Along with the Council for Excellence in Government, my organization, CIRCLE, will release a new poll of young Americans on Thursday. So I’ve spent a lot of my time helping to analyze the poll results and figure out a strategy for persuading the press to pay attention (even during the run-up to the Iowa Caucuses).
happy birthday to this
This blog celebrated its first anniversary on Jan. 8, although I forgot to mark the day with an entry. (You can click here for the very first post.) Just a few days before I began to blog, I had moderated a conference panel on “communitarian approaches to cyberspace.” Amitai Etzioni had selected the speakers, who included two of the most prominent–and best–bloggers in America: Eugene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds. I knew about blogs, but I didn’t recognize these people. Before the panel, I had quickly looked them up on their respective universities’ websites, saw nothing about their blogs, and therefore failed to mention what makes them both most famous. The panel discussion naturally focused on blogs and strengthened my feeling that I’d like to get into the game myself. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one who reacted that way. The two other invited speakers were Jack Balkin and Amitai himself. Balkin started his fine blog on Jan. 10, 2003; Etizioni’s equally good one was launched a few months later in ’03.
(Incidentally, I don’t see blogs as having very much to do with community in cyberspace. I deeply appreciate the frequent visitors to this site who leave posts or send me email, and I look frequently to see what they’re up to online. In a couple of cases, they have volunteered invaluable assistance or advice. Nevertheless, I doubt that any of us would describe those occasional exchanges as a “community.”)
rural schools and civics
I met this morning with Rachel Tompkins, president of The Rural School and Community Trust. I was persuaded that civic education is exceptionally important in rural schools.
First of all, rural areas face serious economic and social problems because they are devalued–young people feel that they have to move to big cities to succeed. Developing a positive understanding of community (through research and activism) is part of civic education, and it could reduce the “brain drain.” Second, many rural educators believe that rural schools are deprived of their fair share of state education funding. If we assume (for the sake of argument) that this is correct, then rural students can do themselves good and learn about civics by advocating for more funding. Third, it is a general truth that schools work best when they are supported by adult citizens who participate in a rich civic life, with lots of meetings, networks, and organizations. In rural areas, schools provide an essential mechanism for building such networks, and students can play important roles. Many of these factors also apply in urban schools, but we tend to forget about the rural sector. As Rachel points out in this interview, 14 percent of students live in areas with populations of 2,500 of smaller, and 98 percent of the nation’s poorest counties are rural.
taking responsibility
In yesterday’s Washington Post, Barton Gellman shows pretty effectively that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after the early 1990s–but also that it was possible for American leaders to make an honest mistake about this. Saddam’s history of using poison gas and his continued trickery made him look pretty guilty. I think, indeed, that he was deliberately bluffing.
So wouldn’t it be refreshing and disarming (no pun intended) if the President said the following? “We have captured a wicked dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and waged war on his neighbors. We are now doing our level best to build a democratic state in the middle of an extremely important region. We told you that the reason for the war was fear of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Like President Clinton and many foreign leaders, we were genuinely convinced that Iraq had live chemical and biological weapons and an advanced nuclear program. We were wrong, and we take responsibility for our error. You may hold us accountable for this failure of analysis. But we made an understandable mistake which may lead to a tremendous amount of good.”
George W. Bush is not the kind of guy who ever says things like this, and he would be a better leader if he did. However, it’s also pretty obvious that the press, Democrats, and foreign leaders would jump all over him if he retracted his original reason for the war. We have a political culture that simply does not tolerate changes of mind, and that does not serve us well in times of deep uncertainty.
quantitative and qualitative methods
I’ve recently seen two almost identical charts explaining the difference between
qualitative and quantitative research. One was shown at a conference, the other
presented in a graduate level methods textbook. I didn’t save the charts, unfortunately,
but this is how I recall them. (Similar charts can be found on the Web, e.g.,
and or at the bottom of this
page.)
| quantitative | qualitative |
| detached | engaged |
| value-neutral | partial/committed |
| claims objectivity | admits subjectivity |
| seeks general findings | denies that general rules apply in cases |
| describes the mean | looks for exceptions, complications |
| pulls factors out of context | describes situations holistically |
| assumes certainty | presumes uncertainty |
| distinguishes causes from effects | does not presume to isolate causes |
I think this is a very misleading way to draw the distinction. Quantitative
research means mathematical analysis; qualitative research means descriptions
in words. The use of math requires quantification and a large enough sample
to generate statistically meaningful results. The use of descriptive language
requires enough detail about cases to generate insightful narratives or portraits.
Both approaches are useful. Neither method implies positivism (a strict distinction
between facts and values, or between facts and opinions), nor does either method
imply skepticism or postmodernism. One can use quantitative methods–such as
surveys and statistical analysis of the results–in a deeply engaged, critical,
"political" way, without any illusions that one is objective. Or one
can use qualitative methods–such as in-depth interviews–in a highly "positivistic"
spirit (thinking that one has no values or biases and no axes to grind). Charts
like the one above appeal to very general beliefs (or prejudices) about epistemology
and drive us to favor either quantitative or qualitative methods. Instead, I
think we should simply ask what can usefully be counted in particular cases,
and what cannot.