Scenes from a Theory Search « Political Science Rumors

8 years - 38 posts - Latest - RSS
OP: 40 Goods vs 12 No Goods
Thread: 273 Goods vs 165 No Goods

Political Science Rumors » Job Market » Political Theory Job Market

Scenes from a Theory Search

12 Next »

Christmas

Presenter: [Snipping 75 minutes of reading without eye contact.] "...so as you can see, I have reconceptualized and reconsidered and -icized and -atized until this problem I talk about is clearly both like and unlike what Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Plato, and Arendt implied by choosing one word instead of a universe of other words in these few sentences no one else has really talked much about."

Theory Search Committee Member: "Well, certainly, but since we have clear answers about this philosophical problem deriving from Augustine's flirtation with manichaeism [snipping 15 minutes of bibliographic citations] ... what could we turn to in order to understand why what you have presented improves our understanding of the problem at hand?"

Audience Member In the Back: "Data."*

*This totally happened.

8 years ago # QUOTE 40 YEA 12 NAY !
udhr1948
Rep: 85

You could have heard a pin drop.

8 years ago # QUOTE 29 YEA 6 NAY !
Haze

A dingo ate my baby.

8 years ago # QUOTE 6 YEA 6 NAY !
Denethor

Sounds about right.

8 years ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 2 NAY !
Annalisa

Sounds like your department did a crap job of picking candidates. I'm sorry you have to work at such a place, but there's probably a reason.

8 years ago # QUOTE 13 YEA 15 NAY !
Sherill

We've heard you before on different threads, Annalisa. Question: what signal do you in fact think your cold, dead telephone is trying to send you?

8 years ago # QUOTE 12 YEA 4 NAY !
Austyn

The CP/IR talks, by contrast, are thrilling........

8 years ago # QUOTE 9 YEA 3 NAY !
Janina

As a theorist on the market (with on top publication), this thread really bugs me. I, and I know others who have done the same, have put in the time and effort to make my work accessible and hopefully somewhat interesting to non-theorists, yet I cannot get an interview to demonstrate this.
And it seems to me--only from anecdotal evidence, admittedly--that a lot of myopic theorists like the one described here are getting interviews, and then having non-theorists find them ridiculous.
Not expecting a pity party, I'm just saying...

8 years ago # QUOTE 24 YEA 5 NAY !
Alden

As a theorist on the market (with on top publication), this thread really bugs me. I, and I know others who have done the same, have put in the time and effort to make my work accessible and hopefully somewhat interesting to non-theorists, yet I cannot get an interview to demonstrate this.
And it seems to me--only from anecdotal evidence, admittedly--that a lot of myopic theorists like the one described here are getting interviews, and then having non-theorists find them ridiculous.
Not expecting a pity party, I'm just saying...

If it's any consolation, I felt exactly the same way as you did when I read this.

On the other hand, the OP may just be trolling us anyway.

8 years ago # QUOTE 7 YEA 3 NAY !
Wilford

In hat case, maybe you should change your strategy.

As a theorist on the market (with on top publication), this thread really bugs me. I, and I know others who have done the same, have put in the time and effort to make my work accessible and hopefully somewhat interesting to non-theorists, yet I cannot get an interview to demonstrate this.
And it seems to me--only from anecdotal evidence, admittedly--that a lot of myopic theorists like the one described here are getting interviews, and then having non-theorists find them ridiculous.
Not expecting a pity party, I'm just saying...

8 years ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 6 NAY !
Flick

Ditto. Problem is that a lot of established theorists like the inside baseball, because it's what they made their names on.

As a theorist on the market (with on top publication), this thread really bugs me. I, and I know others who have done the same, have put in the time and effort to make my work accessible and hopefully somewhat interesting to non-theorists, yet I cannot get an interview to demonstrate this.
And it seems to me--only from anecdotal evidence, admittedly--that a lot of myopic theorists like the one described here are getting interviews, and then having non-theorists find them ridiculous.
Not expecting a pity party, I'm just saying...

8 years ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 3 NAY !
Sal

On the other hand, the OP may just be trolling us anyway.

Ya think?

8 years ago # QUOTE 6 YEA 3 NAY !
Janina

OP may be trolling, but this kind of thing does happen. And not that rarely.
@Flick: you make a good point about inside baseball,and it's a big reason why Theory is weak and weakening in terms of its position within polisci depts.

8 years ago # QUOTE 6 YEA 2 NAY !
Annalisa

That's bulls**t, like the other subfields aren't chock full of inside baseball? Go look at some articles at journal of political philosophy. It's full of straightforward pieces on important topics: arms transfers, constitution making, animal rights, deliberation in legislatures, etc.

Go look at Political Theory and you might find something different (x's reading of y's take on flashlights), that's why its important to do a good job picking candidates.

8 years ago # QUOTE 8 YEA 4 NAY !
Idony

^ "Inside baseball" can refer not just to subject matter, but also to manner of treatment.

And yes, other fields have inside baseball also. But they're also playing on the same turf to a greater extent, so theorists have more ground to make up.

8 years ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 2 NAY !
Janina

Annalisa: Not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with, but that was basically my (and I think Flick's) point.
There are plenty of theory candidates working on important topics, either directly or by explaining the relevance of older works to today's important topics, that would come off as more palatable to non-theorists in a job talk.

8 years ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 3 NAY !
Willie

This seems to miss the point that theory is not monolithic. Some of the best work, in my opinion, is being done in analytic theory. Little bulls**t, no tolerance for jargony crap, and work on interesting applied issues (ethics and warfare, human rights, resource depletion, etc.).

8 years ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 6 NAY !
Angelle

Sure theory isn't monolithic. But many theorists are happy to be very different from the rest of the discipline. These same theorists will then be angry that they aren't more influential in the discipline.

8 years ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 2 NAY !
Scarlett

Who has made their name in theory, whether it is through inside baseball or not?

8 years ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 3 NAY !
Christmas

OP here. Call it trolling if you want, but it happened. I wish I was the person that had shouted "Data", but I wasn't.

I have no idea where this whole "Theory isn't monolithic" thing came from. Or why it's "inside baseball" for there to be a discussion of the primary sources on which the talk was based. This, like the innumerable theory talks we've had before, was a paper with some grandiose title about reconsidering some foundational aspect of how the world views itself that, once you listen to the endless monotone droning, was about how people should read a couple passages written a long time ago differently.

What I almost find worse about theory talks than the talks themselves, are the horrible questions it inspires from the audience. Modern political scientists like to imagine they have a complete command of philosophy because they suffered through one pointless "theory" class. They then subject the poor speaker -- who really has no business in poli sci, but could be a superstar in philosophy -- to the least coherent critique imaginable, barely phrased in the form of a question (ending with "How does your theory respond to that?"). And the rest of us, who are service-bound to attend, lose a little of our souls.

The entire point of my post was to hilight the absurdity of it all with a cute anecdote.

8 years ago # QUOTE 15 YEA 5 NAY !

12 Next »

Scenes from a Theory Search

Reply »