Thread about activism and academic research (economics & political science in particular)

There's a manipulation/intervention theory of causality, that causality is about what we could feasibly change through some hypothetical actions (1/n)

It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that thinking organisms might have their thoughts organized by the world this way. Learning "causes and effects" is useful for survival, e.g. eating this plant causes sickness, and for flourishing

Since economies and political systems are so powerful and influential over human life, learning their causes could potentially be very useful!

But.

There's a very important question here...

Who is in a position to use that information about causes?

Maybe most academic research never makes an impact beyond an esoteric publication that helps the authors' careers

Some of it will be adapted by people with the specialized knowledge, access, and power to take action based on it

Widespread adoption and use is rare and very hard

Consider e.g. how difficult it was to get Americans to start wearing masks to stop the spread of COVID--even after ~120k deaths many still don't.

Often, enormous long term efforts can be undermined easily by adversaries spreading bad information to the public, e.g. anti-vaxxers

This is true among "experts," not just the public, especially if there is a force/source pushing the issue. Adversarial experts/funders can influence literature more or less directly

This is especially important in political/economic contexts, for reasons that should be obvious

For these and related reasons, I think scholars who work on causal inference in economics and political science have professional, ethical responsibilities regarding the consequences of their research

Who will use it, and for what? Is it dangerous? Will it be weaponized?

Answering those ethical questions requires special attention to power and the flow of information outside of academia--to think tanks/lobbies, popular media, non-academic professionals, etc.

This brings me to the example that motivated the thread: criticism from @NathanJRobinson and the response by @owasow, both referenced here https://twitter.com/owasow/status/1273642987185147904

I won't agree with Robinson's "bad research" characterization, I think this might have been a rushed judgment in the context of an article with a different focus. And I disagree with most of Wasow's response, especially the part about denying agency

A focus on agency is exactly the part of Robinson's criticism that I agree with most, and the point of this thread

Agency is "weighted" (let's say) by power, which Wasow also acknowledges, so there seems to be a lot of common ground for agreement https://twitter.com/owasow/status/1273642989685018629

If we interpret everyone in this exchange generously I think we can find that agreement

I think Wasow wants his research to inform political and activist leaders who can emphasize non-violence as norms in their movements

(I don't think Wasow expects people who might be on the verge of rioting to first conduct a literature review)

But there's an ever-present risk in poli sci and econ research even among the most well-intentioned scholars: the work could be cited/used in ways it wasn't intended

This constantly happens because the powerful have so much resources, and I think it puts economists and political scientists on edge (in my experience they are often more defensive than other social scientists, despite e.g. not receiving anywhere near as much STEM-ridicule)

Generously to Wasow:

I don't think he intended his research to be cited by liberals concern trolling protesters. He focused on the agency of activist movements to find the causes they could use to change the world effectively, not to excuse elites of their responsibility

Generously to Robinson:

His point is not about Wasow's research specifically, but a higher level one I've also tried to make in this thread--who are more likely to find uses for research in an academic journal, activists or paid political professionals?

Intentions aside, Wasow's work was being cited in the context of a discourse exactly like what he called the elite driven "social control" framing, but now with Democratic elites also concerned about their elections

Robinson's critique was motivated by the facts of that citation

I don't know if Wasow could have anticipated and/or prevented such a framing of his own research. In one sense we can all always do better, in another sense it's a very difficult problem

The broader problem, how to do research that isn't just put to use maximizing paperclip production (capitalism), seems almost intractable. Even with wide adoption there'll still be the academic versions of Fox News, getting citations like Fox's ratings

The end (for now?) (19/n)

Reference about the idea in the first few tweets: Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation by the philosopher James Woodward https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195155270.001.0001/acprof-9780195155273