Rejoinder:ConcludingRemarksonScholarly
Communications
JonathanN.Katz
1
,GaryKing
2
andElizabethRosenblatt
3
1
Kay Sugahara Professor of Social Sciences and Statistics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
Email:
jkatz@caltech.edu
,URL:
jkatz.caltech.edu
2
Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
02138, USA. Email:
King@Harvard.edu
,URL:
garyking.org
3
Affiliate, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Email:
ERosenblatt@alumni.harvard.edu
Abstract
We are grateful to DeFord et al. for the continued attention to our work and the crucial issues of fair
representationindemocraticelectoralsystems.Ourresponse(Katz,King,andRosenblattForthcoming)was
designed to help readers avoid being misled by mistaken claims in DeFord et al. (Forthcoming-a), and does
notaddressotherliteratureorusesofourpriorwork.Asithappens,noneofourcorrectionswereaddressed
(or contradicted) in the most recent submission (DeFord et al. Forthcoming-b).
We are grateful to DeFord et al. for the continued attention to our work and the crucial issues
of fair representation in democratic electoral systems. Our response (Katz, King, and Rosenblatt
Forthcoming
)wasdesignedtohelpreadersavoidbeingmisledbymistakenclaimsinDeFordetal.
(
Forthcoming-a
), and does not address other literature or uses of our prior work. As it happens,
none of our corrections were addressed (or contradicted) in the most recent submission (DeFord
et al.
Forthcoming-b
).
We also offer a recommendation regarding DeFord et al.’s (
Forthcoming-b
) concern with how
expert witnesses, consultants, and commentators should present academic scholarship to aca-
demic novices, such as judges, public officials, the media, and the general public. In these public
serviceroles,scholarsattempttotranslateacademicunderstandingofsophisticatedscholarlylit-
eratures,technicalmethodologies,andcomplextheoriesforthosewithoutsufficientbackground
in social science or statistics.
Consider two approaches to this difficult communications task; the first is easier and perhaps
more common, but the second is far preferable. In the first, researchers
dumb down
their work.
Simplisticmethodswith“brightline”rulesandnoambiguityarepreferred,soanyonecanfollow.
Unfortunately, the resulting explanation assumes away so much of importance that it would be
quicklyrejectedinascholarlyjournalarticle,andforgoodreason.Afterdumbingdownyourwork,
you are in fact likely to be left with something dumb—which anyone would recognize if they truly
understood the simplifications. And if they do not object, and think they understand when in fact
they do not, then all you are doing is fooling your audience.
Thus,wepreferanalternativemethodofcommunicatingtobroaderaudiences:
teaching
.That
is,insteadofdumbingdownourwork,weelevateouraudience.Wetrytoexplainthepredominant
scholarly viewpoint so our audience can truly understand. Teaching is what most academics do
all year long with students and colleagues, and they are surprisingly good at explaining difficult
concepts in ways others can learn. Teaching well is not easy, and takes considerable practice, but
itisourjobinuniversitiesandoursocialresponsibilityincommunicatingoutsideoftheacademy.
We have each tried to elevate novice audiences ourselves in many public contexts and have been
proud to see so many other scholars rise to the same challenge in so many different fora.
PoliticalAnalysis(2023)
vol. 31: 335–336
DOI:
10.1017/pan.2021.48
Published
2 December 2021
Correspondingauthor
Jonathan N. Katz
Edited by
Lonna Atkeson
© The Author(s) 2021. Published
by Cambridge University Press
on behalf of the Society for
Political Methodology.
335
https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2021.48
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Academics are privileged to work in beautiful little oases scattered across the world known
as college and university campuses, funded by public dollars, liberated to focus on teaching,
learning,discovery,andthecreationofsocialgood;teachingourstudents,ourcolleagues,public
policymakers, and the general public is one way we give back. We should get it right; we should
make sure there is no disconnect between our scholarly conclusions and what the public learns
from our work.
References
DeFord, D., N. Dhamankar, M. Duchin, V. Gupta, M. McPike, G. Schoenbach, and K. W. Sim. Forthcoming-a.
“Implementing Partisan Symmetry: Problems and Paradoxes.”
Political Analysis
.
DeFord, D., N. Dhamankar, M. Duchin, V. Gupta, M. McPike, G. Schoenbach, and K. W. Sim. Forthcoming-b.
“Implementing Partisan Symmetry: A Response to a Response.”
Political Analysis
.
Katz, J., G. King, and E. Rosenblatt. Forthcoming. “The Essential Role of Statistical Inference in Evaluating
Electoral Systems: A Response to DeFord et al.”
Political Analysis
.
Jonathan N. Katz et al.
Political Analysis
336
https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2021.48
Published online by Cambridge University Press