I've been thinking today about the premium that some fields place on scholars developing a "cohesive research agenda." 1/N
-
Show this thread
-
As context, many times I've heard colleagues in political science who deride scholars (who are often junior) who publish widely but on a disparate set of topics that are only weakly connected. 2/N
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
They are called opportunists. They are labeled as productive folks who can't "think big." They get labels like "Not [insert subfield here] enough." They're punished on the job market and at tenure time. 3/N
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likesShow this thread -
Now, I get that specialization/expertise on a certain topic is probably a good thing. 4/N
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
But, I sometimes wonder whether we've swung too far in demanding rigid topical homogeneity. 5/N
1 reply 0 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
I find myself thinking "why isn't it enough for scholars to just do good research on important topics?" 6/N
2 replies 2 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
I'd be interested to hear my fellow political scientists' take on this. Am I missing the mark? Is this not a thing? Are things OK as they stand? Or do you also sometimes feel frustrated by this? 7/N
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
I'd also be interested to hear from scholars from other fields. Is what I'm describing a thing in your field? What do you make of what I'm decribing? 8/8
21 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.