As a follow-up to Henry’s post, let me report on a lunch conversation I had with a political reporter for the _New York Times_. We talked about how political science could inform journalism and punditry.
His points were simple:
* Journalists need the scholarship to be relevant to the day’s events. No surprise, obviously, but he also emphasized just how quickly the news cycle was moving. He estimated that there were about 3 news cycles every day, and this was a far faster pace than even a three or four years ago. Granted, some events don’t play out that quickly — e.g., the process of replacing Souter — but still: there is no doubt that political scientists who have relevant research need to move fast. We succeed in that on this blog (e.g., re: Specter) but only sometimes.
* Journalists read widely, so there are lots of avenues by which research can filter into the collective consciousness. He mentioned Marc Ambinder as someone that has an eye on academic research and doesn’t face the exact same grind as reporters at the prestige newspapers. My observation is that folks like Ambinder and others are wonky enough to appreciate social science, a good graph, etc.
* Political scientists aren’t the first people on the speed-dial, so we simply have to send our stuff directly to reporters. That also seems obvious, but I realized that it’s something I rarely ever do, at least to the very limited set of contacts that I have. A further gloss I’d put on this point: the relationship between individual reporters and individual academics has to be like that between reporters and other sources. It takes a while to develop. In the meantime, there’s nothing to be lost by pushing research in front of them. (This is all the more true since there is no political science Wikipedia and it’s unlikely many reporters are going to call their way down the APSA’s list.)
The upshot is this, I think. In the short term, if a goal is to bring political science research to a wider audience, and particularly those professional engaged in politics, it will happen because political scientists take the initiative. Of course, this goal is not one that every scholar shares, and that’s fine. But for those that do, the onus is on us.