{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021602787456445994, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.084745762711864, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Teaching Political Scientists: the Centrafity of Research

Three decades ago in his analysis of the academic profession, Logan Wilson found that the faculty in lesser institutions as well as the junior faculty in the major universities held teaching to have primacy over research. At the same time, however, “everywhere there (was) an attitude among the academic elite that dismisses meticulous attention to instruction as a deflection from the ‘higher’ purposes of scholarship and science.” Research, not teaching, was found necessary for professional prestige and institutional recognition. Theodore Caplow and Reece J. McGee identified the conflict between teaching and research as “the leading problem for the individual faculty member.” A faculty member is hired to teach but expected to do research and publish — at the expense of the former; and in fact, “academic success is likely to come to the man who has learned to neglect his assigned duties in order to have more time and energy to pursue his private professional interests.” Other authors argue from a different perspective. Frank Pinner did not see teaching and research as alternatives but as “part of the same process of education, complementary activities in the academic community.” Pinner went on to explain it was not possible to allocate time to each function due to differing teaching and research demands in different fields and due to individual work habits.