Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:30:56.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflections on How to Better Communicate Political Science’s Public Value

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2015

Jennifer Hochschild
Jennifer Hochschild*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Section III: New Opportunities
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 48 , Special Issue S1: Let’s Be Heard! How to Better Communicate Political Science’s Public Value , September 2015 , pp. 115 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Few if any members of the task force are philosophers or historians of ideas, and most examples in the articles taken from other disciplines focus on the sciences or the more scientifically oriented social sciences. It would be illuminating to examine what, for example, the MLA and American Historical Association are doing to foster public engagement with and appreciation for the humanities.

2. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/08/01/open-access-and-professional-societies.

3. In March 2013, “although his original intention to abolish NSF's $10 million political science funding and redistribute $7 million of it to the National Cancer Institute did not succeed, [Senator Tom] Coburn managed to have the Democratic leadership accept a ‘modified’ version of the amendment that restricts the projects the political science program can fund. The new version allows NSF funding for political science projects only if the Foundation's Director certifies in writing that the project is ‘promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.’ . . . This appeared to satisfy the Senator from Oklahoma who has criticized studies of Congress and voting behavior for years. . . .The amendment passed. Not one Senator spoke against it or defended political science or NSF's merit review process for selecting grants. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) issued a statement deploring Coburn's amendment the day after.” See www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/04/political-science-funding.aspx.