A Question of Balance: The Cult of Research Intensivity and the Professing of Political Science in Canada: Presidential address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Toronto, Ontario, June 2, 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In 1998, Tom Pocklington's presidential address examined what he believed was a progressive displacement of teaching by research in Canadian political science departments. The purpose of this address is to examine Pocklington's contentions eight years on, after dramatic increases in research funds flowing to Canadian universities. As research funds become more important to the financial health of Canadian universities, we have seen the growth in Canada of what I argue is a “cult of research intensivity.” I argue that the cult has serious implications both for the research that political scientists will do, and for our teaching of undergraduate students. However, I conclude that we need to put the reverential enthusiasm for research intensivity in broader perspective, given the perennial concerns that are expressed over the imbalance between teaching and research. Résumé. En 1998, dans son message annuel, le président Tom Pocklington s'était penché sur ce qui lui apparaissait comme la substitution progressive de la recherche à l'enseignement dans les départements de science politique au Canada. Notre objectif ici est d'analyser les propos de Tom Pocklington quelque huit ans plus tard, à la suite des hausses impressionnantes des fonds de recherche versés aux universités canadiennes. À mesure que les subventions de recherche prennent de plus en plus d'importance pour la santé financière des universités canadiennes, nous voyons dans ce pays l'expansion de ce que j'appellerais le “ culte de la prédominance de la recherche ”. Je soutiens que ce culte a de sérieuses implications tant pour les recherches que mèneront les politologues que pour l'enseignement que nous dispenserons aux étudiants de premier cycle. Je conclus que nous devons replacer dans un contexte plus vaste cet enthousiasme à tous crins à l'égard de la recherche, étant donné les préoccupations qu'a toujours soulevées le déséquilibre entre l'enseignement et la recherche.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".