나의 서재/경제:경제학현실에 말을 걸다

정치가 잘못되고 있어도 왜 정치학자들이 욕을 먹지 않을까?

3.0CEO 2012. 4. 16. 11:06

경제가 잘못되면 경제학의 문제점이 지적되고 경제학자들이 욕을 먹는다. 국가의 기술이나 산업에 문제가 생기면 과학자들의 자질과 그들의 무능이 자주 지적된다. 그런데 왜 정치에 대한 정치학이나 정치학자들의 책임에 대해서는 그렇게 관대할까? 교육학도 그렇다. 예를 들어 교육이 잘못되어도 교육학자들이 욕을 먹는다는 소리를 들은 적이 별로 없다.  아니 정치가 잘 못되면 정치학자들의 목소리는 더 높아진다. 이런저런 비평할 거리가 많기 때문이겠거니 하는 생각을 하면서도...


여러가지 이유와 자기반성 그리고 자기변명이 있겠지만, "미래지향적이며 창의적인 대안을 내놓지 못하고 있기 때문이 아닐까?"하는 생각을 해 본다. 


과거의 정치나 역사에 관한 논문을 쓰느라 바뻐서 그런가? 정치학이나 정치학자들을 비평하고자 하는 것이 아니라, 이럴 때 한국의 정치학자들이 역할을 해 주었으면 하는 기대를 표현하는 것이다. 미국이 어떻고 영국이 어떻구 하는 식으로 매번 정치 선진국의 예를 들면서 논쟁할 것이 아니라, 새시대에 맞는 정치 그리고 기존의 선진국이 생각하지 못했던 정말 창의적이며 앞서가는 정치적 아이디어가 나왔으면 하는 바램이 오늘 아침에 생긴다...



출처 http://kevinrkosar.com/wordpress/?p=760

New York Times’ Story on Political Science

Wizard-of-Id-Poli-Sci

As a political scientist, I confess having many criticisms of the field as undertaken in the U.S.  What this New York Times‘ article touches upon is  fundamental: what good is political science?

Truth be told, much of what is done by academics in political science departments is useless nonsense. It’s scholars asking questions about articles written by other scholars who asked questions about other scholars. The regnant tenure award system encourages this behavior, as does the self-selecting hiring process.

Beyond being boring, such research is very ivory tower, very uninformed by the complexities of reality. This is why one can read rigorous political science studies that offer nearly no insight on the phenomena they are purporting to address—scholars miss basic variables at work because they are too far from the phenomenon.

I kid you not—one can find folks with doctorates in American politics who have never read congressional committee prints, do not know what either the Government Accountability Office or Congressional Budget Office do, and are ignorant of the federal budget process.  Regrettably, these folks also tend to know very little political history, and so cannot place things within any context.

Add to this the fetish for complex models and you have a recipe for disaster—an academic field that seems incomprehensible and intellectually masturbatory.  Lots of talk about methods, but little knowledge of what has happened. (Sadly, being able to accurately explain what exists and what has occurred is often derided by political scientists as “journalism” or merely “descriptive.”) Really, now, if I wanted to know, say, how the the U.S. and Russia’ relationship was changing, I wouldn’t call a political scientist, not one based at a university.  I probably would reach out to a reporter who covers the area or a think tank expert who has worked in international diplomacy.  Same goes with figuring out how Congress currently operating (Is it Speaker-led?  Committee-driven? Etc.)

A seldom discussed problem with political science today is that it has jettisoned some of its key parts—the study of law, public administration, public policy all now are done in different departments and schools.  Which is ludicrous, as each of these fields focus on aspects of the political and governmental process.  Additionally, the field little covers subnational governance units.  Want to know about the politics and governance of cities?  Want to know how states handle budgeting? Good luck finding someone in a department of political science who can help you.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Source: Patricia C