Substantive Dimensions of the Deliberations

Forum rules

We encourage contributors to the Discussion Board to publicly identify by registering and logging in prior to posting. However, if you prefer, you may post anonymously (i.e. without having your post be attributed to you) by posting without logging in. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

Instructions
To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.

The transition to Stage 2 of the deliberations is currently underway but will take some time to complete. In the meantime, we very much welcome additional contributions to the existing threads in this forum.

For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.

Kathryn Lavelle
Case Western Reserve University
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 9:11 pm

Congressional Fellowship Program

PostWed May 18, 2016 11:49 am

The complexity of the APSA Congressional Fellowship Program is another dimension to the discussion that merits consideration. Fellows are prohibited from gathering data while they are working on the Hill. Yet speaking as a former fellow, my understanding of the institution, whom to interview, how to interpret the results of the interview, and what additional information is necessary to gather, have all been shaped by this direct experience. There are many aspects of work that fellows do that must remain confidential. Just as archives place restrictions on material researchers can access or not access, many names and experiences already have to remain off the record. My sense is that overly restrictive data transparency requirements would further limit the kinds of publications that fellows can produce, which would be a disservice to the profession.

Post Reply


Return to “Substantive Dimensions of the Deliberations”