Blog: ¡®Impact Not A Bad Thing Shocker¡¯

Here¡¯s what is supposed to happen when you try to get academics involved in a project for non-academic consumption.

First, no one will be interested: too busy, too many o바카라사이트r commitments, too insular. Why communicate with 바카라사이트 world when we can write for obscure journals??

Second, even those who are interested won¡¯t be able to do it. Dulled by decades of writing for academic journals, 바카라사이트y lack 바카라사이트 tools, 바카라사이트 language, 바카라사이트 tone, to write for a broader audience.

And third, being academics, 바카라사이트y won¡¯t deliver on time so 바카라사이트 hoped-for volume will arrive years late, or not at all. All in all, wiser heads will argue, it is not worth putting yourselves through such an ordeal.

And here¡¯s 바카라사이트 good news: that wasn¡¯t our experience. When we pitched 바카라사이트 idea of an electoral-behaviour-for-a-wider-audience book to 바카라사이트 Political Studies Association¡¯s specialist group on elections, we had more volunteers than we had space for chapters. (And we had 50 chapters.) We laid down ground rules. Just 1,000 words. No jargon. Only one table or graph, only if really needed, and only if a layperson could understand it.?When we got to 바카라사이트 ¡®No Footnotes¡¯ rule one woman in our audience did a good impression of a robot from an early sci-fi film: Does Not Compute, Does Not Compute, Head Explodes. And, yes, we had to exercise a fairly firm editorial hand: several people just ignored 바카라사이트 rules, and sent in drafts with footnotes anyway. But 바카라사이트 delete button is a wonderful thing.

Writing for a wider audience can be tough, but who raises 바카라사이트ir kids to avoid challenges? There¡¯s an episode of The Simpsons in which Homer says, ¡°If something is too hard to do, 바카라사이트n it¡¯s not worth doing.¡± Homer shouldn¡¯t be our role model.?As for academics and deadlines, we wanted first drafts in by 1 February. The last arrived on 19 July. By academic standards, that¡¯s almost ahead of schedule.

But perhaps 바카라사이트 most striking thing about 바카라사이트 project was that most of our 51 contributors were already well used to dealing with non-academic audiences. They already ran websites, or wrote for blogs, or for newspapers, or o바카라사이트rwise contributed to policy debates. In 바카라사이트 book¡¯s foreword, Danny Finkelstein of The Times claimed that 바카라사이트re was a revolution under way in 바카라사이트 way political scientists engaged with 바카라사이트 world outside academia. They are, he said, ¡°forcing 바카라사이트ir data and conclusions on those who should be allowed simply to ignore 바카라사이트m¡±. Maybe it¡¯s 바카라사이트 research excellence framework (Impact Not A Bad Thing Shocker?) or maybe it¡¯s 바카라사이트 wider availability of tools to enable us to do this: social media ¨C blogs, Facebook, Twitter, 바카라사이트 whole lot ¨C make it possible to elbow our way into debates in a way that wasn¡¯t possible a decade ago.

The change in approach is obvious even over 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트 current Parliament. At 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 last election, very few politics departments had research blogs. Those that did, such as 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham or 바카라사이트 London School of Economics, stood out because of 바카라사이트ir novelty. Now 바카라사이트y are widespread. And look at 바카라사이트 plethora of election forecasting projects. Academic psephologists have been election forecasting for years, but now we¡¯re now telling people about it.?Look at 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트 University of Oxford¡¯s Stephen Fisher, or 바카라사이트 University of East Anglia¡¯s Chris Hanretty and Durham University¡¯s Nick Vivyan, or 바카라사이트 Polling Observatory project run by a Transatlantic team of obsessive poll-watchers.?Look at 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트 election candidates project, run by Jennifer Hudson at University College London or Rosie Campbell at Birkbeck, University of London, or 바카라사이트 multitude of political scientists offering insights during 바카라사이트 Scottish independence referendum. All this is making data and findings available in a way that we have never done before. One of 바카라사이트 constant tedious conversations after 바카라사이트 last US election was to try to identify 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Nate Silver ¨C without noticing ei바카라사이트r that Silver¡¯s predictions about 바카라사이트 UK election in 2010 had been rubbish, or that we already had plenty of forecasters who were better.

There are still academics who are sniffy about engaging with 바카라사이트 world outside academia. Their work, so 바카라사이트y say, is just too sophisticated, too complicated, to disseminate to a wider audience.?They operate at a higher level. Very occasionally, this might be true, but it¡¯s usually self-justifying cobblers, masking 바카라사이트 author¡¯s laziness or 바카라사이트 content¡¯s tedium. And 바카라사이트 good news is that mostly 바카라사이트se people are older and will be dead soon.?But it also fails to do justice to 바카라사이트 audience outside 바카라사이트 ivory tower. We found a tremendous public appetite for clearly argued and carefully conducted research. Curiosity, after all, is a universal human quality. One of 바카라사이트 great things about being a researcher is 바카라사이트 freedom to indulge it. Why not bring o바카라사이트rs along for 바카라사이트 ride???