Putnam takes issue with the idea of allowing the science in political science to supersede the importance of addressing issues relevant to the public. The second ailment is the consistent insanity of talking to oneself and/or the creation and development of research that is generated for political scientists, written in political science “speak”, and is only disseminated in political science journals and publications. For Putnam a critical obligation for political scientists is contributing to society via our scholarly and vocational talents. The discipline of political science cannot make meaningful contributions to society if scholars do not share research that can be consumed and appreciated by the public. Putnam argues, “If we are to engage in civic deliberation with our fellow citizens, we need to learn to speak ordinary English” (p. …show more content…
The article does a good job of appealing to political scientists on both ends of the research spectrum, without overly scrutinizing proponents of either approach. However, it may have been helpful if Putnam offered a more descriptive discussion of how the APSA can improve, or at the very least re-order its list of professional political science objectives to meet the obligations discussed in the article. Also it may be helpful to include a short list of axioms along with the 10 professional political science objectives. Based on the article such a list would include, but should not be limited to the