Today's article was titled " Field Study: Just How Relevant is Political Science" caught my attention as a student taking quite a few political science classes. I anticipated reading an article that would some how dissect the current relevance of political science to what is going on in the world today. There was even the opportunity to discuss the past relevance of political science and what political scientists do for a living. Regardless, there were plenty of angles the author could have taken all of which would have given the reader far more information than the actual article did.
The article was very vague and either assumed its readers knew a lot more than they did or did not do enough research to fill in the details. The most specific information we got was: "Yet even some of the most vehement critics of the Coburn proposal acknowledge that political scientists themselves vigorously debate the field’s direction, what sort of questions it pursues, even how useful the research is." This isn't enough for me. What are the possible directions? What research is currently being performed? Another instance of this vagueness was shown by this quote: "In recent years he and other scholars, including Robert Putnam and Theda Skocpol, both former presidents of the American Political Science Association, have urged colleagues not to shy away from 'the big questions.'" What are the big questions? you cant just put it in quotes and assume the readers know.
Overall, I think the article lacked a lot of fleshing out and could have used specifics so that the average reader would have understood the article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment