University of Hull
I was asked to contribute a short article to the latest issue of Total Politics on whether or not political scientists (or what the magazine calls political academics) live in the real world. I argued that they do. Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle was invited to put the argument that that they don’t. It wasn’t a debate in that prior to publication neither of us saw what the other had written.
We certainly look at the question in very different ways. I think the articles look better in print, but they are also available electronically here. I like to think the arguments speak for themselves, but I would be very interested to hear what readers make of the exchange.
Lord Norton: Excellent post!
When Peter Kilfoyle says:
“Politicians practise the art of the possible…”
I would change this to read:
“Politicians practise the art of the impossible…”
The grammar of which would be nonsense to an academic?
Quoted from link below:
“Politics may be the art of the possible, but at least in life, give the impossible a go.”
Ref: Tony Blair’s resignation speech
http://www.uksbd.co.uk/
Dear Lord Norton,
A better question might have been: ‘what do those who once elected have a guaranteed job for four or five years with generous perks know about the real world?’!
I shall now go and read your article!
Howridiculous.
I have some sympathy with howridiculous’ point. I can think of a few too many MPs whose life has consisted of student politics/union to party sinecure funded by the taxpayer (research units etc.) to a seat so safe a sack of potatoes would be elected. They’ve sat back and enjoyed a pay and perks system they voted for until their inevitable rise to ministerial rank and a new set of perks and privileges arrived.
I think I generally agree with LNs points – particularly student to staff ratios. However I’d have to add my own experience of at least a few academics whose minds were second to none but I had serious doubts about their ability to get a bus from A to B. I think a little eccentricity is probably a necessary requirement.
Peter Kilfoyle comments that:
“Politicians practise the art of the possible, unlike academics, whose grand theories too often lead to disaster.”
If I had a mouthful of tea my monitor would have been in severe danger! When you consider the calamitous decisions made on the back of politics motivated by party dogma, narrow party advantage or sensitivities to not being seen to make a policy u-turn it takes your breath away. 🙁
I feel rather sorry for Tim Leunig, he made what seemed a perfectly reasonable attempt to analyse regeneration and job demands and was used a a political punching bag for his troubles.
[PS Did I imagine it or did a new post about attendances in the house, by Lady Murphy, appear just long enough for me to read it before dissappearing. :-/]
First of all, it MUST look better in print, if only because that’s one of the more dreadful online presentations I’ve seen, especially for something purportedly serious. Still, glaring purple background aside, I managed to read the articles.
I of course am biased, as I happen to hold degrees in political science (no doctorate or ivory tower for me, though), but I tend to side with you, Lord Norton. Partly this is just my own anecdotal experience – that, as you say, academics are very much in the real world for most things. In America, with tenure still prevalent, perhaps the fear of joblessness doesn’t weigh as heavily on them as in other fields, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the same problems everyone else does. But their regular lives are not entirely the point; the fact that they are attempting to make sense of the world helps ground them, I think.
Of course, some who study more esoteric subjects may not be well versed on some of the more mundane things that catch our eyes, but that does not mean they’re out of touch with reality.
Your opposite simply gives anecdotes of people who seemed a bit “in the clouds” or whose research drew conclusions that weren’t based on common experience. This shouldn’t, however, condemn the entire field – or indeed even them, as everyone has at times jumped to strange conclusions or done incomplete work or whatever.
I’m losing my thread here, but generally I agree with your point of view and find your peice better written, using generalizations instead of anecdotes to make your case. But… I suppose maybe I just have another bias: for deductive reasoning over inductive.
Hmmm! Do political academics live in the real world?
This does appear like some introspection on your part?
The problem here is to put some definition on the phrase ‘the real world’ which in itself is far too subjective. I often get “you don’t know what its like out there” and then they go on to give a list of what I’m not party to. I’m often accused of seeing the world through rose tinted glasses. I do, I cannot help it!
What definitely helps with perception of the real world is to live the lives of others if you can or at least have some real contact with them. It also depends on where on the scale of things that this experience takes place.
How would you like to anonymously experience a minimum wage job, live in rented accommodation and take a one-hour bus ride there and back to work every day for a month? How would you like to experience the life of an executive, chauffeur driven to work, attend high level meetings with important people every day for a month? Maybe you have done both?
More to the point how do we fill the Commons with people who have experienced a wider variety of real worlds as possible? The PPC process is supposed to take care of this but all it really achieves is a rag to riches scenario where the hardships on the lower scales of reality are soon forgotten.
One of the most appalling aspects of the Commons is that if you enter without a university qualification you are very likely to be stuck on the backbenches for the duration and without a career path. Party executives on the other hand are made up of individuals who have good university academic qualifications often coming from the countries top five universities.
So immediately your question becomes: do these political executives live in the real world? My view is they don’t. As for yourself, can you take a sabbatical and live the reality of others in the fashion of the prince and the pauper? Some MPs to their credit have done so. I believe Michael Portillo was one of them and I admire him for it.
What a horrid question.
The first point to be addressed is the near unaswerable experience of how being an academic is different from being a practioner of one’s art.
Lord Norton, you are in a tiny group who can bear witness. Since the sample of your kind is so small, this would indicate (but not prove) that your answers have no especial credence.
However, since we all live in the real world the question has no special validity, either way.
I agree with Senex that there is a problem with defining the ‘real world’. I was given the question and, recognising that it could be interpreted in different ways, decided to try to cover it from two perspectives.
Senex: I can claim some varied experience, including living in rented accommodation (when I first moved to Hull) and I travel occasionally by bus and regularly by tube; equally, I know what it is like to travel first class and to eat in leading restaurants; I also have rather extensive experience of eating in Little Chefs! Given my background, I tend toward the frugal. Ladytizzy: the sample is not that small. Croft and AnInnocent Abroad: Thanks for your comments. Croft: We certainly have the occasional eccentric. I have even been accused of being a little eccentric (or at least being a little odd). Howridiculous: I trust that you have now had an opportunity to read the article!