I've been reading with some interest the responses of IR academics on Joseph Nye's editorial. I can't really weigh in, because much of the commentary has been too IR related. Out of my field.
Stephen Walt's response was broader and definitely worth reading. Walt writes,
Here I'll just note two points. First, the prevailing "cult of
irrelevance" in much of academia is both regrettable and irresponsible.
Our society permits many academics to live pretty comfortable lives,
particularly once they have tenure. And let's not forget that tenure
isn't granted to allow a life-time of self-indulgent scholarship, but
to allow scholars to take risks in their research and to confront
controversial subjects without fear of coercion. In exchange for job
security, a decent living and a high level of intellectual autonomy,
our fellow citizens have a right to expect us to take our teaching
responsibilities seriously and to use our knowledge to address serious
issues. For political scientists, that ought to mean using our
knowledge to address important matters of concern in the real world,
and to contribute to the broader public discourse on these topics. That
doesn't mean we should spend our days writing op-eds (or blogs!), but
neither does it mean that we should studiously avoid any engagement
with controversial real-world topics.
Yet a surprising number
of my fellow scholars seem to hold the opposite view. Either they try
to cut deals to keep their teaching to a minimum or they devote vast
amounts of time to researching topics that are of interest only to a
handful of their fellow scholars. Even worse, anyone who does engage
the real world gets derided for doing "policy analysis" and younger
scholars who show an interest in this sort of activity are less likely
to be taken seriously and less like to rise within the profession. What
sort of incentive structure is that?
Just what I've been blogging about here and here.
Apt. 11d 
Jacob Levy’s comments on this discussion are worth reading.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if anything will come of Nye or Walt’s push, but it does make me feel better about not finishing my dissertation:
Public Opinion in American Foreign Policy from May 5, 1955 to June 4, 1955: A Quantitive Review of Phenomenological Heuristics among members of the attentive public in Davenport, Iowa.
LikeLike
… among both members of the attentive public in Davenport, Iowa
There now, that’s fixed.
LikeLike
Doug, don’t want to call attention to that. People might wonder how I used a model with 15 IVs and N = 2.
LikeLike