The Minerva Consortium

[marct]

Hi Randy,

My apologies! My example of "community planning" was a ham-handed attempt to juxtapose an example of a concrete/applied something with a presumedly more abstract something-else. On the civilian side, my graduate work was an interdisciplinary mix between Community and Regional Planning (CRP) and Architecture--the applications of cultural landscape (political, geographic, historical, economic) to nuts-and-bolts problems like designing a structure, organizing citizens, or writing a municipal code. I hope that helps explain where I was coming from--and where I was trying to go.

Totally, and no worries . I'm afraid that I tend to react badly when I see "applied only" requirements . One of the reasons why the gov't support model worked so well in the physical sciences was because it supported basic, theoretical research which, in turn, opened up a whole slew of new applied area. I really think that this should be a similar initiative, although it is much harder to quantify.

[quote=Randy Brown;45347]I realize this isn't want you meant by "bonusing," but your comment caused me to wonder about the possibilities inherent in a Nobel Prize or X-Prize incentive. Would an annual Minerva Prize have any merit? (A virgin-warrior statue of some sort would seem to be the most likely physical presentation ...)

Hmmm, might not be a bad idea, but I imagine that there would be a lot of resistance inside the academy for it. Maybe the way to go would be something along the lines of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies crossed with the Esalin Institute.

Also, I'm loathe to suggest a Minerva Journal, but wouldn't it also follow that the consortium would create/encourage opportunities for peer-reviewed publication?

Peer review publication is a real problem in the social sciences, and it's one of the reasons why the disciplines are fragmenting. One of the fairly standard tactics is for a cluster of people to start their own journal, cite each other and build up their cv's that way - basically creating a splinter discipline and using that to get tenure track positions. This has some implications for setting up a peer review process....

For example, who is doing the peer reviewing? What is a "peer"? Given the fragmented nature of most of the social science disciplines, how do you handle the radically divergent theoretical assumptions that would show up in articles? (That, BTW, is another reason to support basic theory research...).

warning: I'm about to get on a hobby-horse here

This is assuming, of course, that academics know how to do policy-relevant research. My sense is that most--including most political scientists--don't, for a variety of reasons, ranging from writing style to the lack of an instinctual understanding (or practical experience) of how policy processes happen, and how they can be affected.

Really good point, Rex. I've done some, looking at immigration and integration issues in Canada, and I can certainly agree with you that it is tricky. I suspect part of it comes from a very simple misunderstanding of what should be in the deliverables and what end states are desired.