Over the past few years, political scientists and political journalists have been sniping at each other. The journalists charge that the political scientists are out of touch. They spend too much time crunching numbers and not enough time actually talking to real people. Their research is inaccessible behind pay-walls, jargon-filled, and too narrow. (Some history here).

The political scientists mock the journalists for attributing too much weight to irrelevant variables and ignoring mountains of evidence. For example, Obama's approval ratings are entirely tied to the health of the economy, even though he has very little control over it. Anytime that a political journalist writes a column that pins Obama's approval ratings on health care or Sarah Palin or his vacation in Nantucket, the political scientists get annoyed. 

On Thursday at the APSA conference, several political bloggers, including Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein, spoke on a panel entitled, "What can Political Science offer Journalists?" John Sides moderated.  I didn't show up until Friday, so I missed the panel. Luckily, Rob Farley wrote a summary and the debate continued on the blogs over the weekend.

Part of the reason that I went to APSA was to look for fodder for mainstream articles. I was looking for research that would be of interest to a general public. I did see some panels with excellent political science research. They had clear hypothesis, interesting methodology, and fit in well with the existing literature. However, I didn't come away with any topics for articles. Those papers were too narrow or too theoretical to appeal to a broader audience.

Perhaps I just missed the panels with a broader appeal. I did hear about a paper on campaign donations that has some potential. Robert Putnam's new book on religion sounds cool. I'll have to snoop through the paper archives to make sure.

Does it matter if political science research can't be translated? Maybe. In an era, where state legislatures are slashing funds to public colleges, when adjuncts and online education dominate, and when departments are being cut entirely, research with real-world applications would seem to be a good idea.

I liked Mark Ambinder's comment that political science does a lousy job of explaining Sarah Palin. He also thinks it would be valuable if political scientists interacted more with their subjects, rather than hiding behind data sets.

Related: The Relevance of Political Science