tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post3082275787383774352..comments2024-03-18T07:36:28.100-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: No, We're Not MyopicThomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-54773122784511643682010-01-12T16:23:38.073-05:002010-01-12T16:23:38.073-05:00I, too, am a methodological pluralist. And I think...I, too, am a methodological pluralist. And I think nearly everyone is! But I don't think this was so much about what methods should be used to answer research questions as what research questions should be asked. Here, too, I am a pluralist and I think that Cohen is too, which is why this particular piece aggravated me so much. From his previous work and everything I know about the man I think his true belief is that IPE is about all sorts of issues, big and small. But he doesn't come across that way in this particular essay. <br /><br />I also think our efforts should be primarily directed at spreading the IPE word. Which, as you say, is what this blog is about. I don't write these kinds of posts every day of course. <br /><br />But I also think some self-examination is important every once in awhile, so I'm willing to have these kinds of conversations in certain contests. I think there's value in questioning and defending broader paradigms.<br /><br />I completely agree that more IPE bigwigs should blog, especially since they all talk about the need for broader public engagement and blogging is one of the easiest ways to do that.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-67146065226795649062010-01-12T13:59:02.843-05:002010-01-12T13:59:02.843-05:00...and I can run and interpret structural equation......and I can run and interpret structural equation models, too! <br /><br />But seriously, Cohen has been banging on this too long already: <br /><br />(1) In all of this debate, there is little discussion of using the appropriate method for the research question at hand. See, for instance, the first RIPE issue of 2009. Like they teach you in basic research method classes, you should clearly identify your research question before figuring out how to answer it. <br /> <br />(2) It's fun to have this so-called transatlantic debate but the larger point is that no one outside of the field seems to be listening. At least in economics, Krugman can annoy Chicago School folks and amuse a decent-sized audience among non-economists.<br /><br />While I too like poking fun at "rat-choice envy", it would please me much more if IPE of whatever provenance gained wider attention in academic and general circles. <br /><br />While my own blog ranks pretty high in terms of IPE search results, I can assure you that my audience is quite limited in comparison to what top economics blogs draw. Admittedly, mine is not even a "pure" IPE blog. Still, it has always made me wonder why IPE bigwigs don't have blogs of their own to help the field attract wider recognition online. Surely they can draw a larger audience via name recognition, but so few try it out and many just stick to publishing in IPE journals. <br /><br />I got my start online commenting on the Roubini and Setser blogs (Setser has an IR PhD). They, of course, long predicted that a crisis was imminent. In this sense, IPE does need to engage more with the blogosphere which is emerging as a more immediate alternative to traditional publications. <br /><br />Let's face it: having quarrels in RIPE may be fun, but at the end of the day, RIPE has an impact factor of less than 1. Seen in this light, I am far less concerned about methodological quarrels than having more people know about IPE. Like in most academics, it's a question of marketing, and I'm afraid IPE hasn't made much of an effort in this respect on either side of the Atlantic. <br /><br />IPE@UNC should be commended for fighting the good blogging fight, though :-) There are bigger fish for us to fry IMHO as methodological plurality is a minor consideration for the field's continued health compared to reaching a wider audience.Emmanuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615366847433704476noreply@blogger.com