The semi-annual policy/academic divide debate is back thanks to discussions about PhDs for the policy world (Drezner v. Foust) and Galluci’s piece on the debate, with Drezner’s response.  I would guess that this event is tied to a lunar calendar as it seems to occur often but not always just after Thanksgiving.

Anyhow, I posted my views on this at Canadian International Council–the folks seeking to be the Great White North version of Foreign Policy.com.  My argument parallels Dan’s response: that academics are increasingly engaging the policy world especially through web 2.o (so the tweets about which academic books have mattered ironically miss the point), that the usual criticism that IR focuses on grand debates misses the reality that much work today is focused on problems and “middle range theory,” and that grants often require greater engagement with the policy world and the public.  I raise a big question that I will try to answer next week (it is a weekly column, more or less)–whether the problem is on our side of the divide?  Perhaps no one wants to listen to us IR scholars?

And if this is all too serious for you, I posted on my own blog why I think a Red Dawn with Canadian invaders would be more credible than North Koreans and what strategic and tactics the invaders might use.