger.com