Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently introduced an amendment that proposed to exclude the political sciences from receiving research funds from the National Science Foundation. Though the Senate defeated the amendment by a vote of 36-62, Coburn’s proposal re-introduced a Washington-generated idea: that political science research poses no practical significance in modern politics.

If an amendment such as the one Coburn proposed were to come to pass, it could have a direct impact on University government professors and their research. Assistant Professor of Government Erica Chenoweth, who conducts a large amount of research, often with government funds, explained that Coburn’s assessment of political research is inaccurate.

“It’s pretty off the mark,” said Assistant Professor of Government Erica Chenoweth. “It’s more or less politics driven with the idea that political science research has implications that are critical of the government.”

According to Chenoweth, however, this dialogue appears in Washington about every four years.

“A Republican in Congress tries to take money away from political scientists because they think they are critical of Republicans—there is plenty of political science research that is critical of Democrats too,” Chenoweth said. “Good ideas and really good research are not the only things that affect the policy process, so the idea that it is entirely the political scientist’s fault for not affecting policy is ridiculous.”

Chenoweth explained that government funding is important for her own research. Her research is specifically focused in three areas: the effectiveness of violent insurgency compared with non-violent social movements, the effectiveness of counterterrorism efforts by states, and the forecasting of terrorist attacks. While the first is funded by an NGO, the latter two projects are funded by the federal government through the Department of Homeland Security. Chenoweth’s research briefs have been examined by top-level government appointees in the Defense and Homeland Security Departments.

Chenoweth noted that her research is a true science and has straightforward and important implications for real-world politics.

“I collect data on counterterrorist tactics by States in the Middle East… and look at how these tactics affect the trajectory of terrorist attacks,” Chenoweth said. “This is getting exactly at the issue of which counterterrorist policies are best in reducing terrorist attacks. It has direct policy relevance and tells us hot spots around the world where we can expect violence from non-state actors.”

Professor of Government James McGuire also opposed Coburn’s proposal. He took an active role in fighting the Coburn legislation, phoning both of his Senators to vote against the amendment. McGuire is currently planning on applying to the National Science Foundation for a grant to study why certain provinces of Latin American countries do better than others in enacting policies that help reduce infant mortality.

According to McGuire, in order to determine whether social science research matters, two questions must be considered.

“First, you have to ask whether the subject matter that you’re studying is relevant in broader policy concerns,” McGuire said. “Second, you have to ask whether the methods you are using are rigorous enough to produce answers that go beyond speculation. In order to be useful, social science research must be on topics relevant to public action, and rigorous enough to produce findings that have scientific credibility.”

Senator Coburn suggested, however, that news media sources like CNN, Fox, and NBC already answer these political science questions.

“Senator Coburn’s particular objection was to funding the National Elections Study, a systematic random sample survey that has been conducted every two years since 1974 and, in a slightly different form, all the way back to 1948,” McGuire said. “If systematic sample surveys are abandoned because Amy Goodman or Rush Limbaugh can tell us all we need to know about the public mood, then we are in a heap of trouble.”

Chenoweth agreed with McGuire’s assessment that popular news media is a less than credible source than political science research.

“Anyone with intelligence will be able to critique this sort of thing,” Chenoweth said. “Political scientists are trained to account for these counterarguments and holes in arguments and to demonstrate whether there is a pattern or not. Transparency of research designs and sophistication of methodologies is something political scientists can contribute.”

Professor of Government Douglas Foyle also sees political science research and opinions of the news media as “apples and oranges,” explaining that the people on the news are there to debate, understand, and advocate policy issues.

“That purpose is important but different from what we do in political science,” Foyle said. “In our research, we don’t care about the issue of the day. We do our research over years.”

Foyle also disagreed with Coburn’s idea; however, his response differed from those of McGuire and Chenowet. In the end, he characterizes himself and his colleagues as political scientists, rather than a policy advocates.

“[Coburn’s proposal] fundamentally mischaracterized the contribution and purpose of research,” said Foyle. “The purpose of most research is not to affect policy. The purpose is to understand political life.